5 ms·

Unifil has been there since the '70s, apparently. Their role was to monitor Israel's withdrawal and to assist the Lebanese government, to patrol the Blue Line a

Unifil has been there since the '70s, apparently. Their role was to monitor Israel's withdrawal and to assist the Lebanese government, to patrol the Blue Line and various humanitarian tasks. They're not a counterinsurgency force or an occupying army - as I understand it, they're a tripwire for treaty enforcement. Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields. It's still immoral to kill noncombatants, just as it's immoral to hide behind noncombatants. You don't gain moral high ground, you're just sinking to the level of the enemy.

tyleo 2y ago
“You don’t get to shoot through human shields.” I don’t have a POV w.r.t. this conflict, but I’d like to understand what you mean by this statement generally. In the extreme it seems to imply, “if you have a human shield you are invincible.” It’s a messed-up calculus to have to make but I feel like there must be some middle ground.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  In extreme situations it might be acceptable to involve innocents, but that's a very far cry from what has been happening
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tdeck 2y ago
      Wait till you find out where the mossad HQ is located!
      - lowkey_ 2y ago
        It's a fair target to hit then — on both sides, military operations are fair to hit. It just hasn't happened to the Mossad HQ, despite attempts.
        jedimind 2y ago
        you think that's the narrative Israel and its allies would go with? Never. Israel and its allies would cry and whine as if a second holocaust occurred. They would pretend like they haven't done something similar thousands of times before to their enemies and that this retaliation on the Mossad HQ is some sort of uniquely evil and unprecedented event in human history. Israelis always prefer using the most absurd victim narratives possible. Only Israel can be the biggest bully while also roleplaying as the biggest victim, but it's not surprising considering that even the mossad's motto[0] is "By way of deception you shall engage in war." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception
        lowkey_ 2y ago
        I don’t think speculating on how you think Israel would react is helpful or productive. Of course Israel would “cry and whine.” I agree with you. Obviously, Palestine also “cries and whines” — they have a narrative when their military operations are hit, too, and it’s not “fair play.” War is an ugly, awful thing. I wouldn’t expect anybody involved to treat it so rationally. Hopefully we can view things more objectively and fairly given our distance.
    - g-b-r 2y ago
      > Is it? Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately place their military infrastructure among civilians. I'm not eager to defend Hamas or Hezbollah, but for Gaza, is there a lot of free space? Using human shields anyhow, does NOT mean it's the other's fault if you bomb then. It's entirely your own decision, if you know that they're there. Do you really think there was no other way, to deal with the problem? Personally, for me the most absurd aspect of the situation is that you're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas' of the future. However good a person is, and however quiet by nature, they wouldn't be human if a percentage of them wouldn't look for revenge, after having all their relatives killed, endured surgeries without anesthetics, and seen there was no good justification for that. Which is what some Israeli politicians would probably like, anyhow, to give them arguments for the future elections. Nothing will be solved. Unless you kill them all? Well, I think there would be a lot of Arabs who'd seek revenge for them, if so. By the way, with using shields the Israeli might well just mean mean having a tunnel passing under a condo, or that an Hamas member sleeps there rather than, where? Hamas barracks? Along with your family, forever, with a target on your back? CNN [1] today said: > There is ample evidence for it: weapons located inside homes, tunnels dug beneath residential neighborhoods and rockets fired from those same neighborhoods in the densely packed territory. I don't think that's what people think about, when hearing about human hostages. Furthermore, the IDF seems to wait for the targets to be at home, just because there they're easier to target [2] . [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h... [2] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
      - Qem 2y ago
        > I don't think that's what people think about, when hearing about human hostages. Indeed, they think more about something like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/6/23/israeli-forces-strap-injured-palestinian-man-to-military-vehicle https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/6/23/israeli...
      - throw310822 2y ago
        > for me the most absurd aspect of the situation is that you're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas' of the future. This has become a very common argument, and is indeed true, but it's also hypocritically incomplete. You're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas of the future and they will be right in fighting you. Exactly as the current Hamas members are right in fighting you today.
    - 8note 2y ago
      The straightforward thing with UNFIL would be to negotiate change at the UN It's unlikely that Israel decided just now to go attack Hezbollah, and even if they did, it's not like there's been any big status quo change, so they could go to the UN first, if they think the UN is in the way
    - r00fus 2y ago
      Israel is always accusing people of what Israel itself does already. Tons of Israeli military bases and weapons manufacturing his placed directly under or very close to civilian domiciles.
      - dlubarov 2y ago
        Close to? Yes, to some extent that's unavoidable in countries as small as Israel. But under? Do you have a source for that?
      - edanm 2y ago
        > Tons of Israeli military bases and weapons manufacturing his placed directly under or very close to civilian domiciles. This is nonsense propaganda that keeps getting repeated. Israel has some army bases in or close to civilian areas, as do most countries - e.g. the Pentagon. The reason is that some army bases are used for intelligence, software development or other administrative tasks, which usually involves older officers and many civilians, so it makes sense to have these be in cities. But note key differences between this and what Hamas is accused of doing: 1. These are administrative buildings. These are not weapons storage facilities, combat factilities, etc. And it's especially not where missile launch sites or things of a similar nature are located. Shooting missiles from within houses, as e.g. Hezbollah does, or from under refugee camps, as Hamas does, is a different thing entirely - because to stop the actual rockets being shot at Israel, Israel has to shoot at them, which kills civilians. That is not what Israel does with those bases. 2. Israeli bases are not built under civilian buildings. Yes, the same army HQ or intelligence etc bases that are built in cities have sections underground, for obvious reasons - but under the bases, not under people's houses!
  - cutler 2y ago
    Don't you just love how the brave soldiers of the IDF fight all their wars remotely. 2000lb bombs dropped from the skies, Lavender AI to remove accountability. The kids in the IDF go directly from video games at school to a real war turned into another virtual reality. Without their US-funded military superiority those IDF zombies wouldn't stand a chance in one-on-one combat with a Palestinian resistance fighter.
- sterlind 2y ago
  My view is the ethnicity of the human shields in question shouldn't factor into your decision making. You shouldn't shoot through an Egyptian aid worker or Lebanese child if you wouldn't have shot through an Israeli hostage in their place.
  - michtzik 2y ago
    I suppose you're suggesting that one shouldn't value "us" over "them". Is a logical extension of this that you shouldn't shoot someone else if you wouldn't shoot yourself?
    - sterlind 2y ago
      I'm suggesting we should value civilian casualties equally. You're free to shoot at soldiers.
      - edanm 2y ago
        I mean, you can also just value all human life equally, and not shoot at soldiers unless there's a really good reason to do so. You really shouldn't target civilians, almost ever, cause there's never a good reason to do so by definition.
  - freehorse 2y ago
    > you wouldn't have shot through an Israeli hostage in their place Well actually, to give Israel some kind of credit, they have also done that, as hostages have indeed been killed in their attacks. In general they have shown a similar disregard of human life towards their own people who have been hostages, so there's that.
- jedimind 2y ago
  the israeli "human shields" narrative is pure hasbara and israeli projection anyway "The Israeli military has used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza, soldier and former detainees say" [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h...] "Over the years, the israeli military practiced an official policy of using Palestinians as human shields" [https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields] "Israel has taken human shields to a whole new criminal level" [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/20/israel-has-taken-human-shields-to-a-whole-new-criminal-level https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/20/israel-has-tak...]
  - edanm 2y ago
    > the israeli "human shields" narrative is pure hasbara and israeli projection anyway Saying this is, frankly, ridiculous. There is massive, extensive documentation of the vast tunnel networks and terrorist infrastructure hiding beneath and as part of civilian areas in Gaza (and in Lebanon, now). There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Hamas cynically using actions that are bound to hurt civilians. You don't have to like Israel or how it's acting, and you disagree with the legitimacy of the war or how it is conducted, but you should at least be grounded in reality. If you're just wholesale denying the well-documented evidence of how Hamas acts, you're not really criticizing the IDF, because you're not connecting with reality. You're criticizing an imaginary IDF fighting an imaginary Hamas that acts completely differently to how it's acting, and that makes your criticisms meaningless. (And for the record, the cases of the IDF using human shields in the manner you linked above are pretty well documented too, as far as I can say, and I personally think they should be condemned and the IDF has to answer for that. I do try to be centered in reality and see things as they really are.)
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      > There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Hamas cynically using actions that are bound to hurt civilians. Correct, this is how guerrilla forces have always worked. Either their fighters get protection, or the colonial/occupying (from their perspective) power gets loads of bad PR. I mean, when you look at the relative arms strength of the two forces, they'd be crazy not to do this. Is this moral? 100% not. Is it understandable? Strategically, again 100%. yes.
- juopiig 2y ago
  Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. If there are insurgents among civilians, they either have logistics and communication networks to conduct operations, or they're unable to operate effectively. Weapons do not materialize from nowhere, they must be smuggled into the country and distributed. Operations do not materialize from nowhere, they must be coordinated. If they have logistics, we can leverage that against them. We saw this when Israel expected their pager attack. They've already proven that they can exercise their creativity to conduct effective attacks with great precision. If they lack logistics and communication networks - then they can't conduct effective operations against us. There's little to fear and no reason to shoot through human shields. This is some armchair strategy a nonexpert came up with on the spot. Consider that real military strategists and intelligence agencies are better at coming up with ways to find and kill their enemies than we are. Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. No, you're the one making imaginary false dichotomies. See your last paragraph: > Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to. You're now making a false dichotomy - Israel can choose to prosecute the war differently, but it doesn't, implying that they are choosing to kill human shields on purpose. The reality is that you're coming up on the spot with a dozen ways to defeat an insurgency, without taking into account that they are just as smart and just as motivated as you, and planned for years to make them impossible to hit without significant civilian casualties. This is incredibly well documented. Sure, you can pretend there is always a secret third option - and there sometimes is. And there sometimes isn't. And the more you let militants using civilians as human shields deter you, the more the militants are incentivized to use human shields, so even in a best case scenario, you're kicking the can down the road. None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dlubarov 2y ago
What seems more relevant today is that UNIFIL was supposed to support the implementation of UNSC 1701, which was a complete failure, with Hezbollah ignoring it outright and the Lebanese army not doing much to stop them.
MF-DOOM 2y ago
In war, you care more about losing/winning than a moral high ground - an imaginary prize for the “superior” nation who chooses to appear weak.
echoangle 2y ago
> Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields. I am not saying it’s morally correct but from a war crime standpoint, I think you actually do. As longs as it’s proportional, you can attack combatants hiding under civilians, even if you kill civilians by doing that. At least that’s my understanding.
- zczc 2y ago
  Yes, that seems correct: "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 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97
wtcactus 2y ago
> “Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields.” When the human shields are serving willingly as human shields, I will say that yes, you get to shoot through them and keep your moral high ground. Not only those UN troops have no reason to be there, but there are numerous reports that several of their members are working together and aiding Hezbolah.

tyleo 2y ago

“You don’t get to shoot through human shields.” I don’t have a POV w.r.t. this conflict, but I’d like to understand what you mean by this statement generally. In the extreme it seems to imply, “if you have a human shield you are invincible.” It’s a messed-up calculus to have to make but I feel like there must be some middle ground.

g-b-r 2y ago
In extreme situations it might be acceptable to involve innocents, but that's a very far cry from what has been happening
- Sabinus 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tdeck 2y ago
    Wait till you find out where the mossad HQ is located!
    - lowkey_ 2y ago
      It's a fair target to hit then — on both sides, military operations are fair to hit. It just hasn't happened to the Mossad HQ, despite attempts.
      - jedimind 2y ago
        you think that's the narrative Israel and its allies would go with? Never. Israel and its allies would cry and whine as if a second holocaust occurred. They would pretend like they haven't done something similar thousands of times before to their enemies and that this retaliation on the Mossad HQ is some sort of uniquely evil and unprecedented event in human history. Israelis always prefer using the most absurd victim narratives possible. Only Israel can be the biggest bully while also roleplaying as the biggest victim, but it's not surprising considering that even the mossad's motto[0] is "By way of deception you shall engage in war." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception
        lowkey_ 2y ago
        I don’t think speculating on how you think Israel would react is helpful or productive. Of course Israel would “cry and whine.” I agree with you. Obviously, Palestine also “cries and whines” — they have a narrative when their military operations are hit, too, and it’s not “fair play.” War is an ugly, awful thing. I wouldn’t expect anybody involved to treat it so rationally. Hopefully we can view things more objectively and fairly given our distance.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    > Is it? Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately place their military infrastructure among civilians. I'm not eager to defend Hamas or Hezbollah, but for Gaza, is there a lot of free space? Using human shields anyhow, does NOT mean it's the other's fault if you bomb then. It's entirely your own decision, if you know that they're there. Do you really think there was no other way, to deal with the problem? Personally, for me the most absurd aspect of the situation is that you're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas' of the future. However good a person is, and however quiet by nature, they wouldn't be human if a percentage of them wouldn't look for revenge, after having all their relatives killed, endured surgeries without anesthetics, and seen there was no good justification for that. Which is what some Israeli politicians would probably like, anyhow, to give them arguments for the future elections. Nothing will be solved. Unless you kill them all? Well, I think there would be a lot of Arabs who'd seek revenge for them, if so. By the way, with using shields the Israeli might well just mean mean having a tunnel passing under a condo, or that an Hamas member sleeps there rather than, where? Hamas barracks? Along with your family, forever, with a target on your back? CNN [1] today said: > There is ample evidence for it: weapons located inside homes, tunnels dug beneath residential neighborhoods and rockets fired from those same neighborhoods in the densely packed territory. I don't think that's what people think about, when hearing about human hostages. Furthermore, the IDF seems to wait for the targets to be at home, just because there they're easier to target [2] . [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h... [2] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
    - Qem 2y ago
      > I don't think that's what people think about, when hearing about human hostages. Indeed, they think more about something like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/6/23/israeli-forces-strap-injured-palestinian-man-to-military-vehicle https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/6/23/israeli...
    - throw310822 2y ago
      > for me the most absurd aspect of the situation is that you're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas' of the future. This has become a very common argument, and is indeed true, but it's also hypocritically incomplete. You're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas of the future and they will be right in fighting you. Exactly as the current Hamas members are right in fighting you today.
  - 8note 2y ago
    The straightforward thing with UNFIL would be to negotiate change at the UN It's unlikely that Israel decided just now to go attack Hezbollah, and even if they did, it's not like there's been any big status quo change, so they could go to the UN first, if they think the UN is in the way
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Israel is always accusing people of what Israel itself does already. Tons of Israeli military bases and weapons manufacturing his placed directly under or very close to civilian domiciles.
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      Close to? Yes, to some extent that's unavoidable in countries as small as Israel. But under? Do you have a source for that?
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Tons of Israeli military bases and weapons manufacturing his placed directly under or very close to civilian domiciles. This is nonsense propaganda that keeps getting repeated. Israel has some army bases in or close to civilian areas, as do most countries - e.g. the Pentagon. The reason is that some army bases are used for intelligence, software development or other administrative tasks, which usually involves older officers and many civilians, so it makes sense to have these be in cities. But note key differences between this and what Hamas is accused of doing: 1. These are administrative buildings. These are not weapons storage facilities, combat factilities, etc. And it's especially not where missile launch sites or things of a similar nature are located. Shooting missiles from within houses, as e.g. Hezbollah does, or from under refugee camps, as Hamas does, is a different thing entirely - because to stop the actual rockets being shot at Israel, Israel has to shoot at them, which kills civilians. That is not what Israel does with those bases. 2. Israeli bases are not built under civilian buildings. Yes, the same army HQ or intelligence etc bases that are built in cities have sections underground, for obvious reasons - but under the bases, not under people's houses!
- cutler 2y ago
  Don't you just love how the brave soldiers of the IDF fight all their wars remotely. 2000lb bombs dropped from the skies, Lavender AI to remove accountability. The kids in the IDF go directly from video games at school to a real war turned into another virtual reality. Without their US-funded military superiority those IDF zombies wouldn't stand a chance in one-on-one combat with a Palestinian resistance fighter.
sterlind 2y ago
My view is the ethnicity of the human shields in question shouldn't factor into your decision making. You shouldn't shoot through an Egyptian aid worker or Lebanese child if you wouldn't have shot through an Israeli hostage in their place.
- michtzik 2y ago
  I suppose you're suggesting that one shouldn't value "us" over "them". Is a logical extension of this that you shouldn't shoot someone else if you wouldn't shoot yourself?
  - sterlind 2y ago
    I'm suggesting we should value civilian casualties equally. You're free to shoot at soldiers.
    - edanm 2y ago
      I mean, you can also just value all human life equally, and not shoot at soldiers unless there's a really good reason to do so. You really shouldn't target civilians, almost ever, cause there's never a good reason to do so by definition.
- freehorse 2y ago
  > you wouldn't have shot through an Israeli hostage in their place Well actually, to give Israel some kind of credit, they have also done that, as hostages have indeed been killed in their attacks. In general they have shown a similar disregard of human life towards their own people who have been hostages, so there's that.
jedimind 2y ago
the israeli "human shields" narrative is pure hasbara and israeli projection anyway "The Israeli military has used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza, soldier and former detainees say" [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h...] "Over the years, the israeli military practiced an official policy of using Palestinians as human shields" [https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields] "Israel has taken human shields to a whole new criminal level" [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/20/israel-has-taken-human-shields-to-a-whole-new-criminal-level https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/20/israel-has-tak...]
- edanm 2y ago
  > the israeli "human shields" narrative is pure hasbara and israeli projection anyway Saying this is, frankly, ridiculous. There is massive, extensive documentation of the vast tunnel networks and terrorist infrastructure hiding beneath and as part of civilian areas in Gaza (and in Lebanon, now). There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Hamas cynically using actions that are bound to hurt civilians. You don't have to like Israel or how it's acting, and you disagree with the legitimacy of the war or how it is conducted, but you should at least be grounded in reality. If you're just wholesale denying the well-documented evidence of how Hamas acts, you're not really criticizing the IDF, because you're not connecting with reality. You're criticizing an imaginary IDF fighting an imaginary Hamas that acts completely differently to how it's acting, and that makes your criticisms meaningless. (And for the record, the cases of the IDF using human shields in the manner you linked above are pretty well documented too, as far as I can say, and I personally think they should be condemned and the IDF has to answer for that. I do try to be centered in reality and see things as they really are.)
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    > There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Hamas cynically using actions that are bound to hurt civilians. Correct, this is how guerrilla forces have always worked. Either their fighters get protection, or the colonial/occupying (from their perspective) power gets loads of bad PR. I mean, when you look at the relative arms strength of the two forces, they'd be crazy not to do this. Is this moral? 100% not. Is it understandable? Strategically, again 100%. yes.
juopiig 2y ago
Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. If there are insurgents among civilians, they either have logistics and communication networks to conduct operations, or they're unable to operate effectively. Weapons do not materialize from nowhere, they must be smuggled into the country and distributed. Operations do not materialize from nowhere, they must be coordinated. If they have logistics, we can leverage that against them. We saw this when Israel expected their pager attack. They've already proven that they can exercise their creativity to conduct effective attacks with great precision. If they lack logistics and communication networks - then they can't conduct effective operations against us. There's little to fear and no reason to shoot through human shields. This is some armchair strategy a nonexpert came up with on the spot. Consider that real military strategists and intelligence agencies are better at coming up with ways to find and kill their enemies than we are. Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. No, you're the one making imaginary false dichotomies. See your last paragraph: > Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to. You're now making a false dichotomy - Israel can choose to prosecute the war differently, but it doesn't, implying that they are choosing to kill human shields on purpose. The reality is that you're coming up on the spot with a dozen ways to defeat an insurgency, without taking into account that they are just as smart and just as motivated as you, and planned for years to make them impossible to hit without significant civilian casualties. This is incredibly well documented. Sure, you can pretend there is always a secret third option - and there sometimes is. And there sometimes isn't. And the more you let militants using civilians as human shields deter you, the more the militants are incentivized to use human shields, so even in a best case scenario, you're kicking the can down the road. None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dlubarov 2y ago

What seems more relevant today is that UNIFIL was supposed to support the implementation of UNSC 1701, which was a complete failure, with Hezbollah ignoring it outright and the Lebanese army not doing much to stop them.

MF-DOOM 2y ago

In war, you care more about losing/winning than a moral high ground - an imaginary prize for the “superior” nation who chooses to appear weak.

echoangle 2y ago

> Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields. I am not saying it’s morally correct but from a war crime standpoint, I think you actually do. As longs as it’s proportional, you can attack combatants hiding under civilians, even if you kill civilians by doing that. At least that’s my understanding.

zczc 2y ago
Yes, that seems correct: "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 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97

wtcactus 2y ago

> “Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields.” When the human shields are serving willingly as human shields, I will say that yes, you get to shoot through them and keep your moral high ground. Not only those UN troops have no reason to be there, but there are numerous reports that several of their members are working together and aiding Hezbolah.