Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
this is conjecture. and it uncovers the latent bias against Palestinians and Muslims. no one would say such a thing about Israel or USA or any Western country. in fact it would get absolutely pilloried.
one could just as easily argue that they are not incentivized to cause civilian death considering that they live within the population and people would blame them and then their power would be deligitimized. not to mention the whole human aspect of getting their family and friend's families t
It doesnt show any latent bias against Palestinians or Muslims. Hamas is a terrorist group, not some accepted representative of or proxy for all Palestinian or Muslims. So saying that against Hamas is not at all analogous to saying it against the US or Israel.
Israelis targeting civilians is different from Hamas using human shields.
Do you doubt that Hamas uses human shields? Do you doubt that Hamas benefits from dead Palestinian civilians?
I blame Israel all of the time. Under international law an occupying country is not allowed to attack a captive population.
Exactly my point.
It doesnt show any latent bias against Palestinians or Muslims. Hamas is a terrorist group, not some accepted representative of or proxy for all Palestinian or Muslims. So saying that against Hamas is not at all analogous to saying it against the US or Israel.
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. its a meaningless distinction.
and ofc I consider the USA and Israel terrorist states as well. right this moment Israel is using terror on a civilian population to try to effect change.
Israelis targeting civilians is different from Hamas using human shields.
Do you doubt that Hamas uses human shields? Do you doubt that Hamas benefits from dead Palestinian civilians?
Exactly my point.
yes ofc I doubt both of those things.
as for the benefit on civilian death, well we will never agree since it is all opinion.
Israelis targeting civilians is different from Hamas using human shields.
Do you doubt that Hamas uses human shields? Do you doubt that Hamas benefits from dead Palestinian civilians?
How exactly does Hamas benefit from these “human shields?” Israel doesn’t seem to have any qualms about bombing civilian buildings and refugee camps.
sorry, bad screenshot
It’s the person who pulls the triggers responsibility. It can be morally eh but still their responsibility
Trolly: Both Browser and I answered that a few posts prior.
HRW seems to be arguing that since the civilians weren't directed into a specific position they weren't human shields. I've never seen this definition used before and doesn't seem to be the one that most use.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/conte....
It is prohibited to seize or to use the presence of persons protected by the Geneva Conventions as human shields to render military sites immune from enemy attacks or to prevent reprisals during an offensive
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/1...
Under international law, the term refers to civilians or other protected persons whose presence is used to render military targets immune from military operations.
If you really want to argue that hiding behind civilians is different from directing civilians to stand in front of you then sure. I think my prior points still stand even when accounting for these semantics.
Military sites ?
I blame Israel all of the time. Under international law an occupying country is not allowed to attack a captive population.
also, I dont think Israel is trying to attack Hamas mainly bc they dont know where the fighters are. if a Hamas fighter dies then it is almost always accidental.
Is Israel an occupying force in Gaza now according to international law? Has Hamas taken any actions to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties? Do they require all their personnel to wear uniforms so they can be distinguished from noncombatants? Have they located all their forces and rockets and weapons caches far from civilian populated areas to avoid civilian casualties?
Of course not. Just the opposite. If reducing civilian casualties was a Hamas priority or objective they could take concrete steps towards that goal. But they didnt. Instead their deliberate actions increase the chances for civilian casualties. So assuming their actions are aligned with their strategic goals then it follows that they believe higher casualties support their goals.
ya but the presence of civilians does note render the targets immune. Israel bombs that ****. they love bombing that ****.
ya but the presence of civilians does note render the targets immune. Israel bombs that ****. they love bombing that ****.
dont you remember. any palestinian civilian within a random distance of a hamas is a "human shield" not a person any longer. they were born in the wrong spot, so they dont warrant thought.
ya but the presence of civilians does note render the targets immune. Israel bombs that ****. they love bombing that ****.
This is a different argument. I agree that Israel still bombs them. I agree that some take pleasure in this, although not all.
The point is that Hamas realizes that they benefit from this and encourages it.
Is Israel an occupying force in Gaza now according to international law? Has Hamas taken any actions to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties? Do they require all their personnel to wear uniforms so they can be distinguished from noncombatants? Have they located all their forces and rockets and weapons caches far from civilian populated areas to avoid civilian casualties?
Of course not. Just the opposite. If reducing civilian casualties was a Hamas priority or objective they could take
ok but reducing casualties is different than the initial allegation that Hamas desired more casualties.
Is Israel an occupying force in Gaza now according to international law?
yes.
Has Hamas taken any actions to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties?
dont know. are they required to?
Do they require all their personnel to wear uniforms so they can be distinguished from noncombatants?
from what I have seen I dont think so. are they required to?
Have they located all their forces and rockets and weapons caches far from civilian populated areas to avoid civilian casualties?
is that even possible in Gaza? are they required to?
This is a different argument. I agree that Israel still bombs them. I agree that some take pleasure in this, although not all.
The point is that Hamas realizes that they benefit from this and encourages it.
I think that saying that Hamas encourages civilians to get bombed requires a lot more evidence. esp when all of the independent studies show otherwise.
I've yet to see any independent study showing otherwise. Most use the proper definition for human shield and say that Hamas uses human shields. Even HRW's report says they use human shields, they just don't call them human shields. Use whatever term you wish.
BTW also from the Al Jazeera article:
and proximate shields are civilians or civilian sites that become shields or are cast as shields due to their proximity to the fighting.
They go on to argue that it is not OK to bomb a place if it uses human shields, because they accept the fact that Hamas is using them.
I think if you look into it most sources will say that Hamas uses human shields. The evidence is out there.
ok but reducing casualties is different than the initial allegation that Hamas desired more casualties.
yes.
dont know. are they required to?
from what I have seen I dont think so. are they required to?
is that even possible in Gaza? are they required to?
Who could require Hamas to do anything? If they were concerned about minimizing the casualties of their civilian population, they would take actions to do so. If they believed that reducing the number of women and children killed was in their best interest, they would do so. There is no "mother may I" authority they need to ask first. Instead they have chosen to take actions that increase the likelihood of civilian deaths. Why would they possibly put their civilians at greater risk of death unless they felt those deaths helped them strategically?
I just linked to one
I've yet to see any independent study showing otherwise. Most use the proper definition for human shield and say that Hamas uses human shields. Even HRW's report says they use human shields, they just don't call them human shields. Use whatever term you wish.
if they dont call them human shields then they arent human shields.
as for no studies...
I just linked to one
This is what you said:
I think that saying that Hamas encourages civilians to get bombed requires a lot more evidence. esp when all of the independent studies show otherwise.
And you're quoting a study which states "which it said endangered civilians and amounted to a violation of the requirement that Hamas take all necessary precautions to protect civilians from military action..."
This study proves the exact opposite of what you claim. You are focused on the semantics argument of what is a human shield. I have already stated that the semantics of what constitutes a human shield is not important to my argument (as proven by your study).
Would you prefer to call them human pillars or something? It's unimportant to the argument that Hamas is endangering civilians, as your study points out.
Who could require Hamas to do anything? If they were concerned about minimizing the casualties of their civilian population, they would take actions to do so. If they believed that reducing the number of women and children killed was in their best interest, they would do so. There is no "mother may I" authority they need to ask first. Instead they have chosen to take actions that increase the likelihood of civilian deaths. Why would they possibly put their civilians at greater risk of death unle
ok but this is different than what you and BGP initially alleged which was that Hamas benefited from dead civilians and took steps to increase the number.
when I ask if it was required, I mean by international law for an occupied resistance? and I mean rhetorically as well. like have other guerilla forces?
I dont think its really feasible for Hamas to dress everyone in kit. they dont have the resources. should they wear an arm band or something? would that be enough?
I dont know and dont care tbh. we are getting away from the premise imo. I dont think that Hamas is increasing the civilian death toll. I think Isael is killing civilians bc that is their priority.
This is what you said:
And you're quoting a study which states "which it said endangered civilians and amounted to a violation of the requirement that Hamas take all necessary precautions to protect civilians from military action..."
This study proves the exact opposite of what you claim. You are focused on the semantics argument of what is a human shield. I have already stated that the semantics of what constitutes a human shield is not important to my argument (as proven by your study).
Would yo
the study literally says they are not using human shields. I am not sure what else to say here. you disagree with the definition used in the study.
if the study says they arent using enough precaution then ok, but thats different than human shields. and its not enough imo, to conclude that they are trying to incite civilian deaths or that those deaths somehow benefit them.
Your post is 100% focused on the semantics of what a human shield is. As the post you've quoted says: THAT DOES NOT MATTER.
Does the study conclude that Hamas takes measures to protect civilians, or that Hamas's actions "endangered civilians"? (hint: this is a direct quote from the study you linked.)
Whether or not they are human shields is not important to the argument. Replace human shields with whatever term you feel more accurately captures the situation.
