9 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    > That doesn't mean they are using human shields Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you > They can still minimize civilian death Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      > Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings? No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer. Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
      - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
        > No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
        flawn 3y ago
        No rate is acceptable. The debate is not about abiding to any modern war KPIs but rather the intent to minimize civilian casualties. Israel definitely does NOT do that by actively engaging with their current strategy of retaliation and that's already enough to say that, from a human perspective, Israel needs to stop right now and enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  No, the responsibility is always on who is shooting at civilians. If you can't beat the Hamas in Gaza without shooting civilians, don't shoot, retreat in Israel and focus on protecting Israel.
  - flawn 3y ago
    And that's the breaking point of the whole debate whether Israel's current way of defense is justified. This is literally THE point where most of the general population has split opinions and chooses to condemn or not Israel's actions. Most people think killing thousands of people to eliminate a terrorist group is a trade-off that should be made which baffles my mind. Where do we live? No human life can be weighted upon anything else.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - modriano 3y ago
      Um, the things Israel has done to Palestinian citizens in Gaza over the past 15 years (e.g. [0] - [3]) have been pretty horrific, as are the things Hamas has done to Israeli citizens. This situation didn't randomly start on October 7, 2023. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/06/un-gaza-inquiry-finds-credible-allegations-war-crimes-committed-2014-both https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/06/un-gaza-inqu... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crimes-gaza https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crim... [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/un-fact-finding-mission-finds-strong-evidence-war-crimes-and-crimes-against https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/un-fact-find... [3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unla...
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    Do you feel the same way about the bombings in Germany and Japan during WW2?
  - 3y ago
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36f2TqaD30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36f2TqaD30 I found this interview pretty thought provoking. I think it is still pro-Israel, but it provides a view of Hamas's strategy that I haven't seen anywhere else. Basically, what I think Hamas leadership was thinking was to mirror the Hezbollah-Israel conflict from, what, 10 years ago, on a much bigger scale. According to this CIA officer, Hamas had 30,000 soldiers ready to engage in fighting with Israel in an urban environment, and the initial terror attack was trying to sucker the Israelis into rushing in and suffering huge casualties. Not 30,000 soldiers in uniforms and formations to your point, but nonetheless a large force. (This part starts at about 7:30 into the video). According to the intel officer in the interview, Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks per the Intelligence officer. I understand everyone thinks the press is owned by Israel, but in the failed conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon there was plenty of stories about the Israeli army failing. I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective. Hamas is embedded with civilians by default: the Gaza strip is stuffed full of people, it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks According to all the experts I read, Israel rushed in without a political outcome planned. All warfare is a tool to achieve political outcomes (unless the outcome was to drive Palestinians out of Gaza or just destroy as many people and buildings as possible). All warfare ends only with a stable political solution; otherwise it continues indefinitely; an example is Afghanistan, where the US failed to achieve a stable political solution and so the war never ended - unfortunately the Taliban have acheived a stable political solution, to some degree. > I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective. I agree that the Israeli military has spared itself the hubris and casualities they experienced when they attacked Hezbollah around 20 years ago. But we still see stories criticizing the Israeli military, and we don't hear desperate stories from Hamas, only from civilians. A military killing civilians isn't accomplishing anything. The question is, are they being effective against Hamas and in establishing some desireable political outcome? > it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years. Also from being unable to leave.
doktrin 3y ago
>> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. > this claim is disingenuous propaganda > Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians Is the hangup on the word "notorious"? Because you appear to first claim the notion of colocation to be propaganda before explaining why it's also a logistical inevitability.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  My point is that the Israeli / pro-Israeli leaders - the ones who understand asymmetric warfare - calling Hamas somehow evil for doing it are spreading disingenuous propaganda. They know very well that an asymmetric force must blend into its surroundings. The Taliban blended into the mountains; Hamas blends into densely populated Gaza. Hamas does a lot of bad things; they still are 'notorious'; but this thing is just fundamental asymmetric operations, at least generally speaking.
reducesuffering 3y ago
> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. > this claim is disingenuous propaganda > Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians Are you listening to yourself here? Pure cognitive dissonance
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I apparently was unclear in my GP comment, because both you and someone else had the same response. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896 Still, you got it wrong: It wasn't cognitive dissonance, but miscommunication. I'm not trying to score a point; I'm trying to say that jumping to conclusions - despite it's popularity these days - often yields wrongness, and we all are especially prone to it when we are emotionally charged. Curiosity, as a policy and rule, is an effective prophylactic against screwing yourself. :)

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.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > That doesn't mean they are using human shields Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you > They can still minimize civilian death Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings? No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer. Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
    - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
      > No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
      - flawn 3y ago
        No rate is acceptable. The debate is not about abiding to any modern war KPIs but rather the intent to minimize civilian casualties. Israel definitely does NOT do that by actively engaging with their current strategy of retaliation and that's already enough to say that, from a human perspective, Israel needs to stop right now and enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area.
prmoustache 3y ago
No, the responsibility is always on who is shooting at civilians. If you can't beat the Hamas in Gaza without shooting civilians, don't shoot, retreat in Israel and focus on protecting Israel.
- flawn 3y ago
  And that's the breaking point of the whole debate whether Israel's current way of defense is justified. This is literally THE point where most of the general population has split opinions and chooses to condemn or not Israel's actions. Most people think killing thousands of people to eliminate a terrorist group is a trade-off that should be made which baffles my mind. Where do we live? No human life can be weighted upon anything else.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - modriano 3y ago
    Um, the things Israel has done to Palestinian citizens in Gaza over the past 15 years (e.g. [0] - [3]) have been pretty horrific, as are the things Hamas has done to Israeli citizens. This situation didn't randomly start on October 7, 2023. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/06/un-gaza-inquiry-finds-credible-allegations-war-crimes-committed-2014-both https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/06/un-gaza-inqu... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crimes-gaza https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crim... [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/un-fact-finding-mission-finds-strong-evidence-war-crimes-and-crimes-against https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/un-fact-find... [3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unla...
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  Do you feel the same way about the bombings in Germany and Japan during WW2?
- 3y ago

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36f2TqaD30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36f2TqaD30 I found this interview pretty thought provoking. I think it is still pro-Israel, but it provides a view of Hamas's strategy that I haven't seen anywhere else. Basically, what I think Hamas leadership was thinking was to mirror the Hezbollah-Israel conflict from, what, 10 years ago, on a much bigger scale. According to this CIA officer, Hamas had 30,000 soldiers ready to engage in fighting with Israel in an urban environment, and the initial terror attack was trying to sucker the Israelis into rushing in and suffering huge casualties. Not 30,000 soldiers in uniforms and formations to your point, but nonetheless a large force. (This part starts at about 7:30 into the video). According to the intel officer in the interview, Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks per the Intelligence officer. I understand everyone thinks the press is owned by Israel, but in the failed conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon there was plenty of stories about the Israeli army failing. I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective. Hamas is embedded with civilians by default: the Gaza strip is stuffed full of people, it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks According to all the experts I read, Israel rushed in without a political outcome planned. All warfare is a tool to achieve political outcomes (unless the outcome was to drive Palestinians out of Gaza or just destroy as many people and buildings as possible). All warfare ends only with a stable political solution; otherwise it continues indefinitely; an example is Afghanistan, where the US failed to achieve a stable political solution and so the war never ended - unfortunately the Taliban have acheived a stable political solution, to some degree. > I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective. I agree that the Israeli military has spared itself the hubris and casualities they experienced when they attacked Hezbollah around 20 years ago. But we still see stories criticizing the Israeli military, and we don't hear desperate stories from Hamas, only from civilians. A military killing civilians isn't accomplishing anything. The question is, are they being effective against Hamas and in establishing some desireable political outcome? > it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years. Also from being unable to leave.

doktrin 3y ago

>> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. > this claim is disingenuous propaganda > Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians Is the hangup on the word "notorious"? Because you appear to first claim the notion of colocation to be propaganda before explaining why it's also a logistical inevitability.

wolverine876 3y ago
My point is that the Israeli / pro-Israeli leaders - the ones who understand asymmetric warfare - calling Hamas somehow evil for doing it are spreading disingenuous propaganda. They know very well that an asymmetric force must blend into its surroundings. The Taliban blended into the mountains; Hamas blends into densely populated Gaza. Hamas does a lot of bad things; they still are 'notorious'; but this thing is just fundamental asymmetric operations, at least generally speaking.

reducesuffering 3y ago

> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. > this claim is disingenuous propaganda > Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians Are you listening to yourself here? Pure cognitive dissonance

wolverine876 3y ago
I apparently was unclear in my GP comment, because both you and someone else had the same response. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896 Still, you got it wrong: It wasn't cognitive dissonance, but miscommunication. I'm not trying to score a point; I'm trying to say that jumping to conclusions - despite it's popularity these days - often yields wrongness, and we all are especially prone to it when we are emotionally charged. Curiosity, as a policy and rule, is an effective prophylactic against screwing yourself. :)