• fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    How insightful… I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity…

    Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.

    The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

    The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.

    “We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.

    Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn’t simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.

    Additionally, I don’t recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics…

    https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

    The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

    Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it’s head when confronted with:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/27005/human-shields-weapon-strong/

    During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.

    There isn’t a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I’m somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you’re not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.

    Edit: here’s a novel thought… Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user’s homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I’m not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.

      • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you’re making now.

        Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven’t read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you’re using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I’ve cited.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment.

          I didn’t clearly say my comment wasn’t about every other possible thing? It wasn’t about child labor laws or women’s suffrage either.

          I onky stated it in a narrow way and you read things into it that weren’t there. That is on you.

          • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you’re trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they’re fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you’re referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.

            Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.

    • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Wait wait wait… You’re saying disguising combatants as civilians and using civilians as shields is bad because it directly results in a huge increase in civilian casualties? But that means you see how Israel might not be gratuitously committing genocide but rather it being an unfortunate side effect of the terrorist’s strategy!

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        So the French Resistance in WWII, where they hid weapons of war in their homes and businesses to blend in with the population while hiding from nazis were just terrorists trying to increase civilian casualties? Would you consider their fellow citizens to be human shields?

        Maybe Isreal’s narrative about ‘human shields’ is bullshit. Especially after they got caught strapping Palestinian prisoners to the hoods of IDF vehicles.

        • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The difference ofc being that the French Resistance didn’t cry for sympathy when a Tiger tank plowed through their building. They knew and accepted the risks. Also, they didn’t start the war. Also also they hid the equipment in THEIR buildings and homes and not every school/hospital/nursery they could find.