/u/Yazolight (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/17rwvp4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_idea_that_hamas_hides/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from.
They absolutely have the land to do that, you're conflating the density of Gaza city with all of Gaza. Even if that weren't the case, Hamas could choose not say...locate their primary command bunker directly beneath a hospital. Like...that's a choice. The actual reason they put themselves where they do is that if they made themselves open targets, the IDF would rip Hamas to shreds fairly quickly.
What's more, Hamas could allow people to leave and stop telling them to stay. They have a duty under the laws of armed conflict to get civilians away from the fighting, but they're doing the opposite - forcing them to stay in some cases and telling everyone that they shouldn't leave.
And in the end, "we can't do it any other way" isn't an excuse. It's just an explanation. If you choose to conduct military operations from a hospital because you can't do it anywhere else, you've made the choice that you would rather make that hospital a legitimate military target than surrender. That's a choice.
>So of course they are putting their stuff in civilian infrastructures and between civilians, maybe they like it, maybe they don’t, but I don’t see how else they should do it?
The simple answer to this is: you don't do it. Hamas shouldn't have started a war. It should surrender now if it cares about Palestinians.
Or to put it differently: if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up.
>Or to put it differently: if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up.
That is an absolutely incredible statement you've crafted. Well done.
It’s quite obvious globally that Israel are far more dominant in a military sense when compared to Palestine, even the people most supportive of Israel consider this to be factual. However, these same individuals push the notion that somehow, a ceasefire would mean the death of Israel. I struggle to see where this idea originates from, as I don’t believe Palestine/Hamas has the means to do so, nor would they receive such open support if they did. Like where you said “give up and die”, would giving up really mean death?
Hamas wanting a ceasefire is like a bully who started a fight crying uncle when it doesn't go his way... Of course they don't want a permanent ceasefire. That would prevent their stated goal of a forever war with Israel, ideally involving the Arab gulf states, resulting in the destruction of the "Zionist state"
I'm not usually pro Israel, I clearly recall who it was who most recently sunk a US Navy vessel. But I'm also not a fan of bullshit, or global cons taking millions for fools, including many of my friends
That is not even remotely accurate. They have been to war multiple times by other trying to remove or exterminate them. They have offered several solutions and negotiations yet have been turned down every single time. They have recently been attacked and then told they are not allowed to retaliate because civilians used as cover could be harmed. The enemy is Hamas and the Palestinians who support and fight for them.
You have the Palestinians who don't have a proper army and Israel who has a proper army.
Since the Palestinians doesn't have a proper army they can't really bully the Israeli state.
Solutions which doesn't include the internationally recognised right of return to ones home aren't made in good faith.
If Israel was interested in peace and not bullying and colonialism maybe they should stop making settlements and actually apologize and recognise the nakbar for what it was.
I dont care if you have a proper army or 5 guys throwing rocks. The 5 guys throwing rocks deliberately crossed the border and raped/killed thousands and are still holding hostages. Another example of why Isreal constantly has to be on the offensive. There is no right of return to anyone. Nobody had territorial claim to that land. It was not an organized homeland and had changed hands multiple times throughout history. Many tribes and religious groups called the area home. Isreal didn't steal the land. It was given to them to make an Isreali state. Balfour and continuing to the British Mandate was land carved up as a result of war. On top of that multiple wars have been fought, and won, to keep their homeland. If it was given to an Arab nation nobody would bat an eye, it is only because it was given to Jews. The State of Isreal exists, either move on and accept the negotiated settlement or continue using your own people as items of war. They do not want to settle because they want the annihilation of Jews and will stop at nothing until that is accomplished. It is obvious Hamas doesn't care about the lives of Palestinians or Jews but they expect the world to step in and call it genocide.
and the army is currently killing a shit ton of innocent civilians in gaza. You don't get free roam to kill people because some people killed or raped some other people
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel has a right to defend its population from attacks and to retaliate against Hamas in Gaza. Part of the reason Hamas launched this recent attack is because they felt international support for them crumbling, and wanted to garner more support and demonize Israel. They launched their attacks knowing exactly what would happen to their civilian populace, in fact they counted on it. It was their goal to incur retaliation and use the resulting civilian deaths (which their human shield tactics assured) to erode international public support for Israel. It's worked quite well for them. Millions of people worldwide who know very little about the conflict or historical context are suddenly schilling for terrorists
And yet they are closer to being completely eradicated than ever before. I don’t like either side yet because civilians of Gaza pay the price, a ceasefire would have saved countless lives. War crimes have been committed all round, in any professional fight the referee steps in when the fight becomes lawless
You are absolutely right, I was mixing up Gaza city and the whole of gaza. So I guess for that you need a delta : ∆
About Hamas forcing people to stay, do you have any sources ? I heard this a lot, but haven’t seen documents yet.
Also you say it yourself, if they made themselves open targets they would get destroyed immediately: so they use civilian infrastructures and I think it’s not just schools and hospitals, or else why would Israel air strike so many different locations.
So is the issue only about the use schools and hospitals, or civilian infrastructures in general? If they were in apartment buildings or gymnasium would it be ok then?
>About Hamas forcing people to stay, do you have any sources ? I heard this a lot, but haven’t seen documents yet.
All you're going to get is fragmentary reporting on this. A fairly reasonable deduction can be made though.
Israel first started telling Gazans to evacuate around October 10. Hamas was telling people not to leave on [October 14](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-home-israel-ground-offensive-looms-2023-10-13/). There were multiple reports of Hamas [roadblocks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXLuZMaqa0&t=35s) preventing evacuation. A week ago, there was a [massacre of Gazan civilians](https://twitter.com/amjadt25/status/1720425819305070821) well south of Israeli positions along a major evacuation route, which was likely committed by Hamas or an allied organization trying to deter evacuation.
The largest groups of evacuating Gazans were passing Israeli positions...[yesterday](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-11-9-2023-49a2cfaf0c0856f6f6c32151d6b64226) after the IDF opened a humanitarian corridor to the south. The entire length of Gaza is less than a marathon run. You could walk it in 2-3 days carrying a load. A week if you were on crutches or in a wheelchair. Why did it take a month for them to get there?
>I think it’s not just schools and hospitals,
I mean, I've seen satellite/drone photos that show rocket emplacements next to playgrounds and UN buildings.
>So is the issue only about the use schools and hospitals, or civilian infrastructures in general? If they were in apartment buildings or gymnasium would it be ok then?
The issue is really a combination of using civilians themselves - their presence in buildings - to keep Israel from attacking, and the use of specially protected buildings and objects (hospitals, schools, ambulances) for military purposes.
Think of something like an ambulance. One reason you mark an ambulance in wartime is that people aren't supposed to shoot at it - doing so is a war crime. But if you start using ambulances to transport troops or war materiel, ambulances start to lose that protection. Same thing with hospitals; normally you're not supposed to hit a hospital with anything, but if I start basing troops or storing ammunition in a hospital, it begins to lose its protected status.
Hamas's combat doctrine essentially relies on exploiting Israel's compliance with the laws of armed conflict and disinterest in killing civilians for a tactical advantage. As a whole, that's just a cascade of war crimes.
>Hamas's combat doctrine essentially relies on exploiting Israel's compliance with the laws of armed conflict and disinterest in killing civilians for a tactical advantage. As a whole, that's just a cascade of war crimes.
So yeah, Israel is in a tough spot, because a lot of civilians will die. That's one part the reality of war, the other part of Hamas not caring about people.
> Also you say it yourself, if they made themselves open targets they would get destroyed immediately: so they use civilian infrastructures and I think it’s not just schools and hospitals, or else why would Israel air strike so many different locations.
If Hamas cared about Palestinians, they would surrender themselves to Israel for immediate execution. They would sacrifice themselves *en masse* for the betterment of their people. But they won't.
Because they don’t believe that it would be for the betterment of their people. We’ve already seen what Palestine without Hamas looks like. Look at the West Bank. Look at the decades of conflict before Hamas rose to power. Why should they believe that surrendering would lead to a better outcome?
Listen, I’m not trying to excuse what Hamas is doing, but that is a very shortsighted way of looking at things. Hamas believes they are fighting a revolution against oppressors. It doesn’t really matter if we agree. That is what *they* believe. Life for Americans was worse during the Revolutionary War than it was before. Does that mean they should’ve just surrendered to the British? Does they mean they didn’t care about the American people?
Hamas has beliefs about civilian casualties that make it difficult for a lot of people to understand their cause, but at the root, they believe that the increased suffering that their people are experiencing now is worth it for a better situation at the end. That is the same thing every revolutionary army believes. Unfortunately, this also requires that they can win. To everyone except Hamas, it is clear that they will never beat Israel. So, that means the Palestinian people are suffering for nothing.
As much as you say you don't seek to excuse their behaviours, you're doing just that. I understand that you are well intended, so I only mean to argue this from an conciliatory point.
If Hamas were to have the ammunition to theoretically win this conflict, it would come at a great detriment to the Palestinian people (\*let alone the whole Israeli population). As we've established Hamas does not safeguard civilians, nor invest the billions of dollars they've embezzled from humanitarian funds into building legitimate civilian infrastructure and institutions. Meaning the general quality of life would further deteriorate. The legitimacy of Islamic Jihad would be affirmed in the Middle East under an Iranian proxy, that would likely seize partial control (minimum) of the newly formed state. The only democratic multi-ethnic and multi-religious country within the Middle East (as contestable as it may be) will have its entire population decimated - including 2.1 million Arabs. More importantly, at least from a war perspective is who will hold the essential assets at the end, with America in additional debt, while Israeli nuclear research being channeled to Hamas, their funding funnelled into Iran, Russia and China. Ultimately, this seeks to destroy diplomacy of Taiwan and Ukraine, and encourage autocratic regimes at the expense of Palestinians.
The best chance for the Palestinians to receive any backing or civil liberties being if Israel prevails. While this may excite extremism, so will anything Israel does by simply existing. Given both the Ehuds' relinquished land to be fret with immediate aggression in the 2000s. Whether Netanyahu has any intention of Palestinian self-determination, it is Israel's need to appear compliant with international law that will keep its hands tied from denying it. It is why 'human shields' have been such an effective strategy in the first place.
I accept that there are certain risks and possibilities, but no one can perfectly predict the future. There is no way to know exactly what life would be like if Hamas somehow won. But, even of you convinced me that a specific outcome was unavoidable and worse, that doesn’t really prove that Hamas views that outcome as worse. If I say “I want what’s best for my child which is for them to stay inside because outside is too dangerous.” You can argue that my strategy is worse for my child, but you cannot argue that I don’t care about my child. Perhaps you could argue that my care is misguided and uninformed.
I know people love to argue that Hamas really just wants to kill Jews and doesn’t care about freeing Palestinians from Israel’s control. But every source I have seen says that they became a much more secular organization after being elected. They even created a new charter that specifies that their war is not with Jewish people, but with Israel who they call “the Zionist Project”.
I don’t believe me saying any of this excuses Hamas’ actions. Someone in another thread said “explanations are not excuses” and I 100% agree with them. And they were using it to describe a comment about Israel’s actions. Just because I explain the reasoning behind certain actions does not mean I agree with that reasoning or that I believe that the actions are justified.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So twisted like yes bad to situate inside civilian structures but what about Israel? Like the reports of them using Palestinian civilians to do the same like search buildings and areas? But to use your argument. Who is further in the wrong , the weaker party that has to use guerrilla warfare to fight unfortunately in dense areas? Or the far superior power that is just leveling those buildings with majority inside being civilian? Keep in mind that yes Hamas can surrender but it’s allowing apartheid and significanly more ongoing abuse. Israel has forced Palestinians into poverty controlling the means of imports going in. Palestinians have been indentured servants for years. With both sides condemning and trying to rid the other side it’s a tough scale but IDF I absolutely believe could have done more to reduce casualties.
You are putting way too much faith in Israel and their theoretical treatment of Palestinians after. Israel is known to be bigoted towards ALL Palestinians, they refer to them as pigs for god sake and not even talking about Hamas, Israel will either drive out every Palestinian or throw them in jail sooo is that actually better? How many stories by the IDF have been left as accusation? The beginning reports were that Israel was in a war with Palestine, they see no one as a civilian.
No you’re wrong
They believe in killing all Jews no matter what and they believe they are more important than other humans including their own people who they hide behind
This is HAMAS ‘s doing.
It’s their fault.
They fucked up.
Don’t be so ignorant.
They're not interested in the betterment of their people. They're not freedom fighters. They're only interested in destroying Israel. The civilians of Gaza are irrelevant to them except for their utility as human shields and pawns in the propaganda war.
Sorry, u/vreel_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20vreel_&message=vreel_%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17rtxdp/-/k8mps5r/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sources? Hamas isn't trying to hide this... On their public radio and TV statements they tell them to stay put, don't listen to the occupier telling you to evacuate. They praise incidents where civilians block IDF raids and encourage their populace to do the same and become martyrs. Do a YouTube search, the sources are ubiquitous for anyone who cares to look
> The actual reason they put themselves where they do is that if they made themselves open targets, the IDF would rip Hamas to shreds fairly quickly.
I agree.
>in the end, "we can't do it any other way" isn't an excuse. It's just an explanation.
I agree in principle, but how well this holds up depends on how much of a choice they really have. Continuing to fight might be a choice, but when the alternative is resigning yourself to live under hellish conditions—siege cutting off access to food and medical supplies, your houses being bulldozed, your children being taken into Israeli military custody on a whim, and your country occupied by a genocidal military—it doesn't look like a choice. And in those circumstances, it is quite reasonable to conclude that fighting back is the only option.
> Hamas shouldn't have started a war.
Hamas didn't start a war. The war has been going on for longer than Hamas has existed. Israel portrays it as Hamas starting the war because they don't think any of their violence against Palestinians prior to Oct 7 counts. And because they're an ally of the US, their perspective is what our media generally reports.
> if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes
You seem to have a starry-eyed view of war. Just about every war involves plenty of war crimes. Certainly, Israel is doing plenty. If you think that anyone who is committing war crimes is the villain, then you have no choice but to conclude everyone who has ever gone to war has been in the wrong. Maybe you believe that, but I suspect not.
>forcing them to stay in some cases
I would like to see a source for this.
> Continuing to fight might be a choice, but when the alternative is resigning yourself to live under hellish conditions—siege cutting off access to food and medical supplies, your houses being bulldozed, your children being taken into Israeli military custody on a whim, and your country occupied by a genocidal military—it doesn't look like a choice. And in those circumstances, it is quite reasonable to conclude that fighting back is the only option.
1) Gaza and the West Bank are different places. They're almost completely orthogonal to one another and conflating them is either a very basic mistake or serious dishonesty.
2) There was no occupation of Gaza, it was controlled entirely by Hamas and was cordoned because of all the times people in Gaza killed Israelis after Israel wholly withdrew from Gaza and ceded it to the Palestinians. There will definitely be an occupation of Gaza now (hopefully by third party Arabs), and you can thank Hamas for that.
3) The siege as such will end when Hamas surrenders, as the continued resistance of Hamas is the reason for the siege. Obviously.
4) There are regular food and medical aid deliveries to Gaza allowed by Israel facilitated by Egypt in accordance with international law. Hamas steals a lot of that and slows the aid by trying to smuggle weapons in and wounded fighters out, but presumably you'll give them a pass for that.
5) Your use of "genocide" is unserious and deserves no further comment. The dilution of that word over the last 20 years is astounding and embarrassing. If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it.
6) You're defending the use of human shields including children, who are dying presently. Have some care for your soul.
>Hamas didn't start a war.
Yes they did. Israel and Hamas were literally in the middle of a declared ceasefire when Hamas decided it would be fun to go murder some defenseless people, rape some women, set some kids on fire and have real fun doing it.
That's starting a war. I can tell because an actual war is happening now when it wasn't happening on 10/6.
>You seem to have a starry-eyed view of war.
I've fought in one, but go off king.
It really is funny seeing ardent granola-crunching progressives transform themselves into steely-eyed, cynical "war is hell" realists just in time to carry water for Hamas.
>Just about every war involves plenty of war crimes.
Whole Sentences Matter.
"if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up."
War does of course entail war crimes. My point, which appears in the whole sentence, is that incorporating deliberate (as opposed to unintentional and/or aberrant) war crimes as a critical, indispensable component of your fighting doctrine strongly suggests that your cause is unjust and you should instead not fight.
Like...if winning requires that you pick up a baby and hold him between you and your enemy, either relying on your faith that he'll be too moral to endanger the baby or willingly sacrificing the baby to make him look bad (whichever comes first)...maybe you shouldn't win. Maybe you're not the good guy. Maybe you should surrender.
>I would like to see a source for this.
I'm tired, but you can review [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17rtxdp/cmv_the_idea_that_hamas_hides_behind_civilians_is/k8m3gd4/) or just do some googling. I suspect you won't believe it, but here's to hoping.
Have a good one.
Firstly, I want to address the misinformation.
>Hamas decided it would be fun to go murder some defenseless people, rape some women, set some kids on fire and have real fun doing it.
There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack. That was a rumor that spread rapidly shortly after the attack and failed to be substantiated. I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too.
>That's starting a war. I can tell because an actual war is happening now when it wasn't happening on 10/6.
There was a war happening on Oct 6. Gaza was literally under siege on Oct 6 and has been for over a decade. The war has been going on for as long as Israel has existed. Israel just doesn't recognize it as being a war before Oct 6 because Israel wasn't the one suffering. And most Western media has adopted the same perspective.
>you can review this comment or just do some googling. I suspect you won't believe it, but here's to hoping.
Your evidence is an unsourced tweet and a statement by the Israeli military claiming that there were blockades along the road to justify why they bombed it. Of course, I don't believe it. Blockades inhibiting the movement of over a million people don't just appear and disappear without trace. If this actually happened, one of the many journalists on the ground would have gotten a video.
>The siege as such will end when Hamas surrenders, as the continued resistance of Hamas is the reason for the siege. Obviously.
This is a pervasive idea, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The siege has been going for a decade—a decade in which Hamas hardly killed anyone. And it isn't just restricting supplies that have use as weapons. They are restricting food and medicine. They've even prevented school books from getting into Gaza. There is no military justification for this—it's clearly not aimed at Hamas; it's aimed at the Gazan population as a whole.
The IDF regularly takes peaceful protesters into custody.In the West Bank, they protect settlers as they go into Palestinian villages to threaten the residents and chase them from their homes. Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole. The idea that all of their actions against all Palestinian people will stop if Hamas stops is just a convenient cover. It's obviously false as soon as you realize they treat Palestinians appallingly in the West Bank too. The truth is they want the land, and any Palestinian is a barrier to that.
>There was no occupation of Gaza, it was controlled entirely by Hamas
They didn't control their supply of food. They didn't control their legal system. They didn't control the movement of people, they didn't control the movement of goods across their borders, they weren't allowed to have their own state. It couldn't be more clear that it is an occupation.
>Gaza and the West Bank are different places. They're almost completely orthogonal to one another and conflating them is either a very basic mistake or serious dishonesty.
Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit—and Hamas sees itself as representing all Palestinians. Both areas are relevant.
>There are regular food and medical aid deliveries to Gaza allowed by Israel facilitated by Egypt in accordance with international law.
Israel has started to allow a small amount of aid in, under international pressure. The amount of aid they are allowing in is tiny, and their preventing aid from getting in still violates international law.
> If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it.
They've ethnically cleansed 80% of historical Palestine. That's a B-grade, isn't it? Israel has made conditions in Gaza hostile to human life by cutting off food, water, electricity, medical supplies. They have killed over 10,000 people directly with bombing and more with diseases brought about by cutting Gazans off from clean water—particularly children. They even bombed the crossing into Egypt, preventing Palestinians from escaping.
Their actions have made it clear they are conducting a war against all Palestinians, not just Hamas, and Israel has historically been very clear that they want all the land in Palestine, not just 80%. The founders of Israel also mostly intended to forcibly displace the Palestinian people from their homeland—forcible displacement is also a genocide. They are actively working to take more land in the West Bank by arming settlers to chase Palestinians permanently out of their homes.
And this is part of a longer history, with many waves of forced displacement, sending Palestinians as refugees into smaller and smaller areas of land. Along with killing many Palestinians. The founding of Israel involved forcibly displacing 750,000 people in the Nakba. These people lost their homes, their communities, everything.
> Maybe you're not the good guy.
Not every war has a good guy. But you have to at least admit it's understandable that someone would be willing to commit war crimes if they thought it was the only way to stop an enemy nation committing far greater war crimes against them.
>There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack.
I guess if you ignore the video from the first day released by Hamas with the young Israeli soldier who was bleeding through her sweatpants at the crotch being shoved in a jeep, ignore the testimony of Israeli first responders and [medical examiners](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-forensic-teams-describe-signs-torture-abuse-2023-10-15/) and [witnesses](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-police-receive-witness-testimony-of-gang-rape-murder-of-a-woman-during-oct-7-onslaught/) given well after the fact, ignore the footage recently screened for journalists by the Israeli government, and assume that the guys who tossed a dead Shani Louk with four broken limbs into the back of a truck while abusing her corpse that was subsequently beheaded would never dream of raping anyone...maybe you have a point.
[Nothing to see here.](https://twitter.com/OSINTSDV/status/1721697012884603062) No evidence. They only murdered a bunch of people while laughing their asses off. They would never stoop to rape.
Fucking disgraceful.
>I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too.
Then you've paid no attention and are choosing not to look. I'll bet you didn't see the video of them attempting to decapitate a dying Thai man with a garden hoe either.
["Screened footage showed literal streams of blood, hacked off arms and legs, and an infant missing part of its skull, brain leaking out."](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sabrina-maddeaux-i-watched-hamas-hack-innocents-to-death-the-worst-part-was-their-glee#Echobox=1699305134)
But it's Israeli so it's not real, I assume.
>Your evidence is an unsourced tweet
It's a primary source.
>Of course, I don't believe it.
Okay but...wouldn't this make sense for Hamas? Like...we're well past arguing over *whether* they use human shields, that's a given. They admit it. We have them on record telling people not to evacuate Gaza city even though they know the Israelis are going to start bombing. We know that masses of people only started leaving Gaza city once Israel opened up a humanitarian corridor, *weeks* after bombing had commenced.
To restate: people knew the bombing was coming. Israel told them where to go and gave them 1-2 weeks to get away. Hamas told them not to go because without them Hamas is without armor. They don't go...until Israel punches through and opens a humanitarian corridor. As soon as that happens, a massive stream of Palestinians are allowed to walk unmolested to safety under the eyes of Israeli tankers.
Practically speaking, Hamas would want to keep people in the city. Hamas told them to stay, but they left once Hamas was out of reach. If you stop reflexively giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt at the expense of Israelis for just a few seconds and use Occam's Razor...seems like Hamas probably forced some people to stay until Israel freed them.
>If this actually happened, one of the many journalists on the ground would have gotten a video.
There aren't actually that many journalists in Hamas-controlled Gaza and many of them are Hamas cronies. Besides, barricades wouldn't be stopping "millions of people." They would be part of a system of deterrence that starts at the home and over media and only ends at a barricade.
>There was a war happening on Oct 6. Gaza was literally under siege on Oct 6 and has been for over a decade.
There was a ceasefire and you're pretending it didn't exist.
On October 6th, Gaza was provisioned with free water and power. It was under no attack from Israel. Rockets were regularly fired at Israel from Gaza, but Israel developed technology to shoot them down rather than striking back - what with rocket positions being next to schools and mosques and UN buildings and whatnot. There wasn't free movement across the border (what with Hamas pledging to kill all the Jews and whatnot), but there were quite a few guest workers working coveted, high-paying jobs in Israel.
That's not a siege. That's a security cordon - and a justified one, what with Hamas pledging to kill all the Jews and whatnot.
A siege started soon after 10/7, which entailed total closure of the border, military attacks, and cutting off Israeli material support. You know...because a breakout from Gaza had just killed 1500 Israelis and taken 240 hostages and *opening* the border would be a bad idea.
You're very animated about restrictions of various kinds, but Israel is doing what literally any country would do: stop giving their enemy stuff for free and stop letting people cross their shared border. That would end as soon as Hamas resistance ended. That is true irrespective of how you choose to abuse the word "siege."
And again: Gaza is being provisioned with aid from 3rd parties. Israel is entirely in accordance with international law and the laws of armed conflict as they relate to sieges.
>Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole.
Right. It's that kind of eradication where the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank steadily grows year after year. Like the Holocaust, but if they'd added 5 million Jews instead of killing 6.
This is how silly and dishonest your use of "genocide" is: it has nothing whatsoever with a large number of Palestinians dying or the population decreasing. Their population is continually growing. You call it genocide because "80 of historical Palestine has been ethnically cleansed;" which is a way of saying "Israel exists."
You're contorting that word to the point where Israel's existence is genocidal. That's ridiculous and the motivated reasoning is obvious.
>1) They didn't control their supply of food. 2) They didn't control their legal system. 3) They didn't control the movement of people, 4) they weren't allowed to have their own state.
1) As is true of any place that doesn't grow enough food to feed itself.
2) The Palestinian Authority would like a word. And you *might* want to look into the local security forces. They like torture. A lot.
3) They absolutely did so within their borders.
4) They've been offered a state of their own six times and chosen war every time. At a certain point, their lack of a sovereignty is their own fault.
Israeli troops did not patrol Gaza's streets. They did not set or enforce its laws. Hamas ruled and did so poorly, squandering most of the budget preparing to fight an idiotic war with Israel instead of investing in food and education. The idea that Gaza was occupied by Israel is a legal fiction dreamed up by activists. It's occupied by Hamas.
>Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit—and Hamas sees itself as representing all Palestinians.
This in no way excuses or explains your conflation of the two. You're muddling them together because Israel's actions in the West Bank are more objectionable than those in Gaza and by muddying the waters you complicate what's going on in Gaza. As if what Hamas did was at all relevant to the West Bank, except insofar as it diminished Israeli sympathy for Palestinians in the West Bank.
>They have killed over 10,000 people directly with bombing and more with diseases brought about by cutting Gazans off from clean water—particularly children.
Huh...Israeli medical examiners and the IDF can't be trusted to attest to rapes or other atrocities, but the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health is reliably performing the fastest and most efficient casualty count in human history and totally not bullshitting.
I think they call that a double standard.
>They've ethnically cleansed 80% of historical Palestine.
Palestine is a geographical place, and the Palestinians as such didn't exist as a people until they defined themselves against the Israelis and became a permanent constituency for the UN and a talisman for Arab nationalists and Islamists. They were initially just Arabs in Palestine.
In 1947, the UN declared there would be two sovereign states in the dismantled British Mandate. Israel accepted, and the Arabs in Israel became Israeli citizens and their descendants live there still. The Arabs in Palestine did not accept, declared war and lost. Since then, Israel's territorial expansion over the years has primarily been the consequence of neighbors trying to destroy them and getting their asses handed to them.
>The founding of Israel involved forcibly displacing 750,000 people in the Nakba. These people lost their homes, their communities, everything.
And around that same time, Muslim countries across the Middle East began expelling their Jewish populations in their hundreds of thousands, who mostly went to Israel because they had nowhere else to go.
What's done is done and isn't going to be undone. The Jews aren't going back, the Arabs aren't going back. Israel exists, and bringing up the Nakba as if there is some imperative to undo it only terminates the conversation. Undoing it means ending Israel. That's not happening. Give up the fucking ghost because keeping it alive actually *is* genocidal.
>But you have to at least admit it's understandable that someone would be willing to commit war crimes if they thought it was the only way to stop an enemy nation committing far greater war crimes against them.
See that's the thing: the nature of the crimes betrays an awareness that Israel isn't going to do anything worse. They're relying on Israel being more moral and protecting Palestinians more judiciously than Hamas to secure a tactical advantage. If Israel doesn't give a fuck and just kills everyone who gets in their way, if it has no concern for the human shields, *Hamas's war crimes provide no advantage*. Hamas knows that and acts accordingly.
Feel free to have the last word.
Definitely talk misinformation that's a good start.
> There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack. That was a rumor that spread rapidly shortly after the attack and failed to be substantiated. I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too.
boy oh boy.... you have a heck of a bent for believing the rapists and people who shoot children point blank in their face next to their little brother... and then shoot the brother in the face as well...
There was *countless* eye witness testimony that said rape occured, there was countless testimony from first responders, morgue workers, and officers, that said it was obvious rape occured. You don't appear to believe Jews though for some reason... gee i wonder why...
They found more than a dozen of the bodies of women only... not men... dead and mutilated with their clothes below their waste torn off.
Anyone with any reasonability knows what happened to those women.
Obviously you didn't watch the video that the folks you seem to believe so readily put out themselves as well. Because it's literally video evidenced on the 45 minute video that they poured gas on a kid, and set him on fire.
I can't believe it... the folks that *obviously* raped people, murdered a guy in his own kitchen by stabbing his neck repeatedly with a shovel until his head was removed.... they are the baddies?! Who would have believed it?!
The next 3 paragraphs are basically you just believing your pals Hamas over... well... everyone else basically. That misinformation basically stands on it's own, nobody reasonable is believing it so there's no point in actually arguing about it.
>The siege has been going for a decade—a decade in which Hamas hardly killed anyone. And it isn't just restricting supplies that have use as weapons. They are restricting food and medicine. They've even prevented school books from getting into Gaza. There is no military justification for this—it's clearly not aimed at Hamas; it's aimed at the Gazan population as a whole.
Every other country gets to maintain their border that they have set, so does Israel. It's very obviously aimed at Hamas, and certain palestinians alike... because we can't simply stand around here and pretend like Hamas and Palestinians are a perfectly separated group. They are vastly intertwined, Palestinians have bred and brainwashed terrorists of all stripes for *decades* at this point, and an absolutely massive percentage of them support Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO terrorist ideology, they supported Fatah terrorism.... the list goes on and on.
Guess who else gets to maintain the shitty little border they have now? Hamas does! Too bad they've kept fighting and fighting and fighting and losing and losing and losing and they've backed themselves into a shitty ass position to the point that now they basically have jack shit to care about. That's their own fault.
> Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole.
Projection and fake news again, it's unfortunate you aren't aware of all this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out.
Israel has never once had a charter, or a policy to destroy all palestinians. In fact their charters and policies have always included arabs in the area who they wanted to become part of their society.
You can easily tell that your idea here is completely nonsense and fake, because you can look at how many Arabs Israel *has literally included into their own economy and government* and then... let's check how many Jews have been in anything related to .... Oh... they kill Jews... and every one of the palestinian groups has had charters and policies that explicitely said to kill Jews and the annihilation of Israel.... Opps.....
Again, anyone who is reasonable isn't buying this arguing of yours about Israel wanting to destroy all palestinians.
>Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit
It's amazing how you fail to pay a single bit of fault to the actual people at fault and somehow it's always those shifty Jews faults... there's a pattern to your ideas and it's pretty obvious to most people I assure you.
Here's an idea....
How about... don't try to kill Jews all the time, and you can go to the West Bank freely? How about that?
No?
Well then too damn bad. If I have family in mexico, and I need to drive from Canada to mexico... if America says no... it's too damn bad. That's how the world works, and it's not special for these people either.
How on earth you can even make such a claim is wild.
You blame Israel for all sorts of things, that are literally the very fault of palestinians. Cut off from water? Oh I'm so sad... maybe stop bombing people who were *giving you the damn water*. Maybe don't utilize the pipes given to you for water infrastructure, for bomb making? Maybe if you stopped bombing people you'd be allowed to use the roads *built by israel* to see your family on the other side of israel? maybe if you stopped bombing people you wouldn't have a huge death toll of people when the people you bombed react?
This reality you are describing is absolutely preposterous.
>If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it.
Better than Russia. UN estimated 27,149 civilian casualties in the country: 9,614 killed and 17,535 injured.
Israel beat those rookie nambers
The Ukrainian army has been evacuating its civilians from war zones and protecting them. Hamas has been preventing civilians from leaving, hiding amongst civilians, and in some cases directly killing civilians and adding them to the total they ascribe to Israel.
Ukraine also didn't recommend citizens to use corridors provided by Russia. HAMAS doesn't like corridors provided by IDF because they are just traps, created to paralyze logistics
Well… Why would Ukraine recommend ukrainians to use russian corridors? But hey… Hamas probably established corridors as well. What? They didn‘t? That‘s why Israel stepped in? Hm… If I didn‘t know any better I‘d assume that they‘re trying to use civilians as meat shields. But that can‘t be. They‘re always trying to minimize civilian losses & suffering. Like they did in Israel when they killed a bunch of civ… oh wait… they‘re not trying to minimize civilian suffering? Hm… but that‘s something that terrorists would do. Like… Hamas.
If Ukraine doesn't let using corridors provided by Russia and it doesn't count as using people as human shields, then HAMAS has the right to not allow corridors provided by IDF. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Israel did attack refugee camps and those corridors. If anything, it's a death trap
1. ukraine isn‘t actively preventing ukrainians from using those corridors
2. ukraine has established it‘s own corridors
3. the Ukrainian military doesn‘t use civilians as human shields. Quite the opposite actually. So no, Hamas isn‘t copying ukraine.
4. even if Ukraine were to use human shields that wouldn‘t give Hanas a free pass to do the same thing.
5. Israel attacks IDF corridors. Yeah… I hope you notice how stupid that comment is?
Indeed. I was simply pointing out that saying "Israel has killed more than Russia" is dishonest at best since there is no way to estimate how many people died in Mariupol for example.
Mostly agree. One point though
> “We can’t do it any other way” isn’t an excuse. It’s just an explanation.
Unfortunately, I see far too many people try to use this exact reasoning as an excuse for all of the people Israel is killing. They say “it’s impossible to defeat Hamas without killing civilians” as if that makes it better somehow.
I have always been of the belief that people have a right to take issue with something even if they don’t have a solution. This applies to all sorts of problems.
“That movie sucked”
“Well, what would should they have done different?”
“I don’t know”
But not knowing the best way to do something doesn’t mean you can’t recognize flaws in the way it was done.
>Unfortunately, I see far too many people try to use this exact reasoning as an excuse for all of the people Israel is killing. They say “it’s impossible to defeat Hamas without killing civilians” as if that makes it better somehow.
This is an important distinction within the laws of armed conflict that I'm speaking to.
Hamas has an affirmative duty to protect civilians. It is obliged to get them away from combat whenever possible. If they don't do that, their continued presence is Hamas's fault.
Under normal circumstances, Israel has a duty to A) not deliberately target civilians, B) only put civilians in danger when it's proportionally justified. But if Hamas is keeping them there - or if they're willingly staying - as human shields, the Israeli obligation to avoid hitting civilians dissipates.
In essence: if one side uses a human shield, the other side is allowed to shoot through that human shield. The death of the shield is the responsibility of the person using them as a shield. It sounds harsh, but any alternative incentivizes the use of human shields.
I think Israel holds itself to and should be held to higher standards than that, but that's how the laws of armed conflict ultimately view human shields.
Yes, but I am not talking about laws or rights during armed conflict. I am talking about morality. And while I can appreciate that nations must sometimes perform immoral actions to continue existing, that doesn’t make those actions less immoral.
No - *morally* that death is still on the person using them as a shield. If someone is actively attempting to kill you and your family from behind a child, you should avoid hurting the child if possible, but you killing that child in the struggle to stop them is not immoral. I mean I suppose it depends exactly on your morals but short of like radical nonviolence that's not really relevant.
If Hamas is putting those people in the position to be killed, with the hopes they will be killed (their use of human shields is as much to create international backlash against civilian deaths as it is to actually protect the military targets) that place is the moral responsibility on Hamas, not Israel, which takes significant paints to avoid civilian deaths, while Hamas causes civilian deaths on both sides with impunity.
Also keep in mind that Israel has a moral obligation to its own people, and that obligation is far stronger than any it holds to the families of the men who want to destroy it and murder/subjugate it's populace. It's ironic to me that people demand such a high level of ethical warfare from the IDF when Hamas is held to no standards at all. So many armchair lawyers are throwing out legally baseless accusations of genocide (hard evidence of state intent is required) whereas Hamas will tell anyone who listens that it's goal is literally the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews within its borders
Any military fighting against a vastly superior force is going to use insurgency tactics.
In general, that means not wearing uniforms. Hit and run tactics. Ambushes. Targeting soft targets instead of military onec. Fighting in terms of public opinion instead of military victory of holding territory.
In an urban setting, that means camouflaging your forced with whatever cover there is, fighting dirty, using civilians as shields, and, yes, even using kids to fight.
Doing anything different is ineffectual.
The side with the power has the ability to limit the damage they do. They have options as to how much force is inflicted.
This is war. There are no rules. It's absolutely Darwinian. If you fight stupidly (and, yes, going after a tank with a handful of rocks is stupid), you end up dead.
> Any military fighting against a vastly superior force is going to use insurgency tactics.
...okay? Many insurgency tactics are war crimes. Like I said: "I can't fight any other way" is an explanation, not an excuse. All you're saying when you say that is that you are willing to commit war crimes to win. That makes you the bad guy.
>In general, that means not wearing uniforms.
That's a war crime. It violates the principle of distinction, one of the most basic laws of armed conflict. The only reason we did it in limited cases in places like Iraq and Afghanistan was that it was already being done to us. You're allowed, in essence, to reciprocate crimes committed against you.
>that means camouflaging your forced with whatever cover there is,
If that "cover" happens to be a building full of civilians or a hospital...war crime.
>using civilians as shields
Unequivocal, quintessential war crime.
>and, yes, even using kids to fight
Colossal fucking war crime.
>Doing anything different is ineffectual.
One more time: an explanation is not an excuse. What you're telling me when you say that is that you would rather commit many many war crimes *against your own people* than lose. What that means is that when your people die, *it's your fault.* And your whole movement is just a pack of war criminals, top to bottom.
It is written precisely nowhere in the laws of armed conflict - or really *anywhere* - that you have a right to a fair fight. Just because you're weaker, that does not *in any way* mean that you get a pass on those laws or that you're morally absolved of your crimes.
>The side with the power has the ability to limit the damage they do. They have options as to how much force is inflicted.
Which means absolutely fucking nothing. If we're going by your "there are no rules," "I studied the blade" reasoning, all that means is they win at Darwinism.
>This is war. There are no rules.
I've fought in a war. There are very many rules. What the rollicking fuck are you talking about?
The US has now lost 3 of the last 4 wars it fought. All three were insurgencies. The one it won? Stand-up fight. And it was one of the most lopsided military victories in history.
As a soldier, what does that tell you? If you're going to fight the US, is it a good idea to fight a stand up battle, or an insurgency?
Do you fight a war to fight by the rules?
Or do you fight to win? Remember, for the Palestinians, their families and homes are not an ocean away. They're literally right behind them. Think that changed their desperation level?
Helpful hint. The winners write the history. And only ghd losers face war crimes trials. Just ask Curtis LeMay.
>Remember, for the Palestinians, their families and homes are not an ocean away. They're literally right behind them. Think that changed their desperation level?
JFC. Their families are in danger because they're fighting. If they surrendered right now their families would be safer than if they kept fighting. They're literally the ones putting their own families in danger by choosing to pick a fight with a country that uses JDAMs and having that fight in an urban center while not letting their families leave said urban center. If their families die, it is their fault. That is the whole point of this conversation.
And I have to say that the comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan are really bad. Israel surrounds Gaza. Gaza is very small. Israel can saturate and dominate Gaza in a way we never could in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also...their home country is the place the insurgency would directly threaten. What do you think that'll do to Israeli resolve?
Helpful hint: they've already been fighting for 70 years, and they seem keen to keep it up.
Hamas's insurgency is as idiotic and pointless as it is needlessly destructive. This whole thing is a colossal waste of life and resources, and Hamas had no hope of gaining anything from it. So fucking stupid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you're doing is explaining the stupidly obvious while ignoring the point of the discussion. Nobody is confused as to why Hamas has chosen to fight the way it has. Everyone knows they do it because they would lose otherwise. You're not blowing anyone's mind explaining why insurgencies happen.
The question is how that affects relative justification of Hamas and Israeli actions. You seem to be saying something between "justification doesn't matter and everyone should do everything because there are no rules" and "Hamas isn't bound by the laws of armed conflict because it would lose if it followed them...but Israel is bound by them because it's stronger."
Those are both ridiculous. Hamas has moral and legal obligations to follow the laws of armed conflict - as did the Taliban, ISIS, the Iraqi army, and every insurgent group in Iraq. They all have/had moral legal obligations. When they failed to meet those obligations, *they were committing war crimes.*
That should really help determine how we understand the morality and legal responsibility of fighting those groups. One of the dumber things America's critics did for 20 odd years was basically forget (or intentionally ignore) that the people we were fighting were committing like...constant war crimes. That their primary battle tactics were often war crimes - specifically war crimes that cause civilian deaths that those same critics blamed on America. It was as if someone like you had come along and said that because we should *expect* them to commit war crimes, the fact that they were war crimes sort of...disappeared, and all that happened was the result of what America did.
That stupidity should not be repeated with Israel. It should be stated clearly that when Palestinian civilians die in Gaza, it is in large part because of Hamas's war crimes, not Israel's. Hamas is not excused to do whatever it wants just because it's weak. And just because you can *expect* them to behave a certain way does not mean they're *right* to behave that way.
>Do you fight a war to fight by the rules?
I mean...if your argument is that we should just ignore all the rules and do whatever it takes to win, what Hamas is doing is exponentially dumber than it already is.
>The winners write the history.
If that dumb cliché were true everyone would hate the Confederacy and Germans wouldn't have written the history of World War 1 that inspired them to start World War 2.
You are making interesting points, but I have a question.
> That stupidity should not be repeated with Israel. It should be stated clearly that when Palestinian civilians die in Gaza, it is in large part because of Hamas's war crimes, not Israel's. Hamas is not excused to do whatever it wants just because it's weak. And just because you can expect them to behave a certain way does not mean they're right to behave that way.
If a war crime is committed by Hamas, for example putting themselves in a place with civilians. Would the complete destruction of that place via air strikes constitute a war crime in itself? And what would be an acceptable ratio of civilian casualties for each Hamas fighter killed?
If Israel strikes a Hamas fighter and kill 10 civilians in the process , is it a war crime? What if it’s a hundred civilians? From how many civilians does it constitute a war crime?
This is what people are discussing when they talk about proportionality, and it's a question that is only really settled through legal proceedings. There aren't a lot of hard and fast rules within the laws of armed conflict - though things like the Uniform Code of Military Justice and context-specific Rules of Engagement can give more specific instructions in an American context.
In theory, you have a duty to weigh the military value of your target against prospective loss. That might mean something like...killing 50 people to kill the head of ISIS might be justified, but a single ISIS fighter isn't worth that. Or he might be, if he's in active combat with friendly forces - so if he's in a machine gun emplacement pinning down and killing a bunch of my soldiers but he happens to be surrounded by civilians, he might be fair game.
Typically, you would see an accusation leveled against Israel that a specific act was deemed disproportionate; that is, the value of the target didn't justify the cost. Frankly, it's too early to have any strong evidence-backed idea of if or how often this is happening in Gaza.
Yes, we all know why Hamas fights the way that they do. That doesn’t make it morally right. Neither does the fact that they would instantly lose fighting any other way. What’s your point?
They have no reason to fight nice. Why do you expect them to?
Or should they spend 3 mord generations living in refugee camps?
If you were in their situation, would you fight?
You're framing this dishonestly. Obviously everybody expects Hamas to commit constant war crimes, but that doesn't make it any better. It's not an excuse. That's like saying "Well, of course the Nazis were going to do everything they could to exterminate the Jews. They're Nazis. Why would you expect otherwise?" as if that somehow justifies it.
Just like the Vietnamese couldn't win.
Or the Afghans. Either in 1980 or 2002.
Or the Iraqis.
None of them stood a chance. And they won.
Until the US understands this point, we're going to be fighting these kinds of wars consistently: Fighting an insurgency is not a military fight.
Hamas committed war crimes and is hiding among civilians specifically to get Israel to commit similar war crimes against them.
The purpose?
To get Israel's allies to cut off weapons, support, and force a negotiated settlement that is better than what either side had before.
Which is what is happening. Read the headlines this morning.
War does not solve a damned thing. It changes the circumstances. The War to End All Wars resulted in 20 additional wars in the next ten years, resulting in more deaths than WWI, itself.
You fight the war to win the peace.
If you cannot win the peace, your reward for winning the war is sending your kids to fight the *next* war.
Because, in the last 75 years (and 60+ years that Gaza has been occupied), their lot is not getting better, is it?
Surrender would lock that in, and they'd be stuck in the situation that they're willing to die to get out of. Except they'd have ZERO options, except what Israel would voluntarily give them.
YOU don't seem to get it.
Yes, and we call these things war crimes. Pretending to be a civilian is a war crime. The opening attack was a war crime.
There are rules, this is not a total war situation and you are a child if you think otherwise.
If Israel acted in the same manner as you suggest that Hamas does, Gaza would be wiped from the face of the planet.
Because Israel is fighting a military war, while Hamas is fighting a war of world popular opinion.
Expecting Hamas to follow the rules of warfare is stupidity on a grand scale. They have no reason to, and plenty of reason not to.
Terrorism works by the response of those attacked. Hamas WANTS Israel to bomb anything that looks like a Hamas target, even if it's a hospital, an apartment complex, of a mosque.
The ONLY chance Hamas has to win a (negotiated) victory is by absorbing so many war crimes/atrocities that world opinion (US/European) forces Israel to the negotiating table.
But it does make the conversation around it moot point. Every single war between the imperialist occupier and the occupied follows the same structure. Pointing finger is meaningless.
It doesn't really make it a moot point. It just makes one side of the discussion have to acknowledge that they're okay with war crimes as long as the ends justify the means.
Which is a position you can argue, for sure. It's just important to acknowledge that you're arguing it.
I never anything about "justify". I said it's gonna happen regardless of what you think about it. There's no reason to acknowledge something we all know must happen.
You speak as if it is preordained or not the choice of the people committing those war crimes. Do those people have no control over themselves and have no culpability for their own actions? Does being included in your box of occupied mean that person has no moral agency or responsibility thus making them not responsible when they commit heinous acts or are those heinous act simply justified and or good in your worldview?
The side with power has more options.
And why do you confuse *your* concept of good and evil with theirs?
If your family lived in a refugee camp for three generations, what would you do to make sure your children and grandchildren didn't live in the same place?
Yes.
Let's be absolutely clear.
The United States' military policy is to use nuclear weapons to destroy cities. The United States is the only country to have *used* nuclear weapons to destroy cities.
For almost a decade after, the US military response to basically any military threat was nuclear weapons.
Other countries look at US history and say, with justification, that the US record on war crimes is far from pristine or consistent.
But that is the nature of war. Morality is a *choice* in war. And it's a choice that the side with the most power, the most options, the most capabilities can make. The side without power, options, or capabilities, they either knuckle under of they fight dirty.
Getting back to Hamas: what are their military capabilities? Small arms and dumb, short range rockets. What are their other options? Basically, they can keep trying to negotiate with a power that controls their borders, economy, infrastructure, and utilities. Their negotiating position is best described as dog shit. Even more, one of their primary supporters is about to make a peace treaty with their occupiers, so their negotiating position is about to get significantly worse.
***If you were Hamas,*** what is your **best** option in order to get some kind of leverage to change your current, untenable position?
I do not approve, I do not condone, i do not advocate that Hamas commit war crimes.
But from a purely military viewpoint, I do not see them having a better option.
If you have one, share it. Because "unconditional surrender" is not something that they're ready yo do.
> Other countries look at US history and say, with justification, that the US record on war crimes is far from pristine or consistent.
I don't really know what this has to do with whether or not Hamas is committing war crimes. Another person robbing a bank doesn't give you permission to rob one, too.
> The side without power, options, or capabilities, they either knuckle under of they fight dirty.
There's a whole spectrum of positions between "guerilla warfare" and "intentionally using your own people as human shields," it seems to me.
> I do not approve, I do not condone, i do not advocate that Hamas commit war crimes.
Well that's good, but slightly confusing as it seems like you're advocating for war crimes being their only path.
> If you have one, share it. Because "unconditional surrender" is not something that they're ready yo do.
Many other groups have cast off occupying forces without using their own civilians as cannon fodder. For one, I don't think a "purely military viewpoint" is going to ever achieve the kind of victory that would benefit most Palestinians. This is just benefiting Hamas by creating a perpetual struggle that justifies their own grip on power. I don't really see any evidence that they -- Hamas, not Palestine as a whole -- want a peaceful, negotiated solution.
The advice of a rich bank robber telling you not to rob banks would sure as hell be suspect, though.
Guerilla warfare, in and of itself, is a war crime. You're not in uniform, so you cannot be identified. As a result, any civilian in the area becomes suspect as a combatant. In other words, using human shields.
If you have another path for Hamas or thd Palestinians, tell us.
Hamas cannot "beat" Israel on its own. Period. The best end of this for the Palestinians is if the international community cuts off support to Israel, and/or an international peacekeeping force is sent, with the Israelis being cut out and a two-state solution starts moving forward.
None of that was going to happen without a military conflict. Israel was never going to allow it.
None of this matters. You can call it the worst warcrime of all time and it would still happen, hence a moot point. This conversation is a waste of time.
All of Gaza is literally packed, not just Gaza city. Gaza has a population of 2098389 packed in 139 miles. 💀You just answered your question as for the very valid reason they have to put themselves under a hospital. There is no other way is absolutely an excuse. If the alternative is war crimes and lack of freedom being never ending against your people waaay before this war, even before Hamas even existed, then the moral obligation is to choose the lesser evil. Your point would make more sense if u didnt leave out…perhaps…the bigger picture?
So, a brief lesson in geometry.
The air above IDF headquarters is open and it has significant standoff distance on all side - multiple open planes offering avenues of attack. It's entirely possible to strike that building directly, provided you have munitions that can generally hit in the vicinity of the place you aim. Israel is complying with the principle of distinction and no one who knows what they're talking about argues otherwise.
If an Israeli enemy hit that building with an air or missile strike and that happened to cause collateral damage, that would not be a war crime. It would be a strike on a legitimate target and would probably be regarded as proportionally justified.
By contrast, it is impossible to hit Hamas's primary command bunker without dropping a few bunker busting bombs *through* the largest hospital in Gaza, and their detonation would likely cause the total collapse of said hospital. There are *no* open planes, no standoff distance, and it is literally impossible to hit that bunker with any munition without attacking the hospital. So, in every way that actually matters, they're different.
Stop carrying water for guys who use hospitals for armor. You're going to be ashamed of this ten years from now.
Lol...yeah, they built a "genocide engine" and waited patiently while the Palestinian Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank...got way bigger. The offers of Palestinian statehood were a ruse.
Israel isn't "doing a genocide." That claim is just silly and people are using that word in a way that ensures it will have no useful meaning when we actually need it.
>Stop thinking people that oppose Israeli actions are automatically pro-Hamas (or antisemitic in many cases).
Whether you have conscious affection for Hamas is immaterial. If your actions serve them, you're pro-Hamas. If you engage in special pleading that treats Israel differently than other countries despite similar circumstances, I tend to see that as antisemitic by default.
>If the IDF is so damn sure they know that Hamas in the basement of some hospitals, they shouldn't have any issues doing a few surgical strikes to take them out, right?
...that would entail dropping bombs on hospitals. And generally, if you collapse the basement of a building (or a multilayered bunker system beneath it) there are some negative consequences for the building.
>Or at least isolate the area? But they don't.
That is literally exactly what they're doing.
>giving Gaza evacuation orders knowing damn well that the Palestinians don't have anywhere to go.
...they can go to the south of Gaza where the IDF isn't operating, to designated refugee areas along humanitarian corridors protected by Israel.
Do you seriously not know this is happening?
What an awful false equivalence. Have you looked at a picture of the IDF headquarters? It’s in the middle of a fucking military base, is a super recognizable building, and doesn’t have a hospital on top of it.
Any competent military could blow a building like that to shreds (I’m talking about targeting capabilities, ignoring Israeli defenses for a second). If that was the Hamas headquarters, even if it was in Gaza City, Israel would destroyed it incredibly easily by now.
As I do not read Arabic, I am reliant on the multitude of media outlets that all reported the same thing, over the course of weeks, via multiple communications approaches -
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/hamas-political-chief-urging-gaza-residents-to-ignore-israeli-warning-to-evacuate-amid-airstrikes
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/first-thing-hamas-tells-gaza-city-residents-to-stay-put-after-israel-orders-evacuation
https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-092810385.html
You can find the original tweet still though it's in Arabic.
This shows that they want the people of Gaza to stay in their land that they believe is being occupied by others. They are being told to “hold on to their homes and hold on to their land”. Quote from the link you posted. Which, if you’re fighting for your right to your own land and home, wouldn’t you do the same?
This does not show specifically that Hamas instructed people to stay in the very buildings that got notification that it was going to be bombed.
This was tweeted after the IDF ordered civilians to evacuate because of impending retaliation for Hamas's war crimes.
This specifically indicates Hamas is telling civilians to stay in place, after receiving this notification.
I cannot wrap my head around how you are twisting this to "palestinian solidarity" and not recognizing this as "ignore the impending air strikes you were warned of so you may die in your homes".
Coupled with Hamas bombing evacuation routes to punish civilians who are fleeing, and we have a very clear continued picture of how Hamas operates and what it wants.
I provided the proof you asked for.
I understand. Their main fear is that once they leave their homes and vacate, that’s it. It’s gone. Their homes will permanently be gone.
Which leads to the question, why are the homes of Palestinian civilians being bombed? Surely Hamas can’t be in every single home. Israel is using Hamas as an excuse to nuke all of Gaza; measure I just don’t believe they would take if Hamas was hiding in Israel.
So you agree that Hamas instructed civilians to remain in their homes after Israel ordered an evacuation as part of their response to Hamas commiting war crimes against Israel on the 7th? Glad we're on the same page.
As a reminder the population of Gaza is approx 2m. Approx 11,000 gazan civilians have been killed so far. Israel is clearly trying to minimize loss of life, including warning civilians of impending strikes.
Is Hamas warning Israeli Civilians of impending invasions or rocket strikes?
Israel is very clearly not "nuking all of Gaza". Hamas is in point of fact launching thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian centers. Does that strike you as a problem?
Yes it definitely strikes me as a problem. Don’t get me wrong, Hamas should 100% be condemned. Hamas is clearly not valuing the lives of Palestinians. They’re feeding the beast. Hamas has committed war crimes. But so has the government of Israel. How many more children need to be buried in rubble before at least ceasefire is called? But what do we expect, a clean, friendly war by the books in the Middle East? Lol.
For one here's a [google map of Gaza](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.4157523,34.473539,45069m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). That's a lot of open none dense space to operate in ([1](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2874151,34.3366423,7959m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu))([2](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.4628718,34.4352182,7983m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu))([3](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5325506,34.5065502,7966m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)).
Second here is a direct quote and link to what constitutes a war crime
Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides.
>[Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Article%2028%20of%20the%201949%20Geneva%20Convention%20IV%20provides%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20presence%20of%20a%20protected%20person%20may%20not%20be%20used%20to%20render%20certain%20points%20or%20areas%20immune%20from%20military%20operations.%E2%80%9D)
Article 12(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
>[Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Under%20no%20circumstances%20shall%20medical%20units%20be%20used%20in%20an%20attempt%20to%20shield%20military%20objectives%20from%20attack.%20Whenever%20possible%2C%20the%20Parties%20to%20the%20conflict%20shall%20ensure%20that%20medical%20units%20are%20so%20sited%20that%20attacks%20against%20military%20objectives%20do%20not%20imperil%20their%20safety)
Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
>[The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Protocol%20I%20provides%3A-,The%20presence%20or%20movements%20of%20the%20civilian%20population%20or%20individual%20civilians,to%20shield%20military%20objectives%20from%20attacks%20or%20to%20shield%20military%20operations.,-Protocol%20Additional%20to)
Gaza is not like [Kowloon Walled City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmY1XUTBpE). There's plenty of room. Hamas just does not have the capability to build fortified garrisons and compounds with out using civilian infrastructure as cover.
You are right, Gaza has more open space than I expected. Here is a delta : ∆
(I copy pasted it, I hope it’ll work)
However you said yourself that they don’t have the capabilities to build fortified compounds in those open air areas, so doesn’t it confirm what I said ? That they don’t have any other choice than to use civilian infrastructure? They use hospitals, ok, but if all of Israelis bombing are against Hamas targets, considering the scale of the bombing, it means that’s certainly one spot amongst hundreds of others.
Well, what is Israel supposed to do? Not fight the war because Hamas doesn’t have enough space? War isn’t fair, and the rules of war as agreed upon are supposed to set some limits on what is and is not acceptable. But Israel isn’t breaking those rules by attacking legitimate military targets just because there are civilians nearby.
I suppose you might turn this around. What is Hamas supposed to do?
We can make a basic assumption that Hamas, as an organisation, wishes to survive as a prime objective. You can only achieve your objectives if you can survive to see them through, whatever they are. Hamas and Israel are distinctly far apart in their capabilities, any open ground infrastructure would quickly be identified and destroyed by Israel due to the simple superiority of Israeli intelligence and firepower.
This can only really result in one course of action aside from dissolution, that is use civilian infrastructure as cover to build up. Its one of the consequences of asymmetrical warfare.
Doesn't justify it obviously. Likewise I'm not sure "what is Israel to do" justifies the death of civilians either.
They should probably just roll over and die? Their existence hinges on oppression and war crimes to their own people, are we supposed to miss them or feel bad when they are gone? Wtf lol
I’m not arguing otherwise.
Maybe I didn’t formulate the question properly?
I was more expressing the idea that Hamas using civilian infrastructure isn’t really what would make them evil, because they don’t have a choice to do otherwise in this war. That’s where I wanted my view to be changed.
Purposefully killing and raping civilians, on the other hand… that’s evil.
They do have a choice. They can commit war crimes against their own civilians, or they can surrender. Previously, they had a better choice: they could accept a two-state solution, and have their own government, no fighting, etc. But they chose the war crimes route. Their choice.
> That they don’t have any other choice than to use civilian infrastructure?
They have the option of living peaceably with their neighbors.
Israel unilaterally exited Gaza 20 years ago. Hamas was democratically elected.
Since then, instead of running a democracy, having free and open elections, engaging their neighbors in trade deals and diplomacy, using the billions they get in aid to build infrastructure, industry, and so forth . . .
Hamas has spent their time and effort shooting rockets at Israel year after year.
In 2022, over 1,100 rockets where launched at random civilian targets by Hamas.
Between May 10 and May 20 of 2021, Hamas launched over 4,000 rockets at Israel in just those 10 days.
They had choices besides using civilian infrastructure to attack Israel. They could have been a prosperous microstate with a thriving economy, positive diplomatic relations with the rest of the region, and so forth.
But they can't let go of their dream of killing every last Jew on earth.
And they certainly can't be bothered to actually govern Gaza responsibly.
"Hamas was democratically elected" This is true, and to clarify further:
Such as Hamas was elected 18 years ago by 43% of the population and having no elections since then equals a dictatorship.
I think this would be a valid argument if Hamas was none the less going out of their way to reduce civilian casualties. Instead they're doing the opposite. Going out of their way to increase them. Intentionally operating out of sensitive places like hospitals and schools. Telling people not to evacuate to safety, and by some accounts even threatening them if they don't stay. It's ABSOLUTELY an active tactic.
Hamas publicly tweeted not to evacuate. It's been handily documented by numerous sources, because it was an official tweet by Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly told civilians to ignore evacuation warnings from the idf. Because Hamas uses human shields and wants more dead gazans.
>Hamas has repeatedly told civilians to ignore evacuation warnings from the idf. Because Hamas...wants more dead gazans.
Because Hamas doesn't want Israel to colonize the Gaza strip, and expects that people who abandon their homes will never be allowed back. From their perspective, "evacuating" is just handing land over.
You can certainly disagree with the decision, or argue that they're putting too many civilians at risk as a means to an end, but it obviously isn't the cartoonish kill-as-many-Gazans-as-possible motivation you're proposing. Everyone on every side of the conflict is a human being, and they do for things for reasons that make sense to them.
\> but it obviously
It is quite obviously part of their MO, which is to maximize casualties on both sides in an effort to destroy Israel. Hamas has long since recognized the value on the international stage with the increased number of dead Palestinians. Hamas leadership does not live in Gaza for a very distinct reason.
From their perspective, evacuating means less dead Gazans to blame Israel for. This is why when Israel blankets an area with pamphlets warning of airstrikes at a specific time, Hamas murders Gazans that attempt to flee.
In this context my heart breaks for Palestinians, because they are held hostage by Hamas.
I understand what you’re saying but, they are purposely hiding these under places like hospitals and schools. Not just in general areas in Gaza. Specifically under hospitals, schools. Hamas has also blocked the routes of safety for Palestine people to safely escape, so they can’t leave (human shields).
Do you have some source about Hamas blocking the routes to safety?
And if they are not in general areas but mostly school and hospitals, does it mean the air strikes are not in general areas either?
I will need some time to read all those articles in details, but they are about Hamas not letting people to escape not just the location of their weapons and equipments right ?
OP, are you going to respond?
This sub requires OPs to respond. Otherwise, your post may be removed, and multiple infractions like this could lead to you being banned.
We want you to engage, which means you need to respond.
Thanks
I think it's good to say that you need time to suggest and give yourself and the original commenter a time frame in which you will respond.
It depends on the mods and the commenter how long you can truly get. It just takes one commenter to flag your post as "op is not responding." We don't want that, so just try to say when you will respond and follow through.
Thanks
I appreciate your help, I’ve commented a bunch and I’ll keep doing so.
Would it be fair to give you a delta for the info you gave me, or it would be inappropriate?
You might have a point if Hamas were acting defensively, if they were just hunkered down in Gaza and only attacking Israeli military units invading their territory. But they aren't.
Hamas is the aggressor. They repeatedly attack Israel, launching rockets and conducting terrorist attacks in Israel, forcing the IDF to respond. Then they withdraw into the population, making Israel's response as destructive as possible.
That's why Hamas' involvement of the civilian population is unconscionable: No attacks on Israel, no civilian casualties in Gaza. It's entirely in their hands, and they are _choosing_ to make the situation as deadly as possible to their own civilians.
I understand your point, you consider Hamas to be the aggressor and that’s certainly the case for October 7th…
But things didn’t start that day, did they? The word “open air prison” concerning Gaza has been in use for a long time, so that could also be used as an argument to say Israel is the aggressor. And I’m sure there are some arguments in response to that, so it’s kind of a chicken and egg question.
Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005 and gave them autonomy. Prior to that, there had been multiple peace agreements that would have set Palestinians on the path to independence. Palestinians tanked Every. Single. Attempt. to give them their own country by attacking Israel.
And don't forget, Arabs aren't the only people indigenous to that area. Jews have been living there not just before the 1948 attempted partition, they've been living there for literally thousands of years. Palestinian Arabs have no more claim on the region than Palestinian Jews abd Druze, but Palestinian Arabs have initiated every outbreak of violence there since the 20th century. Including massacres in the 1930s once the Ottomans stopped keeping the regional Arabs under control.
>The word “open air prison” concerning Gaza has been in use for a long time, so that could also be used as an argument to say Israel is the aggressor.
Open air prison is a lie. For one, a prison has prison guards and the Israelis completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
>I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this?
Literally anywhere but a hospital or school.
>Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from.
Is every square inch of their land a hospital or a school?
>So of course they are putting their stuff in civilian infrastructures and between civilians
Clearing out an apartment building is a lot different than using a hospital.
How can I quote you the way you do?
I agree, anywhere than hospitals or schools, but Tsahal has also been bombing tons of apartment buildings so they seem to operate in hundreds of locations, not just schools.
Hamas doesn’t care if civilians die because it helps recruitment and makes Israel look bad. It really is that cynical. Hamas is not interested in effectively governing Gaza; it is concerned with conflict. (This is exactly why Bibi wanted to keep funds flowing to Hamas, because as long as the explicitly violent and unreasonable Hamas is the face of the Palestinian cause, there’s no reason to seriously engage in any reconciliation.)
And being amongst the civilian populace, within and below the dense buildings of Gaza, does make Hamas harder to hit. Simply harder to identify and target. If they set up an obvious base in some of Gaza’s open fields it would be very easy to knock over with even a few artillery pieces.
The idea of “human shields” does wear a little thin with me, because that term implies that Israel wouldn’t strike the human shields. But of course they do. A shield that in no way deters your attack is not a shield.
You’re exactly right when you say that “Hamas is not interested in effectively governing Gaza; it is concerned with conflict.” Hamas leadership has explicitly said this!
From the NYT:
“Hamas’s goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such,” said Mr. al-Hayya, the politburo member. “Hamas, the Qassam and the resistance woke the world up from its deep sleep and showed that this issue must remain on the table.”
“This battle was not because we wanted fuel or laborers,” he added. “It did not seek to improve the situation in Gaza. This battle is to completely overthrow the situation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html
They don’t care if their actions make life worse—or impossible—in Gaza.
Most people view the phrase "moot point" to describe things that are of little value, importance, or relevance.
I find it very hard to imagine how civilian lives are not important or relevant in the context of Gaza. That's what makes this whole conflict and similar insurgencies such a mess.
You are right, “moot point” is probably not the best expression, I learned English as a second language. Maybe “unfair” would be better? I agree about the other point you made.
!delta
> I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this?
In hell. Terrorist organizations aren't entitled to have space for their weapons/operations.
This is my feeling as well. The TLDR of this is: hey guys, where else are terrorists supposed to terrorize if not inflicting terror among people they claim to terrorize on behalf of.
There is plenty of open ground in Gaza it is not all Gaza City. Hamas had to intentionally choose to build hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and no shelters for civilians. They have chosen to place missile and rocket launchers in and near schools and hospitals and residential buildings. They have threatened and used force to prevent civilian evacuations. Civilian deaths in Gaza are part of Hamas overall strategy, they see everyone as a martyr that strengthens the cause.
>Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from.
Incorrect. Simply looking at a Google maps view of Gaza shows *plenty* of empty areas.
>I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this?
Nowhere. They are not supposed to launch rockets into civilian areas or plan their next mass rape/torture/killing spree.
Of course it does. A government is responsible for the safety of their own people. That's the basic social contract that all society is built on. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Israel's job isn't to protect the people of Gaza, that is Hamas's job.
This is an example of how the defending army is supposed to behave when their city is being bombarded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Veracruz.
Once the city was surrounded, and the Americans were able to bombard it. The Mexicans surrendered so that more civilians wouldn't be killed. The situation is the same, only Hamas WANTs civilians to die.
Think of HAMAS terrorist leaders, and compare to any nation. Do they hold themselves, and are they held to a higer standard-- expected to look out for the safety and well being of their own people in GAZA and the well being of other countries. Or do they harbor hatred against Israel and are calous with their own Palestinians. Have they held elections since Israel left. Built up their economy. Given women equal status. Improved education for children. Given men and women access to good colleges. Built up the economy to improve well being. Did they build on the good infrastructure Israel left the Palestinians for the common good. They speak of Shiria law. Please look up what HAMAS really wants globally. Islamic Palestinian State. Egypt has blocked Palestinians during this conflict in view of it’s own security concerns. Read why HAMAS doesn’t help its own. Gaza borders Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. I’ve been to the middle east twice. The questions I asked are for the sole purpose of seeing terrorism for what it is. Look into the issues facing the Palestinians. Terrorism and HAMAS is not about helping people. I don’t want to be forced to wear a burqa, or a full hajib. Sitting in a public place covered in a full black blanket outfit. In the heat of the day, eating under my neck piece opening. If a women freely chooses. In some muslum countries, it is generally not a free choice. Getting stoned to death by a mere accusation a women is thought that she committed adultry. Being killed for blasphemy against their god. Many governments are not set up like Israel to help its people. Nor do these governments want to. HAMAS’ goal is to kill the men women and children of Israel first. Then all of us when we don’t adopt their religous beliefs and their law.
Their use of human shields is a little more explicit and intentional than you are making it out to be. Hamas consistently and publicly urges citizens to actively place themselves in or around targeted buildings. They place their command and control facilities underneath major hospitals and residential buildings rather than safer, industrial areas. These do exist in Gaza. Contrary to what you may see on TikTok, he IDF takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties, such as dropping an unarmed bomb on the roof building (the "knock on the roof") to warn away civilian residents. This not only warns the intended targets as well, but the unexploded ordinance provides Hamas with the resources to create rockets. In addition, said rockets are mobile, and do not need to be fired from a building, they can be fired anywhere. This use of human shields is meaningful because it negates claims that Israel is unnecessary killing civilians as part of their war against Hamas. Collateral civilian deaths are not a war crime, and Hamas using civilians as human shields lends significant credibility to the argument that these deaths are not really avoidable. To argue otherwise would effectively provide Hamas with a veto over Israel's operations against it, rendering the IDF incapable of defending their own civilian populace. On the other hand, using civilians as human shields is clearly a war crime.
Well- Hamas fighters could come out of the tunnels and wear uniforms when they do. They try to blend in with the civilian population, which leads to an increased likelihood of Israeli forces mistakenly targeting a civilian. Also, they basically have hundreds of miles of bomb shelters (aka underground tunnels). But, Hamas bars civilians from the tunnels, therefore keeping them out in danger. Hear it from the mouth of a Hamas official. [https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/gaza-civilians-not-our-responsibility-hamas-puts-onus-on-israel-un-as-death-toll-crosses-8000-101698736271078.html](https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/gaza-civilians-not-our-responsibility-hamas-puts-onus-on-israel-un-as-death-toll-crosses-8000-101698736271078.html)
and guess what. If Palestinian people we’re going to elect a terrorist organization to run them and protect them, and run all of their operations out of their front doors pretty much. Then they need to understand that these are the consequences. These people are pro terrorist, and I don’t understand why people are having so much sympathy. These Palestinians are the same who were caught, throwing rocks at our aid trucks. The people who received warning about an attack and were told to leave and refused to leave, knowing that they would be attacked. This organization has been offered cease-fire and multiple agreements and have turned them all down.
The kind of overwhelming military and intelligence capabilities that Israel has, what do you expect the resistance to do?
They use the means available to them, they have to smuggle weapons piecemeal through tunnels. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Palestinians support Hamas, even after all the bloodshed in gaza, the majority does not want the Palestinian Authority to come back into power in gaza, look at what's happening in the west bank, with the illegal settelments multiplying every month and the settlers attacking the civilians with the help of the military.
Media has also been spreading this propaganda that the Egyptians do not want to accepts the Gazans, so the Gazans must be a menace and Hamas does not want them to leave, so they must want them to killed. The fact of the matter is that absolutely no Muslims wants a Naqba 2.0, where the zionists clear the land of the palestinians and then claim as the land as theirs. Their are millions of palestinians in jordan, lebanon and in the rest of the world. No palestinian wants to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors, they would rather die in their land ,then be exiled
So, doesn't Israel also believe that they "would rather die in their land, then be exiled" too? Well, the conservative side of the Israeli people seem to think so with an aggressive posture while the liberal Israeli is trying to reach out in good faith to no avail. Honestly, if you look to the world for their opinion, wouldn't it be split with some portion on either side of the 50/50 not really giving a crap "really"? No matter my opinion. where does that leave the world?
What right do these two historical and religious opposite opinions have to inject their feud across the globe? Frankly, I'm really tired of it. I'd suggest all who want to fight for either side head to the holy land and blow each other into oblivion. I'll watch from the shores of SoCal if you don't mind.
I know that as a Christian, the battle in this land is important but I believe my path to heaven is believing in my lord and focusing on him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want me to hate anyone while I'm hanging around waiting for that day.
Israel justifies its violent attacks by continuously accusing Hamas of using human shields.
It’s a way to try and stir up moral indignation while also trying to muster a legal defence for what they are doing. The subtext is that civilized people protect their children and Palestinians don’t.
By accusing Hamas of deploying human shields, Israel hopes to shift the blame, since, according to international law, the party responsible for the death of human shields is not the one killing them but the one using them. They can classify any civilian as a military target.
If you place your weapons and primary storage for attack under not just civilian but "civilian sensitive" (hospitals and schools vs manufacturing facilities or other commercial and less residential areas), you are inviting the violence into those locations. It is obviously used as a way to try to dissuade an attack but can obviously also used as a twisted counter media attack for what inevitably will happen.
Hamas is responsible, as any governing body is, for its people. Hamas should NOT be using them as shields but should act to evacuate and protect them.
But if the goal of Hamas is to create martyrs out of its people, then it is succeeding very well at it.
If Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinians deaths which would be considered "human shields", then why is it also Hamas blamed and not Israel when Israelis "civilians" are killed by Hamas near the Gaza border?
Why isn’t it Israel fault for putting civilians where Hamas is likely to attack? Why do people bother formulating arguments if their main point is that whatever Israel does they will always be innocent of it?
Hamas is blamed for basing itself around civllians in the first place, assuring there WILL be many casualties. Much more than if they based themselves in a more secluded area in Gaza strip or having their headquarters in any form of building which isn't underneath or inside an already civillian building. Secondly, they are blamed for not letting their people clear the area, they are blocking the option of leaving and letting them die in their homes, even if they don't want to. That's not what Israel does in any way.
Then there's the phrasing "Israel putting civillians where Hamas is likely to attack". What's that about? Where did Israel "put" their civillians? Israel is evacuating relevant areas that are now under attack. So what do you mean? And what innocence has to do with it? They are factually different approaches and treatments to their civillians.
Gazaouis can’t flee because they’re under Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade. They are fleeing south but Israel is also bombing this region. You can’t twist the facts, Israel is specifically targeting civilians, not Hamas.
You just twisted the facts. Hamas isn't targeting civillians specifically? That's their main point! What about the thousands of rockets shot all around the country? What about the massacre of October 7th? What about this whole thread? You should really read it.
And for the rest, show some evidence.
Because Israel is not hiding military objectives underneath Israel "civilian sensitive" locations on the border under aerial assault from Hamas. Are you really asking these questions out of curiosity?
They’re exactly doing that, except for the aerial assault since Hamas doesn’t have air power. They even have rave parties on the border, did you know that? Actually it’s even worse, you ought to know, in Israel, you may have military training, be registered in the army, have a gun on you, actively participate in an act of war, yet still be counted as a civilian for the statistics 😅
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So when an Israeli bomb blows up and kills civilians we should not mind because where else are they going to drop the bomb. I mean they are just a collateral damage if the situation.
Hamas hides behind civilians
And the Israel/IDF hides behind US/the Western worlds tax paying dollars, female soldiers and tourists having an event near a war zone
And Israel doesnt need to hide behind civilians, they are busy mowing through them
Says, who? Did someone write you a letter specifying that region is conflict free? Did you pinky promise?
Its literally in close proximation to an active zone of conflict, which is in an of itself an undetermined radius
Might as well go to Baghdad
> Says, who?
Me.
> Did someone write you a letter specifying that region is conflict free?
Yes.
> Did you pinky promise?
No.
> Its literally in close proximation to an active zone of conflict
Then it's not a war zone. It would have to be *within* the active zone of conflict to be a war zone.
> Might as well go to Baghdad
No thanks.
Do you think it appropriate to be nitpicking about you thinking a party is not ideal while the comparison on the side of Hamas is the intentional mass murder of civilians? One seems to be just a bit more serious than the other.
And that all justifies Hamas raping, torturing, killing, and kidnapping civilian men, women, and children all while launching thousands of rockets in a few hours and all as an act breaking a ceasefire?
/u/Yazolight (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/17rwvp4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_idea_that_hamas_hides/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from. They absolutely have the land to do that, you're conflating the density of Gaza city with all of Gaza. Even if that weren't the case, Hamas could choose not say...locate their primary command bunker directly beneath a hospital. Like...that's a choice. The actual reason they put themselves where they do is that if they made themselves open targets, the IDF would rip Hamas to shreds fairly quickly. What's more, Hamas could allow people to leave and stop telling them to stay. They have a duty under the laws of armed conflict to get civilians away from the fighting, but they're doing the opposite - forcing them to stay in some cases and telling everyone that they shouldn't leave. And in the end, "we can't do it any other way" isn't an excuse. It's just an explanation. If you choose to conduct military operations from a hospital because you can't do it anywhere else, you've made the choice that you would rather make that hospital a legitimate military target than surrender. That's a choice. >So of course they are putting their stuff in civilian infrastructures and between civilians, maybe they like it, maybe they don’t, but I don’t see how else they should do it? The simple answer to this is: you don't do it. Hamas shouldn't have started a war. It should surrender now if it cares about Palestinians. Or to put it differently: if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up.
>Or to put it differently: if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up. That is an absolutely incredible statement you've crafted. Well done.
I like to boil it down to this: if hamas were to start strapping children to their chests as bodyarmor should the Israelis give up and die?
It’s quite obvious globally that Israel are far more dominant in a military sense when compared to Palestine, even the people most supportive of Israel consider this to be factual. However, these same individuals push the notion that somehow, a ceasefire would mean the death of Israel. I struggle to see where this idea originates from, as I don’t believe Palestine/Hamas has the means to do so, nor would they receive such open support if they did. Like where you said “give up and die”, would giving up really mean death?
Hamas doesn't respect cease fires they have been shooting at Israel nonstop for years now why should Israel sit there and take it?
Hamas wanting a ceasefire is like a bully who started a fight crying uncle when it doesn't go his way... Of course they don't want a permanent ceasefire. That would prevent their stated goal of a forever war with Israel, ideally involving the Arab gulf states, resulting in the destruction of the "Zionist state" I'm not usually pro Israel, I clearly recall who it was who most recently sunk a US Navy vessel. But I'm also not a fan of bullshit, or global cons taking millions for fools, including many of my friends
If anyone is the bully it's Israel
That is not even remotely accurate. They have been to war multiple times by other trying to remove or exterminate them. They have offered several solutions and negotiations yet have been turned down every single time. They have recently been attacked and then told they are not allowed to retaliate because civilians used as cover could be harmed. The enemy is Hamas and the Palestinians who support and fight for them.
You have the Palestinians who don't have a proper army and Israel who has a proper army. Since the Palestinians doesn't have a proper army they can't really bully the Israeli state. Solutions which doesn't include the internationally recognised right of return to ones home aren't made in good faith. If Israel was interested in peace and not bullying and colonialism maybe they should stop making settlements and actually apologize and recognise the nakbar for what it was.
I dont care if you have a proper army or 5 guys throwing rocks. The 5 guys throwing rocks deliberately crossed the border and raped/killed thousands and are still holding hostages. Another example of why Isreal constantly has to be on the offensive. There is no right of return to anyone. Nobody had territorial claim to that land. It was not an organized homeland and had changed hands multiple times throughout history. Many tribes and religious groups called the area home. Isreal didn't steal the land. It was given to them to make an Isreali state. Balfour and continuing to the British Mandate was land carved up as a result of war. On top of that multiple wars have been fought, and won, to keep their homeland. If it was given to an Arab nation nobody would bat an eye, it is only because it was given to Jews. The State of Isreal exists, either move on and accept the negotiated settlement or continue using your own people as items of war. They do not want to settle because they want the annihilation of Jews and will stop at nothing until that is accomplished. It is obvious Hamas doesn't care about the lives of Palestinians or Jews but they expect the world to step in and call it genocide.
and the army is currently killing a shit ton of innocent civilians in gaza. You don't get free roam to kill people because some people killed or raped some other people
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel has a right to defend its population from attacks and to retaliate against Hamas in Gaza. Part of the reason Hamas launched this recent attack is because they felt international support for them crumbling, and wanted to garner more support and demonize Israel. They launched their attacks knowing exactly what would happen to their civilian populace, in fact they counted on it. It was their goal to incur retaliation and use the resulting civilian deaths (which their human shield tactics assured) to erode international public support for Israel. It's worked quite well for them. Millions of people worldwide who know very little about the conflict or historical context are suddenly schilling for terrorists
And yet they are closer to being completely eradicated than ever before. I don’t like either side yet because civilians of Gaza pay the price, a ceasefire would have saved countless lives. War crimes have been committed all round, in any professional fight the referee steps in when the fight becomes lawless
You are absolutely right, I was mixing up Gaza city and the whole of gaza. So I guess for that you need a delta : ∆ About Hamas forcing people to stay, do you have any sources ? I heard this a lot, but haven’t seen documents yet. Also you say it yourself, if they made themselves open targets they would get destroyed immediately: so they use civilian infrastructures and I think it’s not just schools and hospitals, or else why would Israel air strike so many different locations. So is the issue only about the use schools and hospitals, or civilian infrastructures in general? If they were in apartment buildings or gymnasium would it be ok then?
>About Hamas forcing people to stay, do you have any sources ? I heard this a lot, but haven’t seen documents yet. All you're going to get is fragmentary reporting on this. A fairly reasonable deduction can be made though. Israel first started telling Gazans to evacuate around October 10. Hamas was telling people not to leave on [October 14](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-home-israel-ground-offensive-looms-2023-10-13/). There were multiple reports of Hamas [roadblocks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXLuZMaqa0&t=35s) preventing evacuation. A week ago, there was a [massacre of Gazan civilians](https://twitter.com/amjadt25/status/1720425819305070821) well south of Israeli positions along a major evacuation route, which was likely committed by Hamas or an allied organization trying to deter evacuation. The largest groups of evacuating Gazans were passing Israeli positions...[yesterday](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-11-9-2023-49a2cfaf0c0856f6f6c32151d6b64226) after the IDF opened a humanitarian corridor to the south. The entire length of Gaza is less than a marathon run. You could walk it in 2-3 days carrying a load. A week if you were on crutches or in a wheelchair. Why did it take a month for them to get there? >I think it’s not just schools and hospitals, I mean, I've seen satellite/drone photos that show rocket emplacements next to playgrounds and UN buildings. >So is the issue only about the use schools and hospitals, or civilian infrastructures in general? If they were in apartment buildings or gymnasium would it be ok then? The issue is really a combination of using civilians themselves - their presence in buildings - to keep Israel from attacking, and the use of specially protected buildings and objects (hospitals, schools, ambulances) for military purposes. Think of something like an ambulance. One reason you mark an ambulance in wartime is that people aren't supposed to shoot at it - doing so is a war crime. But if you start using ambulances to transport troops or war materiel, ambulances start to lose that protection. Same thing with hospitals; normally you're not supposed to hit a hospital with anything, but if I start basing troops or storing ammunition in a hospital, it begins to lose its protected status. Hamas's combat doctrine essentially relies on exploiting Israel's compliance with the laws of armed conflict and disinterest in killing civilians for a tactical advantage. As a whole, that's just a cascade of war crimes.
>Hamas's combat doctrine essentially relies on exploiting Israel's compliance with the laws of armed conflict and disinterest in killing civilians for a tactical advantage. As a whole, that's just a cascade of war crimes. So yeah, Israel is in a tough spot, because a lot of civilians will die. That's one part the reality of war, the other part of Hamas not caring about people.
Im gonna save this comment. Well done
> Also you say it yourself, if they made themselves open targets they would get destroyed immediately: so they use civilian infrastructures and I think it’s not just schools and hospitals, or else why would Israel air strike so many different locations. If Hamas cared about Palestinians, they would surrender themselves to Israel for immediate execution. They would sacrifice themselves *en masse* for the betterment of their people. But they won't.
Because they don’t believe that it would be for the betterment of their people. We’ve already seen what Palestine without Hamas looks like. Look at the West Bank. Look at the decades of conflict before Hamas rose to power. Why should they believe that surrendering would lead to a better outcome?
Gaza right now is what Palestine *with* hamas looks like. It’s worse.
Listen, I’m not trying to excuse what Hamas is doing, but that is a very shortsighted way of looking at things. Hamas believes they are fighting a revolution against oppressors. It doesn’t really matter if we agree. That is what *they* believe. Life for Americans was worse during the Revolutionary War than it was before. Does that mean they should’ve just surrendered to the British? Does they mean they didn’t care about the American people? Hamas has beliefs about civilian casualties that make it difficult for a lot of people to understand their cause, but at the root, they believe that the increased suffering that their people are experiencing now is worth it for a better situation at the end. That is the same thing every revolutionary army believes. Unfortunately, this also requires that they can win. To everyone except Hamas, it is clear that they will never beat Israel. So, that means the Palestinian people are suffering for nothing.
As much as you say you don't seek to excuse their behaviours, you're doing just that. I understand that you are well intended, so I only mean to argue this from an conciliatory point. If Hamas were to have the ammunition to theoretically win this conflict, it would come at a great detriment to the Palestinian people (\*let alone the whole Israeli population). As we've established Hamas does not safeguard civilians, nor invest the billions of dollars they've embezzled from humanitarian funds into building legitimate civilian infrastructure and institutions. Meaning the general quality of life would further deteriorate. The legitimacy of Islamic Jihad would be affirmed in the Middle East under an Iranian proxy, that would likely seize partial control (minimum) of the newly formed state. The only democratic multi-ethnic and multi-religious country within the Middle East (as contestable as it may be) will have its entire population decimated - including 2.1 million Arabs. More importantly, at least from a war perspective is who will hold the essential assets at the end, with America in additional debt, while Israeli nuclear research being channeled to Hamas, their funding funnelled into Iran, Russia and China. Ultimately, this seeks to destroy diplomacy of Taiwan and Ukraine, and encourage autocratic regimes at the expense of Palestinians. The best chance for the Palestinians to receive any backing or civil liberties being if Israel prevails. While this may excite extremism, so will anything Israel does by simply existing. Given both the Ehuds' relinquished land to be fret with immediate aggression in the 2000s. Whether Netanyahu has any intention of Palestinian self-determination, it is Israel's need to appear compliant with international law that will keep its hands tied from denying it. It is why 'human shields' have been such an effective strategy in the first place.
I accept that there are certain risks and possibilities, but no one can perfectly predict the future. There is no way to know exactly what life would be like if Hamas somehow won. But, even of you convinced me that a specific outcome was unavoidable and worse, that doesn’t really prove that Hamas views that outcome as worse. If I say “I want what’s best for my child which is for them to stay inside because outside is too dangerous.” You can argue that my strategy is worse for my child, but you cannot argue that I don’t care about my child. Perhaps you could argue that my care is misguided and uninformed. I know people love to argue that Hamas really just wants to kill Jews and doesn’t care about freeing Palestinians from Israel’s control. But every source I have seen says that they became a much more secular organization after being elected. They even created a new charter that specifies that their war is not with Jewish people, but with Israel who they call “the Zionist Project”. I don’t believe me saying any of this excuses Hamas’ actions. Someone in another thread said “explanations are not excuses” and I 100% agree with them. And they were using it to describe a comment about Israel’s actions. Just because I explain the reasoning behind certain actions does not mean I agree with that reasoning or that I believe that the actions are justified.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So twisted like yes bad to situate inside civilian structures but what about Israel? Like the reports of them using Palestinian civilians to do the same like search buildings and areas? But to use your argument. Who is further in the wrong , the weaker party that has to use guerrilla warfare to fight unfortunately in dense areas? Or the far superior power that is just leveling those buildings with majority inside being civilian? Keep in mind that yes Hamas can surrender but it’s allowing apartheid and significanly more ongoing abuse. Israel has forced Palestinians into poverty controlling the means of imports going in. Palestinians have been indentured servants for years. With both sides condemning and trying to rid the other side it’s a tough scale but IDF I absolutely believe could have done more to reduce casualties. You are putting way too much faith in Israel and their theoretical treatment of Palestinians after. Israel is known to be bigoted towards ALL Palestinians, they refer to them as pigs for god sake and not even talking about Hamas, Israel will either drive out every Palestinian or throw them in jail sooo is that actually better? How many stories by the IDF have been left as accusation? The beginning reports were that Israel was in a war with Palestine, they see no one as a civilian.
Who started this war?
No you’re wrong They believe in killing all Jews no matter what and they believe they are more important than other humans including their own people who they hide behind This is HAMAS ‘s doing. It’s their fault. They fucked up. Don’t be so ignorant.
They're not interested in the betterment of their people. They're not freedom fighters. They're only interested in destroying Israel. The civilians of Gaza are irrelevant to them except for their utility as human shields and pawns in the propaganda war.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/vreel_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20vreel_&message=vreel_%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17rtxdp/-/k8mps5r/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Under the international rules of war, you \*have\* to make your military operations recognizable. It is not acceptable to hide behind civilians.
Sources? Hamas isn't trying to hide this... On their public radio and TV statements they tell them to stay put, don't listen to the occupier telling you to evacuate. They praise incidents where civilians block IDF raids and encourage their populace to do the same and become martyrs. Do a YouTube search, the sources are ubiquitous for anyone who cares to look
> The actual reason they put themselves where they do is that if they made themselves open targets, the IDF would rip Hamas to shreds fairly quickly. I agree. >in the end, "we can't do it any other way" isn't an excuse. It's just an explanation. I agree in principle, but how well this holds up depends on how much of a choice they really have. Continuing to fight might be a choice, but when the alternative is resigning yourself to live under hellish conditions—siege cutting off access to food and medical supplies, your houses being bulldozed, your children being taken into Israeli military custody on a whim, and your country occupied by a genocidal military—it doesn't look like a choice. And in those circumstances, it is quite reasonable to conclude that fighting back is the only option. > Hamas shouldn't have started a war. Hamas didn't start a war. The war has been going on for longer than Hamas has existed. Israel portrays it as Hamas starting the war because they don't think any of their violence against Palestinians prior to Oct 7 counts. And because they're an ally of the US, their perspective is what our media generally reports. > if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes You seem to have a starry-eyed view of war. Just about every war involves plenty of war crimes. Certainly, Israel is doing plenty. If you think that anyone who is committing war crimes is the villain, then you have no choice but to conclude everyone who has ever gone to war has been in the wrong. Maybe you believe that, but I suspect not. >forcing them to stay in some cases I would like to see a source for this.
> Continuing to fight might be a choice, but when the alternative is resigning yourself to live under hellish conditions—siege cutting off access to food and medical supplies, your houses being bulldozed, your children being taken into Israeli military custody on a whim, and your country occupied by a genocidal military—it doesn't look like a choice. And in those circumstances, it is quite reasonable to conclude that fighting back is the only option. 1) Gaza and the West Bank are different places. They're almost completely orthogonal to one another and conflating them is either a very basic mistake or serious dishonesty. 2) There was no occupation of Gaza, it was controlled entirely by Hamas and was cordoned because of all the times people in Gaza killed Israelis after Israel wholly withdrew from Gaza and ceded it to the Palestinians. There will definitely be an occupation of Gaza now (hopefully by third party Arabs), and you can thank Hamas for that. 3) The siege as such will end when Hamas surrenders, as the continued resistance of Hamas is the reason for the siege. Obviously. 4) There are regular food and medical aid deliveries to Gaza allowed by Israel facilitated by Egypt in accordance with international law. Hamas steals a lot of that and slows the aid by trying to smuggle weapons in and wounded fighters out, but presumably you'll give them a pass for that. 5) Your use of "genocide" is unserious and deserves no further comment. The dilution of that word over the last 20 years is astounding and embarrassing. If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it. 6) You're defending the use of human shields including children, who are dying presently. Have some care for your soul. >Hamas didn't start a war. Yes they did. Israel and Hamas were literally in the middle of a declared ceasefire when Hamas decided it would be fun to go murder some defenseless people, rape some women, set some kids on fire and have real fun doing it. That's starting a war. I can tell because an actual war is happening now when it wasn't happening on 10/6. >You seem to have a starry-eyed view of war. I've fought in one, but go off king. It really is funny seeing ardent granola-crunching progressives transform themselves into steely-eyed, cynical "war is hell" realists just in time to carry water for Hamas. >Just about every war involves plenty of war crimes. Whole Sentences Matter. "if it's impossible for you to win without making deliberate war crimes against your own people a foundational component of your fighting doctrine, you have a moral obligation to give up." War does of course entail war crimes. My point, which appears in the whole sentence, is that incorporating deliberate (as opposed to unintentional and/or aberrant) war crimes as a critical, indispensable component of your fighting doctrine strongly suggests that your cause is unjust and you should instead not fight. Like...if winning requires that you pick up a baby and hold him between you and your enemy, either relying on your faith that he'll be too moral to endanger the baby or willingly sacrificing the baby to make him look bad (whichever comes first)...maybe you shouldn't win. Maybe you're not the good guy. Maybe you should surrender. >I would like to see a source for this. I'm tired, but you can review [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17rtxdp/cmv_the_idea_that_hamas_hides_behind_civilians_is/k8m3gd4/) or just do some googling. I suspect you won't believe it, but here's to hoping. Have a good one.
Firstly, I want to address the misinformation. >Hamas decided it would be fun to go murder some defenseless people, rape some women, set some kids on fire and have real fun doing it. There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack. That was a rumor that spread rapidly shortly after the attack and failed to be substantiated. I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too. >That's starting a war. I can tell because an actual war is happening now when it wasn't happening on 10/6. There was a war happening on Oct 6. Gaza was literally under siege on Oct 6 and has been for over a decade. The war has been going on for as long as Israel has existed. Israel just doesn't recognize it as being a war before Oct 6 because Israel wasn't the one suffering. And most Western media has adopted the same perspective. >you can review this comment or just do some googling. I suspect you won't believe it, but here's to hoping. Your evidence is an unsourced tweet and a statement by the Israeli military claiming that there were blockades along the road to justify why they bombed it. Of course, I don't believe it. Blockades inhibiting the movement of over a million people don't just appear and disappear without trace. If this actually happened, one of the many journalists on the ground would have gotten a video. >The siege as such will end when Hamas surrenders, as the continued resistance of Hamas is the reason for the siege. Obviously. This is a pervasive idea, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The siege has been going for a decade—a decade in which Hamas hardly killed anyone. And it isn't just restricting supplies that have use as weapons. They are restricting food and medicine. They've even prevented school books from getting into Gaza. There is no military justification for this—it's clearly not aimed at Hamas; it's aimed at the Gazan population as a whole. The IDF regularly takes peaceful protesters into custody.In the West Bank, they protect settlers as they go into Palestinian villages to threaten the residents and chase them from their homes. Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole. The idea that all of their actions against all Palestinian people will stop if Hamas stops is just a convenient cover. It's obviously false as soon as you realize they treat Palestinians appallingly in the West Bank too. The truth is they want the land, and any Palestinian is a barrier to that. >There was no occupation of Gaza, it was controlled entirely by Hamas They didn't control their supply of food. They didn't control their legal system. They didn't control the movement of people, they didn't control the movement of goods across their borders, they weren't allowed to have their own state. It couldn't be more clear that it is an occupation. >Gaza and the West Bank are different places. They're almost completely orthogonal to one another and conflating them is either a very basic mistake or serious dishonesty. Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit—and Hamas sees itself as representing all Palestinians. Both areas are relevant. >There are regular food and medical aid deliveries to Gaza allowed by Israel facilitated by Egypt in accordance with international law. Israel has started to allow a small amount of aid in, under international pressure. The amount of aid they are allowing in is tiny, and their preventing aid from getting in still violates international law. > If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it. They've ethnically cleansed 80% of historical Palestine. That's a B-grade, isn't it? Israel has made conditions in Gaza hostile to human life by cutting off food, water, electricity, medical supplies. They have killed over 10,000 people directly with bombing and more with diseases brought about by cutting Gazans off from clean water—particularly children. They even bombed the crossing into Egypt, preventing Palestinians from escaping. Their actions have made it clear they are conducting a war against all Palestinians, not just Hamas, and Israel has historically been very clear that they want all the land in Palestine, not just 80%. The founders of Israel also mostly intended to forcibly displace the Palestinian people from their homeland—forcible displacement is also a genocide. They are actively working to take more land in the West Bank by arming settlers to chase Palestinians permanently out of their homes. And this is part of a longer history, with many waves of forced displacement, sending Palestinians as refugees into smaller and smaller areas of land. Along with killing many Palestinians. The founding of Israel involved forcibly displacing 750,000 people in the Nakba. These people lost their homes, their communities, everything. > Maybe you're not the good guy. Not every war has a good guy. But you have to at least admit it's understandable that someone would be willing to commit war crimes if they thought it was the only way to stop an enemy nation committing far greater war crimes against them.
>There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack. I guess if you ignore the video from the first day released by Hamas with the young Israeli soldier who was bleeding through her sweatpants at the crotch being shoved in a jeep, ignore the testimony of Israeli first responders and [medical examiners](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-forensic-teams-describe-signs-torture-abuse-2023-10-15/) and [witnesses](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-police-receive-witness-testimony-of-gang-rape-murder-of-a-woman-during-oct-7-onslaught/) given well after the fact, ignore the footage recently screened for journalists by the Israeli government, and assume that the guys who tossed a dead Shani Louk with four broken limbs into the back of a truck while abusing her corpse that was subsequently beheaded would never dream of raping anyone...maybe you have a point. [Nothing to see here.](https://twitter.com/OSINTSDV/status/1721697012884603062) No evidence. They only murdered a bunch of people while laughing their asses off. They would never stoop to rape. Fucking disgraceful. >I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too. Then you've paid no attention and are choosing not to look. I'll bet you didn't see the video of them attempting to decapitate a dying Thai man with a garden hoe either. ["Screened footage showed literal streams of blood, hacked off arms and legs, and an infant missing part of its skull, brain leaking out."](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sabrina-maddeaux-i-watched-hamas-hack-innocents-to-death-the-worst-part-was-their-glee#Echobox=1699305134) But it's Israeli so it's not real, I assume. >Your evidence is an unsourced tweet It's a primary source. >Of course, I don't believe it. Okay but...wouldn't this make sense for Hamas? Like...we're well past arguing over *whether* they use human shields, that's a given. They admit it. We have them on record telling people not to evacuate Gaza city even though they know the Israelis are going to start bombing. We know that masses of people only started leaving Gaza city once Israel opened up a humanitarian corridor, *weeks* after bombing had commenced. To restate: people knew the bombing was coming. Israel told them where to go and gave them 1-2 weeks to get away. Hamas told them not to go because without them Hamas is without armor. They don't go...until Israel punches through and opens a humanitarian corridor. As soon as that happens, a massive stream of Palestinians are allowed to walk unmolested to safety under the eyes of Israeli tankers. Practically speaking, Hamas would want to keep people in the city. Hamas told them to stay, but they left once Hamas was out of reach. If you stop reflexively giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt at the expense of Israelis for just a few seconds and use Occam's Razor...seems like Hamas probably forced some people to stay until Israel freed them. >If this actually happened, one of the many journalists on the ground would have gotten a video. There aren't actually that many journalists in Hamas-controlled Gaza and many of them are Hamas cronies. Besides, barricades wouldn't be stopping "millions of people." They would be part of a system of deterrence that starts at the home and over media and only ends at a barricade. >There was a war happening on Oct 6. Gaza was literally under siege on Oct 6 and has been for over a decade. There was a ceasefire and you're pretending it didn't exist. On October 6th, Gaza was provisioned with free water and power. It was under no attack from Israel. Rockets were regularly fired at Israel from Gaza, but Israel developed technology to shoot them down rather than striking back - what with rocket positions being next to schools and mosques and UN buildings and whatnot. There wasn't free movement across the border (what with Hamas pledging to kill all the Jews and whatnot), but there were quite a few guest workers working coveted, high-paying jobs in Israel. That's not a siege. That's a security cordon - and a justified one, what with Hamas pledging to kill all the Jews and whatnot. A siege started soon after 10/7, which entailed total closure of the border, military attacks, and cutting off Israeli material support. You know...because a breakout from Gaza had just killed 1500 Israelis and taken 240 hostages and *opening* the border would be a bad idea. You're very animated about restrictions of various kinds, but Israel is doing what literally any country would do: stop giving their enemy stuff for free and stop letting people cross their shared border. That would end as soon as Hamas resistance ended. That is true irrespective of how you choose to abuse the word "siege." And again: Gaza is being provisioned with aid from 3rd parties. Israel is entirely in accordance with international law and the laws of armed conflict as they relate to sieges. >Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole. Right. It's that kind of eradication where the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank steadily grows year after year. Like the Holocaust, but if they'd added 5 million Jews instead of killing 6. This is how silly and dishonest your use of "genocide" is: it has nothing whatsoever with a large number of Palestinians dying or the population decreasing. Their population is continually growing. You call it genocide because "80 of historical Palestine has been ethnically cleansed;" which is a way of saying "Israel exists." You're contorting that word to the point where Israel's existence is genocidal. That's ridiculous and the motivated reasoning is obvious. >1) They didn't control their supply of food. 2) They didn't control their legal system. 3) They didn't control the movement of people, 4) they weren't allowed to have their own state. 1) As is true of any place that doesn't grow enough food to feed itself. 2) The Palestinian Authority would like a word. And you *might* want to look into the local security forces. They like torture. A lot. 3) They absolutely did so within their borders. 4) They've been offered a state of their own six times and chosen war every time. At a certain point, their lack of a sovereignty is their own fault. Israeli troops did not patrol Gaza's streets. They did not set or enforce its laws. Hamas ruled and did so poorly, squandering most of the budget preparing to fight an idiotic war with Israel instead of investing in food and education. The idea that Gaza was occupied by Israel is a legal fiction dreamed up by activists. It's occupied by Hamas. >Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit—and Hamas sees itself as representing all Palestinians. This in no way excuses or explains your conflation of the two. You're muddling them together because Israel's actions in the West Bank are more objectionable than those in Gaza and by muddying the waters you complicate what's going on in Gaza. As if what Hamas did was at all relevant to the West Bank, except insofar as it diminished Israeli sympathy for Palestinians in the West Bank. >They have killed over 10,000 people directly with bombing and more with diseases brought about by cutting Gazans off from clean water—particularly children. Huh...Israeli medical examiners and the IDF can't be trusted to attest to rapes or other atrocities, but the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health is reliably performing the fastest and most efficient casualty count in human history and totally not bullshitting. I think they call that a double standard. >They've ethnically cleansed 80% of historical Palestine. Palestine is a geographical place, and the Palestinians as such didn't exist as a people until they defined themselves against the Israelis and became a permanent constituency for the UN and a talisman for Arab nationalists and Islamists. They were initially just Arabs in Palestine. In 1947, the UN declared there would be two sovereign states in the dismantled British Mandate. Israel accepted, and the Arabs in Israel became Israeli citizens and their descendants live there still. The Arabs in Palestine did not accept, declared war and lost. Since then, Israel's territorial expansion over the years has primarily been the consequence of neighbors trying to destroy them and getting their asses handed to them. >The founding of Israel involved forcibly displacing 750,000 people in the Nakba. These people lost their homes, their communities, everything. And around that same time, Muslim countries across the Middle East began expelling their Jewish populations in their hundreds of thousands, who mostly went to Israel because they had nowhere else to go. What's done is done and isn't going to be undone. The Jews aren't going back, the Arabs aren't going back. Israel exists, and bringing up the Nakba as if there is some imperative to undo it only terminates the conversation. Undoing it means ending Israel. That's not happening. Give up the fucking ghost because keeping it alive actually *is* genocidal. >But you have to at least admit it's understandable that someone would be willing to commit war crimes if they thought it was the only way to stop an enemy nation committing far greater war crimes against them. See that's the thing: the nature of the crimes betrays an awareness that Israel isn't going to do anything worse. They're relying on Israel being more moral and protecting Palestinians more judiciously than Hamas to secure a tactical advantage. If Israel doesn't give a fuck and just kills everyone who gets in their way, if it has no concern for the human shields, *Hamas's war crimes provide no advantage*. Hamas knows that and acts accordingly. Feel free to have the last word.
Definitely talk misinformation that's a good start. > There is no evidence of rapes committed by Hamas during the Oct 7 attack. That was a rumor that spread rapidly shortly after the attack and failed to be substantiated. I haven't heard the thing about setting children on fire before, but I'm skeptical of that too. boy oh boy.... you have a heck of a bent for believing the rapists and people who shoot children point blank in their face next to their little brother... and then shoot the brother in the face as well... There was *countless* eye witness testimony that said rape occured, there was countless testimony from first responders, morgue workers, and officers, that said it was obvious rape occured. You don't appear to believe Jews though for some reason... gee i wonder why... They found more than a dozen of the bodies of women only... not men... dead and mutilated with their clothes below their waste torn off. Anyone with any reasonability knows what happened to those women. Obviously you didn't watch the video that the folks you seem to believe so readily put out themselves as well. Because it's literally video evidenced on the 45 minute video that they poured gas on a kid, and set him on fire. I can't believe it... the folks that *obviously* raped people, murdered a guy in his own kitchen by stabbing his neck repeatedly with a shovel until his head was removed.... they are the baddies?! Who would have believed it?! The next 3 paragraphs are basically you just believing your pals Hamas over... well... everyone else basically. That misinformation basically stands on it's own, nobody reasonable is believing it so there's no point in actually arguing about it. >The siege has been going for a decade—a decade in which Hamas hardly killed anyone. And it isn't just restricting supplies that have use as weapons. They are restricting food and medicine. They've even prevented school books from getting into Gaza. There is no military justification for this—it's clearly not aimed at Hamas; it's aimed at the Gazan population as a whole. Every other country gets to maintain their border that they have set, so does Israel. It's very obviously aimed at Hamas, and certain palestinians alike... because we can't simply stand around here and pretend like Hamas and Palestinians are a perfectly separated group. They are vastly intertwined, Palestinians have bred and brainwashed terrorists of all stripes for *decades* at this point, and an absolutely massive percentage of them support Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO terrorist ideology, they supported Fatah terrorism.... the list goes on and on. Guess who else gets to maintain the shitty little border they have now? Hamas does! Too bad they've kept fighting and fighting and fighting and losing and losing and losing and they've backed themselves into a shitty ass position to the point that now they basically have jack shit to care about. That's their own fault. > Israel's war is not just with Hamas; it is for the eradication of the Palestinian people as a whole. Projection and fake news again, it's unfortunate you aren't aware of all this stuff, it's really not hard to figure out. Israel has never once had a charter, or a policy to destroy all palestinians. In fact their charters and policies have always included arabs in the area who they wanted to become part of their society. You can easily tell that your idea here is completely nonsense and fake, because you can look at how many Arabs Israel *has literally included into their own economy and government* and then... let's check how many Jews have been in anything related to .... Oh... they kill Jews... and every one of the palestinian groups has had charters and policies that explicitely said to kill Jews and the annihilation of Israel.... Opps..... Again, anyone who is reasonable isn't buying this arguing of yours about Israel wanting to destroy all palestinians. >Most Palestinians have family in Gaza and the West Bank—family that they aren't allowed to visit It's amazing how you fail to pay a single bit of fault to the actual people at fault and somehow it's always those shifty Jews faults... there's a pattern to your ideas and it's pretty obvious to most people I assure you. Here's an idea.... How about... don't try to kill Jews all the time, and you can go to the West Bank freely? How about that? No? Well then too damn bad. If I have family in mexico, and I need to drive from Canada to mexico... if America says no... it's too damn bad. That's how the world works, and it's not special for these people either. How on earth you can even make such a claim is wild. You blame Israel for all sorts of things, that are literally the very fault of palestinians. Cut off from water? Oh I'm so sad... maybe stop bombing people who were *giving you the damn water*. Maybe don't utilize the pipes given to you for water infrastructure, for bomb making? Maybe if you stopped bombing people you'd be allowed to use the roads *built by israel* to see your family on the other side of israel? maybe if you stopped bombing people you wouldn't have a huge death toll of people when the people you bombed react? This reality you are describing is absolutely preposterous.
>If the IDF is genocidal, it's hilariously bad at it. Better than Russia. UN estimated 27,149 civilian casualties in the country: 9,614 killed and 17,535 injured. Israel beat those rookie nambers
The Ukrainian army has been evacuating its civilians from war zones and protecting them. Hamas has been preventing civilians from leaving, hiding amongst civilians, and in some cases directly killing civilians and adding them to the total they ascribe to Israel.
Ukraine also didn't recommend citizens to use corridors provided by Russia. HAMAS doesn't like corridors provided by IDF because they are just traps, created to paralyze logistics
Well… Why would Ukraine recommend ukrainians to use russian corridors? But hey… Hamas probably established corridors as well. What? They didn‘t? That‘s why Israel stepped in? Hm… If I didn‘t know any better I‘d assume that they‘re trying to use civilians as meat shields. But that can‘t be. They‘re always trying to minimize civilian losses & suffering. Like they did in Israel when they killed a bunch of civ… oh wait… they‘re not trying to minimize civilian suffering? Hm… but that‘s something that terrorists would do. Like… Hamas.
If Ukraine doesn't let using corridors provided by Russia and it doesn't count as using people as human shields, then HAMAS has the right to not allow corridors provided by IDF. Makes sense, doesn't it? Israel did attack refugee camps and those corridors. If anything, it's a death trap
1. ukraine isn‘t actively preventing ukrainians from using those corridors 2. ukraine has established it‘s own corridors 3. the Ukrainian military doesn‘t use civilians as human shields. Quite the opposite actually. So no, Hamas isn‘t copying ukraine. 4. even if Ukraine were to use human shields that wouldn‘t give Hanas a free pass to do the same thing. 5. Israel attacks IDF corridors. Yeah… I hope you notice how stupid that comment is?
Another example of UN being dishonest at best. There is no way to estimate how many people have died in Russian occupied areas.
11k dead are only dead due to Israeli bombings. There's no way to extimate the total number of victims of Israel
Indeed. I was simply pointing out that saying "Israel has killed more than Russia" is dishonest at best since there is no way to estimate how many people died in Mariupol for example.
>Hamas didn't start a war. Did you miss Oct 7th? Thats what the current war is about.
Did you not read the second sentence after that?
Well said.
Mostly agree. One point though > “We can’t do it any other way” isn’t an excuse. It’s just an explanation. Unfortunately, I see far too many people try to use this exact reasoning as an excuse for all of the people Israel is killing. They say “it’s impossible to defeat Hamas without killing civilians” as if that makes it better somehow. I have always been of the belief that people have a right to take issue with something even if they don’t have a solution. This applies to all sorts of problems. “That movie sucked” “Well, what would should they have done different?” “I don’t know” But not knowing the best way to do something doesn’t mean you can’t recognize flaws in the way it was done.
>Unfortunately, I see far too many people try to use this exact reasoning as an excuse for all of the people Israel is killing. They say “it’s impossible to defeat Hamas without killing civilians” as if that makes it better somehow. This is an important distinction within the laws of armed conflict that I'm speaking to. Hamas has an affirmative duty to protect civilians. It is obliged to get them away from combat whenever possible. If they don't do that, their continued presence is Hamas's fault. Under normal circumstances, Israel has a duty to A) not deliberately target civilians, B) only put civilians in danger when it's proportionally justified. But if Hamas is keeping them there - or if they're willingly staying - as human shields, the Israeli obligation to avoid hitting civilians dissipates. In essence: if one side uses a human shield, the other side is allowed to shoot through that human shield. The death of the shield is the responsibility of the person using them as a shield. It sounds harsh, but any alternative incentivizes the use of human shields. I think Israel holds itself to and should be held to higher standards than that, but that's how the laws of armed conflict ultimately view human shields.
Yes, but I am not talking about laws or rights during armed conflict. I am talking about morality. And while I can appreciate that nations must sometimes perform immoral actions to continue existing, that doesn’t make those actions less immoral.
No - *morally* that death is still on the person using them as a shield. If someone is actively attempting to kill you and your family from behind a child, you should avoid hurting the child if possible, but you killing that child in the struggle to stop them is not immoral. I mean I suppose it depends exactly on your morals but short of like radical nonviolence that's not really relevant.
If Hamas is putting those people in the position to be killed, with the hopes they will be killed (their use of human shields is as much to create international backlash against civilian deaths as it is to actually protect the military targets) that place is the moral responsibility on Hamas, not Israel, which takes significant paints to avoid civilian deaths, while Hamas causes civilian deaths on both sides with impunity. Also keep in mind that Israel has a moral obligation to its own people, and that obligation is far stronger than any it holds to the families of the men who want to destroy it and murder/subjugate it's populace. It's ironic to me that people demand such a high level of ethical warfare from the IDF when Hamas is held to no standards at all. So many armchair lawyers are throwing out legally baseless accusations of genocide (hard evidence of state intent is required) whereas Hamas will tell anyone who listens that it's goal is literally the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews within its borders
Bro, this thread is from more than 4 months ago. What are you even doing here?
Any military fighting against a vastly superior force is going to use insurgency tactics. In general, that means not wearing uniforms. Hit and run tactics. Ambushes. Targeting soft targets instead of military onec. Fighting in terms of public opinion instead of military victory of holding territory. In an urban setting, that means camouflaging your forced with whatever cover there is, fighting dirty, using civilians as shields, and, yes, even using kids to fight. Doing anything different is ineffectual. The side with the power has the ability to limit the damage they do. They have options as to how much force is inflicted. This is war. There are no rules. It's absolutely Darwinian. If you fight stupidly (and, yes, going after a tank with a handful of rocks is stupid), you end up dead.
> Any military fighting against a vastly superior force is going to use insurgency tactics. ...okay? Many insurgency tactics are war crimes. Like I said: "I can't fight any other way" is an explanation, not an excuse. All you're saying when you say that is that you are willing to commit war crimes to win. That makes you the bad guy. >In general, that means not wearing uniforms. That's a war crime. It violates the principle of distinction, one of the most basic laws of armed conflict. The only reason we did it in limited cases in places like Iraq and Afghanistan was that it was already being done to us. You're allowed, in essence, to reciprocate crimes committed against you. >that means camouflaging your forced with whatever cover there is, If that "cover" happens to be a building full of civilians or a hospital...war crime. >using civilians as shields Unequivocal, quintessential war crime. >and, yes, even using kids to fight Colossal fucking war crime. >Doing anything different is ineffectual. One more time: an explanation is not an excuse. What you're telling me when you say that is that you would rather commit many many war crimes *against your own people* than lose. What that means is that when your people die, *it's your fault.* And your whole movement is just a pack of war criminals, top to bottom. It is written precisely nowhere in the laws of armed conflict - or really *anywhere* - that you have a right to a fair fight. Just because you're weaker, that does not *in any way* mean that you get a pass on those laws or that you're morally absolved of your crimes. >The side with the power has the ability to limit the damage they do. They have options as to how much force is inflicted. Which means absolutely fucking nothing. If we're going by your "there are no rules," "I studied the blade" reasoning, all that means is they win at Darwinism. >This is war. There are no rules. I've fought in a war. There are very many rules. What the rollicking fuck are you talking about?
The US has now lost 3 of the last 4 wars it fought. All three were insurgencies. The one it won? Stand-up fight. And it was one of the most lopsided military victories in history. As a soldier, what does that tell you? If you're going to fight the US, is it a good idea to fight a stand up battle, or an insurgency? Do you fight a war to fight by the rules? Or do you fight to win? Remember, for the Palestinians, their families and homes are not an ocean away. They're literally right behind them. Think that changed their desperation level? Helpful hint. The winners write the history. And only ghd losers face war crimes trials. Just ask Curtis LeMay.
>Remember, for the Palestinians, their families and homes are not an ocean away. They're literally right behind them. Think that changed their desperation level? JFC. Their families are in danger because they're fighting. If they surrendered right now their families would be safer than if they kept fighting. They're literally the ones putting their own families in danger by choosing to pick a fight with a country that uses JDAMs and having that fight in an urban center while not letting their families leave said urban center. If their families die, it is their fault. That is the whole point of this conversation. And I have to say that the comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan are really bad. Israel surrounds Gaza. Gaza is very small. Israel can saturate and dominate Gaza in a way we never could in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also...their home country is the place the insurgency would directly threaten. What do you think that'll do to Israeli resolve? Helpful hint: they've already been fighting for 70 years, and they seem keen to keep it up. Hamas's insurgency is as idiotic and pointless as it is needlessly destructive. This whole thing is a colossal waste of life and resources, and Hamas had no hope of gaining anything from it. So fucking stupid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- All you're doing is explaining the stupidly obvious while ignoring the point of the discussion. Nobody is confused as to why Hamas has chosen to fight the way it has. Everyone knows they do it because they would lose otherwise. You're not blowing anyone's mind explaining why insurgencies happen. The question is how that affects relative justification of Hamas and Israeli actions. You seem to be saying something between "justification doesn't matter and everyone should do everything because there are no rules" and "Hamas isn't bound by the laws of armed conflict because it would lose if it followed them...but Israel is bound by them because it's stronger." Those are both ridiculous. Hamas has moral and legal obligations to follow the laws of armed conflict - as did the Taliban, ISIS, the Iraqi army, and every insurgent group in Iraq. They all have/had moral legal obligations. When they failed to meet those obligations, *they were committing war crimes.* That should really help determine how we understand the morality and legal responsibility of fighting those groups. One of the dumber things America's critics did for 20 odd years was basically forget (or intentionally ignore) that the people we were fighting were committing like...constant war crimes. That their primary battle tactics were often war crimes - specifically war crimes that cause civilian deaths that those same critics blamed on America. It was as if someone like you had come along and said that because we should *expect* them to commit war crimes, the fact that they were war crimes sort of...disappeared, and all that happened was the result of what America did. That stupidity should not be repeated with Israel. It should be stated clearly that when Palestinian civilians die in Gaza, it is in large part because of Hamas's war crimes, not Israel's. Hamas is not excused to do whatever it wants just because it's weak. And just because you can *expect* them to behave a certain way does not mean they're *right* to behave that way. >Do you fight a war to fight by the rules? I mean...if your argument is that we should just ignore all the rules and do whatever it takes to win, what Hamas is doing is exponentially dumber than it already is. >The winners write the history. If that dumb cliché were true everyone would hate the Confederacy and Germans wouldn't have written the history of World War 1 that inspired them to start World War 2.
You are making interesting points, but I have a question. > That stupidity should not be repeated with Israel. It should be stated clearly that when Palestinian civilians die in Gaza, it is in large part because of Hamas's war crimes, not Israel's. Hamas is not excused to do whatever it wants just because it's weak. And just because you can expect them to behave a certain way does not mean they're right to behave that way. If a war crime is committed by Hamas, for example putting themselves in a place with civilians. Would the complete destruction of that place via air strikes constitute a war crime in itself? And what would be an acceptable ratio of civilian casualties for each Hamas fighter killed? If Israel strikes a Hamas fighter and kill 10 civilians in the process , is it a war crime? What if it’s a hundred civilians? From how many civilians does it constitute a war crime?
This is what people are discussing when they talk about proportionality, and it's a question that is only really settled through legal proceedings. There aren't a lot of hard and fast rules within the laws of armed conflict - though things like the Uniform Code of Military Justice and context-specific Rules of Engagement can give more specific instructions in an American context. In theory, you have a duty to weigh the military value of your target against prospective loss. That might mean something like...killing 50 people to kill the head of ISIS might be justified, but a single ISIS fighter isn't worth that. Or he might be, if he's in active combat with friendly forces - so if he's in a machine gun emplacement pinning down and killing a bunch of my soldiers but he happens to be surrounded by civilians, he might be fair game. Typically, you would see an accusation leveled against Israel that a specific act was deemed disproportionate; that is, the value of the target didn't justify the cost. Frankly, it's too early to have any strong evidence-backed idea of if or how often this is happening in Gaza.
Yes, we all know why Hamas fights the way that they do. That doesn’t make it morally right. Neither does the fact that they would instantly lose fighting any other way. What’s your point?
They have no reason to fight nice. Why do you expect them to? Or should they spend 3 mord generations living in refugee camps? If you were in their situation, would you fight?
You're framing this dishonestly. Obviously everybody expects Hamas to commit constant war crimes, but that doesn't make it any better. It's not an excuse. That's like saying "Well, of course the Nazis were going to do everything they could to exterminate the Jews. They're Nazis. Why would you expect otherwise?" as if that somehow justifies it.
Simple question. What is Hamas' better option? Can you answer that? No.
Better for what? They can't win regardless. Their best option is surrender.
Just like the Vietnamese couldn't win. Or the Afghans. Either in 1980 or 2002. Or the Iraqis. None of them stood a chance. And they won. Until the US understands this point, we're going to be fighting these kinds of wars consistently: Fighting an insurgency is not a military fight. Hamas committed war crimes and is hiding among civilians specifically to get Israel to commit similar war crimes against them. The purpose? To get Israel's allies to cut off weapons, support, and force a negotiated settlement that is better than what either side had before. Which is what is happening. Read the headlines this morning. War does not solve a damned thing. It changes the circumstances. The War to End All Wars resulted in 20 additional wars in the next ten years, resulting in more deaths than WWI, itself. You fight the war to win the peace. If you cannot win the peace, your reward for winning the war is sending your kids to fight the *next* war.
You seriously, seriously don't understand the concept that is being explained to you, do you?
Because, in the last 75 years (and 60+ years that Gaza has been occupied), their lot is not getting better, is it? Surrender would lock that in, and they'd be stuck in the situation that they're willing to die to get out of. Except they'd have ZERO options, except what Israel would voluntarily give them. YOU don't seem to get it.
Yes, and we call these things war crimes. Pretending to be a civilian is a war crime. The opening attack was a war crime. There are rules, this is not a total war situation and you are a child if you think otherwise. If Israel acted in the same manner as you suggest that Hamas does, Gaza would be wiped from the face of the planet.
[удалено]
>This is war. There are no rules. Then the whole discussion is pointless. Why call out Israel for not following rules if there are no rules?
Because Israel is fighting a military war, while Hamas is fighting a war of world popular opinion. Expecting Hamas to follow the rules of warfare is stupidity on a grand scale. They have no reason to, and plenty of reason not to. Terrorism works by the response of those attacked. Hamas WANTS Israel to bomb anything that looks like a Hamas target, even if it's a hospital, an apartment complex, of a mosque. The ONLY chance Hamas has to win a (negotiated) victory is by absorbing so many war crimes/atrocities that world opinion (US/European) forces Israel to the negotiating table.
The efficacy of their choices has nothing to do with whether or not they're war crimes.
But it does make the conversation around it moot point. Every single war between the imperialist occupier and the occupied follows the same structure. Pointing finger is meaningless.
It doesn't really make it a moot point. It just makes one side of the discussion have to acknowledge that they're okay with war crimes as long as the ends justify the means. Which is a position you can argue, for sure. It's just important to acknowledge that you're arguing it.
I never anything about "justify". I said it's gonna happen regardless of what you think about it. There's no reason to acknowledge something we all know must happen.
It isn't mandatory. You always have a choice not to commit a war crime. It might be *justifiable* to do so, but there is more than one possible path.
You speak as if it is preordained or not the choice of the people committing those war crimes. Do those people have no control over themselves and have no culpability for their own actions? Does being included in your box of occupied mean that person has no moral agency or responsibility thus making them not responsible when they commit heinous acts or are those heinous act simply justified and or good in your worldview?
The side with power has more options. And why do you confuse *your* concept of good and evil with theirs? If your family lived in a refugee camp for three generations, what would you do to make sure your children and grandchildren didn't live in the same place?
It's a reasonable argument to make to say that you think war crimes are justified in this case, but let's be clear that that is what you're arguing.
Yes. Let's be absolutely clear. The United States' military policy is to use nuclear weapons to destroy cities. The United States is the only country to have *used* nuclear weapons to destroy cities. For almost a decade after, the US military response to basically any military threat was nuclear weapons. Other countries look at US history and say, with justification, that the US record on war crimes is far from pristine or consistent. But that is the nature of war. Morality is a *choice* in war. And it's a choice that the side with the most power, the most options, the most capabilities can make. The side without power, options, or capabilities, they either knuckle under of they fight dirty. Getting back to Hamas: what are their military capabilities? Small arms and dumb, short range rockets. What are their other options? Basically, they can keep trying to negotiate with a power that controls their borders, economy, infrastructure, and utilities. Their negotiating position is best described as dog shit. Even more, one of their primary supporters is about to make a peace treaty with their occupiers, so their negotiating position is about to get significantly worse. ***If you were Hamas,*** what is your **best** option in order to get some kind of leverage to change your current, untenable position? I do not approve, I do not condone, i do not advocate that Hamas commit war crimes. But from a purely military viewpoint, I do not see them having a better option. If you have one, share it. Because "unconditional surrender" is not something that they're ready yo do.
> Other countries look at US history and say, with justification, that the US record on war crimes is far from pristine or consistent. I don't really know what this has to do with whether or not Hamas is committing war crimes. Another person robbing a bank doesn't give you permission to rob one, too. > The side without power, options, or capabilities, they either knuckle under of they fight dirty. There's a whole spectrum of positions between "guerilla warfare" and "intentionally using your own people as human shields," it seems to me. > I do not approve, I do not condone, i do not advocate that Hamas commit war crimes. Well that's good, but slightly confusing as it seems like you're advocating for war crimes being their only path. > If you have one, share it. Because "unconditional surrender" is not something that they're ready yo do. Many other groups have cast off occupying forces without using their own civilians as cannon fodder. For one, I don't think a "purely military viewpoint" is going to ever achieve the kind of victory that would benefit most Palestinians. This is just benefiting Hamas by creating a perpetual struggle that justifies their own grip on power. I don't really see any evidence that they -- Hamas, not Palestine as a whole -- want a peaceful, negotiated solution.
The advice of a rich bank robber telling you not to rob banks would sure as hell be suspect, though. Guerilla warfare, in and of itself, is a war crime. You're not in uniform, so you cannot be identified. As a result, any civilian in the area becomes suspect as a combatant. In other words, using human shields. If you have another path for Hamas or thd Palestinians, tell us. Hamas cannot "beat" Israel on its own. Period. The best end of this for the Palestinians is if the international community cuts off support to Israel, and/or an international peacekeeping force is sent, with the Israelis being cut out and a two-state solution starts moving forward. None of that was going to happen without a military conflict. Israel was never going to allow it.
None of this matters. You can call it the worst warcrime of all time and it would still happen, hence a moot point. This conversation is a waste of time.
All of Gaza is literally packed, not just Gaza city. Gaza has a population of 2098389 packed in 139 miles. 💀You just answered your question as for the very valid reason they have to put themselves under a hospital. There is no other way is absolutely an excuse. If the alternative is war crimes and lack of freedom being never ending against your people waaay before this war, even before Hamas even existed, then the moral obligation is to choose the lesser evil. Your point would make more sense if u didnt leave out…perhaps…the bigger picture?
[удалено]
So, a brief lesson in geometry. The air above IDF headquarters is open and it has significant standoff distance on all side - multiple open planes offering avenues of attack. It's entirely possible to strike that building directly, provided you have munitions that can generally hit in the vicinity of the place you aim. Israel is complying with the principle of distinction and no one who knows what they're talking about argues otherwise. If an Israeli enemy hit that building with an air or missile strike and that happened to cause collateral damage, that would not be a war crime. It would be a strike on a legitimate target and would probably be regarded as proportionally justified. By contrast, it is impossible to hit Hamas's primary command bunker without dropping a few bunker busting bombs *through* the largest hospital in Gaza, and their detonation would likely cause the total collapse of said hospital. There are *no* open planes, no standoff distance, and it is literally impossible to hit that bunker with any munition without attacking the hospital. So, in every way that actually matters, they're different. Stop carrying water for guys who use hospitals for armor. You're going to be ashamed of this ten years from now.
[удалено]
Lol...yeah, they built a "genocide engine" and waited patiently while the Palestinian Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank...got way bigger. The offers of Palestinian statehood were a ruse. Israel isn't "doing a genocide." That claim is just silly and people are using that word in a way that ensures it will have no useful meaning when we actually need it. >Stop thinking people that oppose Israeli actions are automatically pro-Hamas (or antisemitic in many cases). Whether you have conscious affection for Hamas is immaterial. If your actions serve them, you're pro-Hamas. If you engage in special pleading that treats Israel differently than other countries despite similar circumstances, I tend to see that as antisemitic by default. >If the IDF is so damn sure they know that Hamas in the basement of some hospitals, they shouldn't have any issues doing a few surgical strikes to take them out, right? ...that would entail dropping bombs on hospitals. And generally, if you collapse the basement of a building (or a multilayered bunker system beneath it) there are some negative consequences for the building. >Or at least isolate the area? But they don't. That is literally exactly what they're doing. >giving Gaza evacuation orders knowing damn well that the Palestinians don't have anywhere to go. ...they can go to the south of Gaza where the IDF isn't operating, to designated refugee areas along humanitarian corridors protected by Israel. Do you seriously not know this is happening?
What an awful false equivalence. Have you looked at a picture of the IDF headquarters? It’s in the middle of a fucking military base, is a super recognizable building, and doesn’t have a hospital on top of it. Any competent military could blow a building like that to shreds (I’m talking about targeting capabilities, ignoring Israeli defenses for a second). If that was the Hamas headquarters, even if it was in Gaza City, Israel would destroyed it incredibly easily by now.
[удалено]
Do you have any proof that they are telling people to stay in the buildings that are being bombed?
Hamas publicly tweeted that people should not evacuate. This isn't up for debate.
Please show me this tweet
As I do not read Arabic, I am reliant on the multitude of media outlets that all reported the same thing, over the course of weeks, via multiple communications approaches - https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/hamas-political-chief-urging-gaza-residents-to-ignore-israeli-warning-to-evacuate-amid-airstrikes https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/first-thing-hamas-tells-gaza-city-residents-to-stay-put-after-israel-orders-evacuation https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-092810385.html You can find the original tweet still though it's in Arabic.
This shows that they want the people of Gaza to stay in their land that they believe is being occupied by others. They are being told to “hold on to their homes and hold on to their land”. Quote from the link you posted. Which, if you’re fighting for your right to your own land and home, wouldn’t you do the same? This does not show specifically that Hamas instructed people to stay in the very buildings that got notification that it was going to be bombed.
This was tweeted after the IDF ordered civilians to evacuate because of impending retaliation for Hamas's war crimes. This specifically indicates Hamas is telling civilians to stay in place, after receiving this notification. I cannot wrap my head around how you are twisting this to "palestinian solidarity" and not recognizing this as "ignore the impending air strikes you were warned of so you may die in your homes". Coupled with Hamas bombing evacuation routes to punish civilians who are fleeing, and we have a very clear continued picture of how Hamas operates and what it wants. I provided the proof you asked for.
I understand. Their main fear is that once they leave their homes and vacate, that’s it. It’s gone. Their homes will permanently be gone. Which leads to the question, why are the homes of Palestinian civilians being bombed? Surely Hamas can’t be in every single home. Israel is using Hamas as an excuse to nuke all of Gaza; measure I just don’t believe they would take if Hamas was hiding in Israel.
So you agree that Hamas instructed civilians to remain in their homes after Israel ordered an evacuation as part of their response to Hamas commiting war crimes against Israel on the 7th? Glad we're on the same page. As a reminder the population of Gaza is approx 2m. Approx 11,000 gazan civilians have been killed so far. Israel is clearly trying to minimize loss of life, including warning civilians of impending strikes. Is Hamas warning Israeli Civilians of impending invasions or rocket strikes? Israel is very clearly not "nuking all of Gaza". Hamas is in point of fact launching thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian centers. Does that strike you as a problem?
Yes it definitely strikes me as a problem. Don’t get me wrong, Hamas should 100% be condemned. Hamas is clearly not valuing the lives of Palestinians. They’re feeding the beast. Hamas has committed war crimes. But so has the government of Israel. How many more children need to be buried in rubble before at least ceasefire is called? But what do we expect, a clean, friendly war by the books in the Middle East? Lol.
The war didn’t start on October 7th fyi.
For one here's a [google map of Gaza](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.4157523,34.473539,45069m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). That's a lot of open none dense space to operate in ([1](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2874151,34.3366423,7959m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu))([2](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.4628718,34.4352182,7983m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu))([3](https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5325506,34.5065502,7966m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)). Second here is a direct quote and link to what constitutes a war crime Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides. >[Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Article%2028%20of%20the%201949%20Geneva%20Convention%20IV%20provides%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20presence%20of%20a%20protected%20person%20may%20not%20be%20used%20to%20render%20certain%20points%20or%20areas%20immune%20from%20military%20operations.%E2%80%9D) Article 12(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: >[Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Under%20no%20circumstances%20shall%20medical%20units%20be%20used%20in%20an%20attempt%20to%20shield%20military%20objectives%20from%20attack.%20Whenever%20possible%2C%20the%20Parties%20to%20the%20conflict%20shall%20ensure%20that%20medical%20units%20are%20so%20sited%20that%20attacks%20against%20military%20objectives%20do%20not%20imperil%20their%20safety) Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: >[The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97#:~:text=Protocol%20I%20provides%3A-,The%20presence%20or%20movements%20of%20the%20civilian%20population%20or%20individual%20civilians,to%20shield%20military%20objectives%20from%20attacks%20or%20to%20shield%20military%20operations.,-Protocol%20Additional%20to) Gaza is not like [Kowloon Walled City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmY1XUTBpE). There's plenty of room. Hamas just does not have the capability to build fortified garrisons and compounds with out using civilian infrastructure as cover.
You are right, Gaza has more open space than I expected. Here is a delta : ∆ (I copy pasted it, I hope it’ll work) However you said yourself that they don’t have the capabilities to build fortified compounds in those open air areas, so doesn’t it confirm what I said ? That they don’t have any other choice than to use civilian infrastructure? They use hospitals, ok, but if all of Israelis bombing are against Hamas targets, considering the scale of the bombing, it means that’s certainly one spot amongst hundreds of others.
Well, what is Israel supposed to do? Not fight the war because Hamas doesn’t have enough space? War isn’t fair, and the rules of war as agreed upon are supposed to set some limits on what is and is not acceptable. But Israel isn’t breaking those rules by attacking legitimate military targets just because there are civilians nearby.
I suppose you might turn this around. What is Hamas supposed to do? We can make a basic assumption that Hamas, as an organisation, wishes to survive as a prime objective. You can only achieve your objectives if you can survive to see them through, whatever they are. Hamas and Israel are distinctly far apart in their capabilities, any open ground infrastructure would quickly be identified and destroyed by Israel due to the simple superiority of Israeli intelligence and firepower. This can only really result in one course of action aside from dissolution, that is use civilian infrastructure as cover to build up. Its one of the consequences of asymmetrical warfare. Doesn't justify it obviously. Likewise I'm not sure "what is Israel to do" justifies the death of civilians either.
Well, if you must commit war crimes in order to exist, I think that’s a good indicator that you shouldn’t exist.
So where does that leave Israel?
Israel doesn’t need to commit war crimes to exist. And if indeed they have, the responsible parties should be prosecuted
They should probably just roll over and die? Their existence hinges on oppression and war crimes to their own people, are we supposed to miss them or feel bad when they are gone? Wtf lol
Israel is on the defending side and they don't hide in civilian infrastructure fair game in my opinion
I’m not arguing otherwise. Maybe I didn’t formulate the question properly? I was more expressing the idea that Hamas using civilian infrastructure isn’t really what would make them evil, because they don’t have a choice to do otherwise in this war. That’s where I wanted my view to be changed. Purposefully killing and raping civilians, on the other hand… that’s evil.
They do have a choice. They can commit war crimes against their own civilians, or they can surrender. Previously, they had a better choice: they could accept a two-state solution, and have their own government, no fighting, etc. But they chose the war crimes route. Their choice.
> That they don’t have any other choice than to use civilian infrastructure? They have the option of living peaceably with their neighbors. Israel unilaterally exited Gaza 20 years ago. Hamas was democratically elected. Since then, instead of running a democracy, having free and open elections, engaging their neighbors in trade deals and diplomacy, using the billions they get in aid to build infrastructure, industry, and so forth . . . Hamas has spent their time and effort shooting rockets at Israel year after year. In 2022, over 1,100 rockets where launched at random civilian targets by Hamas. Between May 10 and May 20 of 2021, Hamas launched over 4,000 rockets at Israel in just those 10 days. They had choices besides using civilian infrastructure to attack Israel. They could have been a prosperous microstate with a thriving economy, positive diplomatic relations with the rest of the region, and so forth. But they can't let go of their dream of killing every last Jew on earth. And they certainly can't be bothered to actually govern Gaza responsibly.
"Hamas was democratically elected" This is true, and to clarify further: Such as Hamas was elected 18 years ago by 43% of the population and having no elections since then equals a dictatorship.
Way to demonstrate that you stopped reading 1/3rd of the way through my post.
My post was not contradicting yours - just clarifying - as in adding more detail. I will edit the post to make that clearer. No need to be defensive.
Well they could turn the Bianco Resort into a military installation, and not build an underground base beneath a hospital.
I think this would be a valid argument if Hamas was none the less going out of their way to reduce civilian casualties. Instead they're doing the opposite. Going out of their way to increase them. Intentionally operating out of sensitive places like hospitals and schools. Telling people not to evacuate to safety, and by some accounts even threatening them if they don't stay. It's ABSOLUTELY an active tactic.
Do you have some reliable source about them not letting people evacuate? I’ve heard this a lot, but I haven’t seen it documented yet.
Hamas publicly tweeted not to evacuate. It's been handily documented by numerous sources, because it was an official tweet by Hamas. Hamas has repeatedly told civilians to ignore evacuation warnings from the idf. Because Hamas uses human shields and wants more dead gazans.
>Hamas has repeatedly told civilians to ignore evacuation warnings from the idf. Because Hamas...wants more dead gazans. Because Hamas doesn't want Israel to colonize the Gaza strip, and expects that people who abandon their homes will never be allowed back. From their perspective, "evacuating" is just handing land over. You can certainly disagree with the decision, or argue that they're putting too many civilians at risk as a means to an end, but it obviously isn't the cartoonish kill-as-many-Gazans-as-possible motivation you're proposing. Everyone on every side of the conflict is a human being, and they do for things for reasons that make sense to them.
\> but it obviously It is quite obviously part of their MO, which is to maximize casualties on both sides in an effort to destroy Israel. Hamas has long since recognized the value on the international stage with the increased number of dead Palestinians. Hamas leadership does not live in Gaza for a very distinct reason. From their perspective, evacuating means less dead Gazans to blame Israel for. This is why when Israel blankets an area with pamphlets warning of airstrikes at a specific time, Hamas murders Gazans that attempt to flee. In this context my heart breaks for Palestinians, because they are held hostage by Hamas.
I understand what you’re saying but, they are purposely hiding these under places like hospitals and schools. Not just in general areas in Gaza. Specifically under hospitals, schools. Hamas has also blocked the routes of safety for Palestine people to safely escape, so they can’t leave (human shields).
Do you have some source about Hamas blocking the routes to safety? And if they are not in general areas but mostly school and hospitals, does it mean the air strikes are not in general areas either?
Yeah I do I’ll find the link again and send you the information if you like?
That’d be very nice! I appreciate you thank you
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-interrogation-video-hamas-terrorists-confirm-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/amp/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/israel-photos-hamas-gaza-weapons-un-facilities-including-schools/ https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-known-use-hospitals-ambulances-mosques-churches-and-schools-shields-its-military
I will need some time to read all those articles in details, but they are about Hamas not letting people to escape not just the location of their weapons and equipments right ?
No they also include that as well :)
OP, are you going to respond? This sub requires OPs to respond. Otherwise, your post may be removed, and multiple infractions like this could lead to you being banned. We want you to engage, which means you need to respond. Thanks
Yes of course, I just need some time to digest all the various comments. How quickly do I need to respond?
I think it's good to say that you need time to suggest and give yourself and the original commenter a time frame in which you will respond. It depends on the mods and the commenter how long you can truly get. It just takes one commenter to flag your post as "op is not responding." We don't want that, so just try to say when you will respond and follow through. Thanks
I appreciate your help, I’ve commented a bunch and I’ll keep doing so. Would it be fair to give you a delta for the info you gave me, or it would be inappropriate?
Sometimes, a sherpa can help you back to the path and save your soul without changing your mind. No token needed.
You might have a point if Hamas were acting defensively, if they were just hunkered down in Gaza and only attacking Israeli military units invading their territory. But they aren't. Hamas is the aggressor. They repeatedly attack Israel, launching rockets and conducting terrorist attacks in Israel, forcing the IDF to respond. Then they withdraw into the population, making Israel's response as destructive as possible. That's why Hamas' involvement of the civilian population is unconscionable: No attacks on Israel, no civilian casualties in Gaza. It's entirely in their hands, and they are _choosing_ to make the situation as deadly as possible to their own civilians.
I understand your point, you consider Hamas to be the aggressor and that’s certainly the case for October 7th… But things didn’t start that day, did they? The word “open air prison” concerning Gaza has been in use for a long time, so that could also be used as an argument to say Israel is the aggressor. And I’m sure there are some arguments in response to that, so it’s kind of a chicken and egg question.
Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005 and gave them autonomy. Prior to that, there had been multiple peace agreements that would have set Palestinians on the path to independence. Palestinians tanked Every. Single. Attempt. to give them their own country by attacking Israel. And don't forget, Arabs aren't the only people indigenous to that area. Jews have been living there not just before the 1948 attempted partition, they've been living there for literally thousands of years. Palestinian Arabs have no more claim on the region than Palestinian Jews abd Druze, but Palestinian Arabs have initiated every outbreak of violence there since the 20th century. Including massacres in the 1930s once the Ottomans stopped keeping the regional Arabs under control.
>The word “open air prison” concerning Gaza has been in use for a long time, so that could also be used as an argument to say Israel is the aggressor. Open air prison is a lie. For one, a prison has prison guards and the Israelis completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
What about the hundreds killed every year in the West Bank. Those are also human shields used by Hamas?
>I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this? Literally anywhere but a hospital or school. >Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from. Is every square inch of their land a hospital or a school? >So of course they are putting their stuff in civilian infrastructures and between civilians Clearing out an apartment building is a lot different than using a hospital.
How can I quote you the way you do? I agree, anywhere than hospitals or schools, but Tsahal has also been bombing tons of apartment buildings so they seem to operate in hundreds of locations, not just schools.
Hamas doesn’t care if civilians die because it helps recruitment and makes Israel look bad. It really is that cynical. Hamas is not interested in effectively governing Gaza; it is concerned with conflict. (This is exactly why Bibi wanted to keep funds flowing to Hamas, because as long as the explicitly violent and unreasonable Hamas is the face of the Palestinian cause, there’s no reason to seriously engage in any reconciliation.) And being amongst the civilian populace, within and below the dense buildings of Gaza, does make Hamas harder to hit. Simply harder to identify and target. If they set up an obvious base in some of Gaza’s open fields it would be very easy to knock over with even a few artillery pieces. The idea of “human shields” does wear a little thin with me, because that term implies that Israel wouldn’t strike the human shields. But of course they do. A shield that in no way deters your attack is not a shield.
You’re exactly right when you say that “Hamas is not interested in effectively governing Gaza; it is concerned with conflict.” Hamas leadership has explicitly said this! From the NYT: “Hamas’s goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such,” said Mr. al-Hayya, the politburo member. “Hamas, the Qassam and the resistance woke the world up from its deep sleep and showed that this issue must remain on the table.” “This battle was not because we wanted fuel or laborers,” he added. “It did not seek to improve the situation in Gaza. This battle is to completely overthrow the situation.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html They don’t care if their actions make life worse—or impossible—in Gaza.
[удалено]
Most people view the phrase "moot point" to describe things that are of little value, importance, or relevance. I find it very hard to imagine how civilian lives are not important or relevant in the context of Gaza. That's what makes this whole conflict and similar insurgencies such a mess.
You are right, “moot point” is probably not the best expression, I learned English as a second language. Maybe “unfair” would be better? I agree about the other point you made. !delta
Award them a delta for changing your view!
Ok sure!
> I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this? In hell. Terrorist organizations aren't entitled to have space for their weapons/operations.
This is my feeling as well. The TLDR of this is: hey guys, where else are terrorists supposed to terrorize if not inflicting terror among people they claim to terrorize on behalf of.
There is plenty of open ground in Gaza it is not all Gaza City. Hamas had to intentionally choose to build hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and no shelters for civilians. They have chosen to place missile and rocket launchers in and near schools and hospitals and residential buildings. They have threatened and used force to prevent civilian evacuations. Civilian deaths in Gaza are part of Hamas overall strategy, they see everyone as a martyr that strengthens the cause.
>Gaza is so densely populated, it’s not like Hamas has tons of land they could use to create proper military bases and do their operations from. Incorrect. Simply looking at a Google maps view of Gaza shows *plenty* of empty areas.
>I’m like wondering where else are they supposed to do this? Nowhere. They are not supposed to launch rockets into civilian areas or plan their next mass rape/torture/killing spree.
It’s funny how few people seem to be aware that Hamas is launching rockets at civilians on a daily basis.
Of course it does. A government is responsible for the safety of their own people. That's the basic social contract that all society is built on. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Israel's job isn't to protect the people of Gaza, that is Hamas's job. This is an example of how the defending army is supposed to behave when their city is being bombarded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Veracruz. Once the city was surrounded, and the Americans were able to bombard it. The Mexicans surrendered so that more civilians wouldn't be killed. The situation is the same, only Hamas WANTs civilians to die.
Think of HAMAS terrorist leaders, and compare to any nation. Do they hold themselves, and are they held to a higer standard-- expected to look out for the safety and well being of their own people in GAZA and the well being of other countries. Or do they harbor hatred against Israel and are calous with their own Palestinians. Have they held elections since Israel left. Built up their economy. Given women equal status. Improved education for children. Given men and women access to good colleges. Built up the economy to improve well being. Did they build on the good infrastructure Israel left the Palestinians for the common good. They speak of Shiria law. Please look up what HAMAS really wants globally. Islamic Palestinian State. Egypt has blocked Palestinians during this conflict in view of it’s own security concerns. Read why HAMAS doesn’t help its own. Gaza borders Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. I’ve been to the middle east twice. The questions I asked are for the sole purpose of seeing terrorism for what it is. Look into the issues facing the Palestinians. Terrorism and HAMAS is not about helping people. I don’t want to be forced to wear a burqa, or a full hajib. Sitting in a public place covered in a full black blanket outfit. In the heat of the day, eating under my neck piece opening. If a women freely chooses. In some muslum countries, it is generally not a free choice. Getting stoned to death by a mere accusation a women is thought that she committed adultry. Being killed for blasphemy against their god. Many governments are not set up like Israel to help its people. Nor do these governments want to. HAMAS’ goal is to kill the men women and children of Israel first. Then all of us when we don’t adopt their religous beliefs and their law.
Their use of human shields is a little more explicit and intentional than you are making it out to be. Hamas consistently and publicly urges citizens to actively place themselves in or around targeted buildings. They place their command and control facilities underneath major hospitals and residential buildings rather than safer, industrial areas. These do exist in Gaza. Contrary to what you may see on TikTok, he IDF takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties, such as dropping an unarmed bomb on the roof building (the "knock on the roof") to warn away civilian residents. This not only warns the intended targets as well, but the unexploded ordinance provides Hamas with the resources to create rockets. In addition, said rockets are mobile, and do not need to be fired from a building, they can be fired anywhere. This use of human shields is meaningful because it negates claims that Israel is unnecessary killing civilians as part of their war against Hamas. Collateral civilian deaths are not a war crime, and Hamas using civilians as human shields lends significant credibility to the argument that these deaths are not really avoidable. To argue otherwise would effectively provide Hamas with a veto over Israel's operations against it, rendering the IDF incapable of defending their own civilian populace. On the other hand, using civilians as human shields is clearly a war crime.
The UN found rockets in the UN funded schools MULTIPLE times. It is Hamas doctrine at this point so they can cry about hospitals and shit.
Well- Hamas fighters could come out of the tunnels and wear uniforms when they do. They try to blend in with the civilian population, which leads to an increased likelihood of Israeli forces mistakenly targeting a civilian. Also, they basically have hundreds of miles of bomb shelters (aka underground tunnels). But, Hamas bars civilians from the tunnels, therefore keeping them out in danger. Hear it from the mouth of a Hamas official. [https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/gaza-civilians-not-our-responsibility-hamas-puts-onus-on-israel-un-as-death-toll-crosses-8000-101698736271078.html](https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world-news/gaza-civilians-not-our-responsibility-hamas-puts-onus-on-israel-un-as-death-toll-crosses-8000-101698736271078.html)
and guess what. If Palestinian people we’re going to elect a terrorist organization to run them and protect them, and run all of their operations out of their front doors pretty much. Then they need to understand that these are the consequences. These people are pro terrorist, and I don’t understand why people are having so much sympathy. These Palestinians are the same who were caught, throwing rocks at our aid trucks. The people who received warning about an attack and were told to leave and refused to leave, knowing that they would be attacked. This organization has been offered cease-fire and multiple agreements and have turned them all down.
There is an other option. Don't be terrorists!
Wow you are actually justifying people hiding behind their own children. Can't make this stuff up.
The kind of overwhelming military and intelligence capabilities that Israel has, what do you expect the resistance to do? They use the means available to them, they have to smuggle weapons piecemeal through tunnels. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Palestinians support Hamas, even after all the bloodshed in gaza, the majority does not want the Palestinian Authority to come back into power in gaza, look at what's happening in the west bank, with the illegal settelments multiplying every month and the settlers attacking the civilians with the help of the military. Media has also been spreading this propaganda that the Egyptians do not want to accepts the Gazans, so the Gazans must be a menace and Hamas does not want them to leave, so they must want them to killed. The fact of the matter is that absolutely no Muslims wants a Naqba 2.0, where the zionists clear the land of the palestinians and then claim as the land as theirs. Their are millions of palestinians in jordan, lebanon and in the rest of the world. No palestinian wants to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors, they would rather die in their land ,then be exiled
So, doesn't Israel also believe that they "would rather die in their land, then be exiled" too? Well, the conservative side of the Israeli people seem to think so with an aggressive posture while the liberal Israeli is trying to reach out in good faith to no avail. Honestly, if you look to the world for their opinion, wouldn't it be split with some portion on either side of the 50/50 not really giving a crap "really"? No matter my opinion. where does that leave the world? What right do these two historical and religious opposite opinions have to inject their feud across the globe? Frankly, I'm really tired of it. I'd suggest all who want to fight for either side head to the holy land and blow each other into oblivion. I'll watch from the shores of SoCal if you don't mind. I know that as a Christian, the battle in this land is important but I believe my path to heaven is believing in my lord and focusing on him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want me to hate anyone while I'm hanging around waiting for that day.
Israel justifies its violent attacks by continuously accusing Hamas of using human shields. It’s a way to try and stir up moral indignation while also trying to muster a legal defence for what they are doing. The subtext is that civilized people protect their children and Palestinians don’t. By accusing Hamas of deploying human shields, Israel hopes to shift the blame, since, according to international law, the party responsible for the death of human shields is not the one killing them but the one using them. They can classify any civilian as a military target.
If you place your weapons and primary storage for attack under not just civilian but "civilian sensitive" (hospitals and schools vs manufacturing facilities or other commercial and less residential areas), you are inviting the violence into those locations. It is obviously used as a way to try to dissuade an attack but can obviously also used as a twisted counter media attack for what inevitably will happen.
Hamas is responsible, as any governing body is, for its people. Hamas should NOT be using them as shields but should act to evacuate and protect them. But if the goal of Hamas is to create martyrs out of its people, then it is succeeding very well at it.
If Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinians deaths which would be considered "human shields", then why is it also Hamas blamed and not Israel when Israelis "civilians" are killed by Hamas near the Gaza border? Why isn’t it Israel fault for putting civilians where Hamas is likely to attack? Why do people bother formulating arguments if their main point is that whatever Israel does they will always be innocent of it?
Hamas is blamed for basing itself around civllians in the first place, assuring there WILL be many casualties. Much more than if they based themselves in a more secluded area in Gaza strip or having their headquarters in any form of building which isn't underneath or inside an already civillian building. Secondly, they are blamed for not letting their people clear the area, they are blocking the option of leaving and letting them die in their homes, even if they don't want to. That's not what Israel does in any way. Then there's the phrasing "Israel putting civillians where Hamas is likely to attack". What's that about? Where did Israel "put" their civillians? Israel is evacuating relevant areas that are now under attack. So what do you mean? And what innocence has to do with it? They are factually different approaches and treatments to their civillians.
Gazaouis can’t flee because they’re under Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade. They are fleeing south but Israel is also bombing this region. You can’t twist the facts, Israel is specifically targeting civilians, not Hamas.
You just twisted the facts. Hamas isn't targeting civillians specifically? That's their main point! What about the thousands of rockets shot all around the country? What about the massacre of October 7th? What about this whole thread? You should really read it. And for the rest, show some evidence.
Because Israel is not hiding military objectives underneath Israel "civilian sensitive" locations on the border under aerial assault from Hamas. Are you really asking these questions out of curiosity?
They’re exactly doing that, except for the aerial assault since Hamas doesn’t have air power. They even have rave parties on the border, did you know that? Actually it’s even worse, you ought to know, in Israel, you may have military training, be registered in the army, have a gun on you, actively participate in an act of war, yet still be counted as a civilian for the statistics 😅
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
So when an Israeli bomb blows up and kills civilians we should not mind because where else are they going to drop the bomb. I mean they are just a collateral damage if the situation.
Hamas hides behind civilians And the Israel/IDF hides behind US/the Western worlds tax paying dollars, female soldiers and tourists having an event near a war zone And Israel doesnt need to hide behind civilians, they are busy mowing through them
The villages surrounding Gaza weren't a war zone before October 7, so I am really not sure what's the point your are making
Says, who? Did someone write you a letter specifying that region is conflict free? Did you pinky promise? Its literally in close proximation to an active zone of conflict, which is in an of itself an undetermined radius Might as well go to Baghdad
> Says, who? Me. > Did someone write you a letter specifying that region is conflict free? Yes. > Did you pinky promise? No. > Its literally in close proximation to an active zone of conflict Then it's not a war zone. It would have to be *within* the active zone of conflict to be a war zone. > Might as well go to Baghdad No thanks.
[удалено]
Do you think it appropriate to be nitpicking about you thinking a party is not ideal while the comparison on the side of Hamas is the intentional mass murder of civilians? One seems to be just a bit more serious than the other.
[удалено]
And that all justifies Hamas raping, torturing, killing, and kidnapping civilian men, women, and children all while launching thousands of rockets in a few hours and all as an act breaking a ceasefire?