17 ms·

That's a remarkably small number. It makes me think journalists weren't present in the warzone at all. Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas is notorio

by screye 3y ago

That's a remarkably small number. It makes me think journalists weren't present in the warzone at all. Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected. However, the numbers being THIS high in this short a time is alarming and tragic.

pests 3y ago
> An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected. Is it???
- brink 3y ago
  Yes? Use your basic reasoning. Hamas fights in civilian clothing, they hide in civilian buildings, they hide in hospitals. They use regular civilians as shields. This is not your average fight; Hamas hates their enemy more than they love their own country.
  - pests 3y ago
    Maybe another method is needed then? If you can't tell innocent people from legit targets... rethink the approach? Here is my reasoning: they hide in civilian clothes, okay let's not shoot civilians. They hide in hospitals, okay let's not bomb hospitals. They use civilian buildings, okay let's not bomb civilian buildings. They use civilians as shields... let's not shoot the shields. How is that unreasonable?
    - samatman 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - bawolff 3y ago
      Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do. The thing that usually prevents war is that both sides lose in the end. If only one side is allowed to shoot, why would the side being allowed to shoot ever stop? They would be getting all the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks.
      - shprd 3y ago
        > Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. The logic doesn't really follow What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".
        bawolff 3y ago
        > What shots exactly? I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else. I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage. This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course. > Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets? My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable. > You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately. Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around. > That's a massacre not a "response". Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
    - davidf18 3y ago
      Israel uses AI to detect targets with all of their intelligence gathering. It uses precision weaponry. It drops pamphlets (which the US did in Iraq), calls apartments before bombing, has 4 hours of quiet the same time each day for civilian evacuations -- these are Israeli innovations. Meanwhile Hamas hides in tunnels that are under hospitals, schools, mosques, residences making them military targets. They don't wear uniforms. They captured hostages. Rooting terrorists out of tunnels is a very complicated task. Most cases of Urban combat such as Mosul don't involve tunnels, yet have much greater civilian to combatant ratio of casualties (3:1 in the case of Mosul). Hamas never built bomb shelters for its civilians, unlike Israel. They had plenty of concrete to build tunnels for themselves. The war would have been over by now except other nations have been slowing Israel down. These nations claim that they want the conflict to end but it won't unless Hamas surrenders or Israel finishes the job.
    - screye 3y ago
      > Maybe another method is needed then? What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked. I don't approve of Israel's methods. I'd prefer an egalitarian solution. But, I'm all out of ideas. Find me an instance of 2 co-habiting or neighboring groups that hate each other, have huge disputes and ended up in relative peace. I can give you my recent examples of previous instances that are now mostly peaceful, and all of them violate the geneva convention or UN human rights declaration. Xinjiang = permament open air prison and extreme brain washing Srilanka LTTE = violent genocide of all suspected participants and their innocent family. 100k civilians killed Bosnia - Sijekovac killings = violent genocide of thousands of innocent Bosnians in the Bosnian war Kosovo - thousands of killings, massive population displacement (1+ million) & US military intervention So what is it ? Do we want the US to intervene and guarantee safety to Israel ? Do we want real open air prisons and complete cultural eradication ? Do we want population displacement of every Gazan to a 3rd location ? Hopefully we are not in support of genocide ? Well, so what is 'another method' ? Every single instance of haphazardly drawn post-WW2 line, has led to some kind of insurgency, war, genocide or forced population displacement. Peaceful borders are drawn in the blood of ancestors. The west is simply fortunate enough to have concluded it's killing mid-way through the 20th century. Israel is currently going through one such process. It is especially rich to see the criticism come from western nations who first created the problem. They encouraged the conditions that led to Oct 2023: 2005 withdrawl of Israel and rise of Hamas, and its unilateral control on aid. They refuse to propose any middle ground solution. It's ridiculous.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        >> Well, so what is 'another method' ? Another method would be the IDF accepting their responsibility for failing to protect the kibbutzim on 7 October, and making damn sure that this doesn't happen again on their watch. Stop killing the Arabs and start defending the jews. And I don't mean that they should make sure there's no more Palestinians left to attack them, because that is a horror that the world must never see again (but still sees all too often).
        Auracle 3y ago
        So basically let them attack Israel as much as they want, and Israel is only allowed to defend? That's like having a sibling that's allowed to punch, prod, and poke you as much as they want. If you don't hit back your life will be hell.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > How is that unreasonable? Because then you let people committing literal war crimes murder you while doing little to nothing to stop it (IIRC, using human shields is a war crime).
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-disguised-women-medics-storm-hospital-jenin-west-bank https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-... What can be done when Israel is willing to break the rules of engagement?
  - coopierez 3y ago
    Here is a Palestinian being used as a human shield by an Israeli solider: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-i...
immibis 3y ago
You began the sentence with "Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas" so you might not be aware that both sides use human shields.
- GordonS 3y ago
  Funny thing is, since this all kicked off I've seen several photos and videos clearly showing Israeli soldiers using civilians, including children, as human shields. I haven't seen any evidence of Hamas doing anything like this; it seems Hamas are mostly accused of this by Israel, simply because Hamas exists in a dense, urban environment.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      That's enough. We've banned this account.
wolverine876 3y ago
> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. I despise Hamas, but this claim is disingenuous propaganda (by the leaders who make it, not the parent who repeats it): First, Hamas is 'notorious' for it because it's endlessly repeated by their enemies. That rhetoric doesn't make anything true. (Haven't we had the Internet long enough that people know it well by now?) Second, Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians (or hide in wilderness); it's just the nature of being that kind of force: They have personal weapons, mostly. They cannot bring their rifles and RPGs to fight a fully capable modern state military's tanks and planes on an open battlefield - would you? The modern state military would kill them all immediately; it would be pointless. Might as well surrender. Therefore the assymetric force cannot hold ground, and therefore cannot build bases separate from civilians: If they had identifiable bases, the state military would erradicate them in minutes. The laws of war require militaries to distinguish soldiers from civilians, but I wonder if that is written by 'symmetric' forces and to their advantage. For assymetric forces, they might as well have bullseyes on their uniforms.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  I agree with the premise that Hamas wouldn't be able to fight open battles. But it doesn't make using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) not their fault. The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone (without getting into details of which part of dead civilians is actually due to being human shields). Of course, that is a sacrifice they are willing to make, but why would you justify it?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > why would you justify it? Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS. > using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) That doesn't mean they are using human shields (and it doesn't mean they are not): Asymetric forces need to blend into the environment - the mountains, the city, etc. In the city, that means blending into the civilian population - it doesn't require any intent to use them as shields (but they still could intend it - they even could intend to cause civilian deaths to drive world opinion). > The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone The asymetric force is at least partly to blame for the deaths of civilians, but that doesn't excuse the 'symmetric' force (is there a better term?) from all laws of war and basic human morality. They can still minimize civilian death and still follow rules of proportionality - Israel can't justify nuking the Gaza strip because Hamas is hiding among civilians.

by screye 3y ago

pests 3y ago

> An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected. Is it???

brink 3y ago
Yes? Use your basic reasoning. Hamas fights in civilian clothing, they hide in civilian buildings, they hide in hospitals. They use regular civilians as shields. This is not your average fight; Hamas hates their enemy more than they love their own country.
- pests 3y ago
  Maybe another method is needed then? If you can't tell innocent people from legit targets... rethink the approach? Here is my reasoning: they hide in civilian clothes, okay let's not shoot civilians. They hide in hospitals, okay let's not bomb hospitals. They use civilian buildings, okay let's not bomb civilian buildings. They use civilians as shields... let's not shoot the shields. How is that unreasonable?
  - samatman 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do. The thing that usually prevents war is that both sides lose in the end. If only one side is allowed to shoot, why would the side being allowed to shoot ever stop? They would be getting all the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks.
    - shprd 3y ago
      > Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. The logic doesn't really follow What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".
      - bawolff 3y ago
        > What shots exactly? I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else. I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage. This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course. > Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets? My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable. > You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately. Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around. > That's a massacre not a "response". Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
  - davidf18 3y ago
    Israel uses AI to detect targets with all of their intelligence gathering. It uses precision weaponry. It drops pamphlets (which the US did in Iraq), calls apartments before bombing, has 4 hours of quiet the same time each day for civilian evacuations -- these are Israeli innovations. Meanwhile Hamas hides in tunnels that are under hospitals, schools, mosques, residences making them military targets. They don't wear uniforms. They captured hostages. Rooting terrorists out of tunnels is a very complicated task. Most cases of Urban combat such as Mosul don't involve tunnels, yet have much greater civilian to combatant ratio of casualties (3:1 in the case of Mosul). Hamas never built bomb shelters for its civilians, unlike Israel. They had plenty of concrete to build tunnels for themselves. The war would have been over by now except other nations have been slowing Israel down. These nations claim that they want the conflict to end but it won't unless Hamas surrenders or Israel finishes the job.
  - screye 3y ago
    > Maybe another method is needed then? What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked. I don't approve of Israel's methods. I'd prefer an egalitarian solution. But, I'm all out of ideas. Find me an instance of 2 co-habiting or neighboring groups that hate each other, have huge disputes and ended up in relative peace. I can give you my recent examples of previous instances that are now mostly peaceful, and all of them violate the geneva convention or UN human rights declaration. Xinjiang = permament open air prison and extreme brain washing Srilanka LTTE = violent genocide of all suspected participants and their innocent family. 100k civilians killed Bosnia - Sijekovac killings = violent genocide of thousands of innocent Bosnians in the Bosnian war Kosovo - thousands of killings, massive population displacement (1+ million) & US military intervention So what is it ? Do we want the US to intervene and guarantee safety to Israel ? Do we want real open air prisons and complete cultural eradication ? Do we want population displacement of every Gazan to a 3rd location ? Hopefully we are not in support of genocide ? Well, so what is 'another method' ? Every single instance of haphazardly drawn post-WW2 line, has led to some kind of insurgency, war, genocide or forced population displacement. Peaceful borders are drawn in the blood of ancestors. The west is simply fortunate enough to have concluded it's killing mid-way through the 20th century. Israel is currently going through one such process. It is especially rich to see the criticism come from western nations who first created the problem. They encouraged the conditions that led to Oct 2023: 2005 withdrawl of Israel and rise of Hamas, and its unilateral control on aid. They refuse to propose any middle ground solution. It's ridiculous.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
      >> Well, so what is 'another method' ? Another method would be the IDF accepting their responsibility for failing to protect the kibbutzim on 7 October, and making damn sure that this doesn't happen again on their watch. Stop killing the Arabs and start defending the jews. And I don't mean that they should make sure there's no more Palestinians left to attack them, because that is a horror that the world must never see again (but still sees all too often).
      - Auracle 3y ago
        So basically let them attack Israel as much as they want, and Israel is only allowed to defend? That's like having a sibling that's allowed to punch, prod, and poke you as much as they want. If you don't hit back your life will be hell.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > How is that unreasonable? Because then you let people committing literal war crimes murder you while doing little to nothing to stop it (IIRC, using human shields is a war crime).
- hmcq6 3y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-disguised-women-medics-storm-hospital-jenin-west-bank https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-... What can be done when Israel is willing to break the rules of engagement?
- coopierez 3y ago
  Here is a Palestinian being used as a human shield by an Israeli solider: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-i...

immibis 3y ago

You began the sentence with "Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas" so you might not be aware that both sides use human shields.

GordonS 3y ago
Funny thing is, since this all kicked off I've seen several photos and videos clearly showing Israeli soldiers using civilians, including children, as human shields. I haven't seen any evidence of Hamas doing anything like this; it seems Hamas are mostly accused of this by Israel, simply because Hamas exists in a dense, urban environment.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    That's enough. We've banned this account.

wolverine876 3y ago

> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. I despise Hamas, but this claim is disingenuous propaganda (by the leaders who make it, not the parent who repeats it): First, Hamas is 'notorious' for it because it's endlessly repeated by their enemies. That rhetoric doesn't make anything true. (Haven't we had the Internet long enough that people know it well by now?) Second, Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians (or hide in wilderness); it's just the nature of being that kind of force: They have personal weapons, mostly. They cannot bring their rifles and RPGs to fight a fully capable modern state military's tanks and planes on an open battlefield - would you? The modern state military would kill them all immediately; it would be pointless. Might as well surrender. Therefore the assymetric force cannot hold ground, and therefore cannot build bases separate from civilians: If they had identifiable bases, the state military would erradicate them in minutes. The laws of war require militaries to distinguish soldiers from civilians, but I wonder if that is written by 'symmetric' forces and to their advantage. For assymetric forces, they might as well have bullseyes on their uniforms.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
I agree with the premise that Hamas wouldn't be able to fight open battles. But it doesn't make using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) not their fault. The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone (without getting into details of which part of dead civilians is actually due to being human shields). Of course, that is a sacrifice they are willing to make, but why would you justify it?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > why would you justify it? Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS. > using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) That doesn't mean they are using human shields (and it doesn't mean they are not): Asymetric forces need to blend into the environment - the mountains, the city, etc. In the city, that means blending into the civilian population - it doesn't require any intent to use them as shields (but they still could intend it - they even could intend to cause civilian deaths to drive world opinion). > The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone The asymetric force is at least partly to blame for the deaths of civilians, but that doesn't excuse the 'symmetric' force (is there a better term?) from all laws of war and basic human morality. They can still minimize civilian death and still follow rules of proportionality - Israel can't justify nuking the Gaza strip because Hamas is hiding among civilians.