The Hamas Argument

[metis]

To be fair, insisting on the partition of India was not so much a problem as an indication of the problem.

Actually it was both, unless you're looking at this in a different way than I. Gandhi felt that Hindu and Muslem and others should live side-by-side in tolerance and peace, but Jinna refused that approach essentially stating that he and his fellow Muslems would not accept this. Nehru reluctantly agreed in order to try and prevent civil war, but bloodshed ended up being massive anyway even with the partitioning.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually it was both, unless you're looking at this in a different way than I. Gandhi felt that Hindu and Muslem and others should live side-by-side in tolerance and peace, but Jinna refused that approach essentially stating that he and his fellow Muslems would not accept this. Nehru reluctantly agreed in order to try and prevent civil war, but bloodshed ended up being massive anyway even with the partitioning.

I don't disagree. But neither do I think refusing partition would be a solution as such. Obviously, neither did Nehru.

 

[metis]

I don't disagree. But neither do I think refusing partition would be a solution as such. Obviously, neither did Nehru.

Yes, I agree, much like the partitioning of Palestine was in reality a good move as well as since the conflicts were gaining momentum and becoming more deadly. Often "fences make for good neighbors", but certainly not always. Most of the U.N. partitions eventually settled down after a while, however this one obviously hasn't.

What some don't realize is that the history of the Middle East was always plagued by violence-- it's a very rough area and always has been. Fighting over limited resources is historic, along with strong territorial conflicts. Religious animosity added even more fuel to the fire, with Sunni versus Shi'i being the nastiest.

With the many problems in that region, peaceful solutions are very hard to come by, and the problems are going to get worse before getting better because of rapid population growth and serious water problems.

 

[Alceste]

I have to admit that this was my fault as I misread what you posted, thinking that Israel uses its own population as human shields. Sorry about that.

The point is that fighting from a crowd that is free to come and go is not "using human shields ". It is bog standard asymmetric warfare, as seen in Vietnam and Latin America. To be guilty of using human shields, you must restrict or control the movements of captives to protect personnel or equipment. Israel does this, Hamas apparently does not.

 

[LuisDantas]

To be guilty of using human shields, you must restrict or control the movements of captives to protect personnel or equipment. Israel does this, Hamas apparently does not.

Post reference, please? I don't doubt you, but I want details.

ETA: Never mind, I found it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3875771-post340.html

 

[metis]

The point is that fighting from a crowd that is free to come and go is not "using human shields ". It is bog standard asymmetric warfare, as seen in Vietnam and Latin America. To be guilty of using human shields, you must restrict or control the movements of captives to protect personnel or equipment. Israel does this, Hamas apparently does not.

It had been reported that Hamas was indeed do as such earlier on in this conflict, and this was not from the Israeli media. See this link that you posted yourself: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield

The use of human shields can be done in different ways, and one of them is to fire missiles/rockets/mortars from civilian areas and then running into homes/schools/mosques/whatever.

 

[CMike]

There are such things as surgical strikes. There are people trained for such things. The human shield argument only becomes an argument if you bother to fire at said shield in the first place knowing full well that such a shield exists. Israel knows what its doing and its demonic.

Nonsense.

They are not firing at the shields, they are firing at the terrorists, who intentionally are trying to get their own people killed.

Hamas, and Hamas alone are responsible for these deaths.

 

[Alceste]

It had been reported that Hamas was indeed do as such earlier on in this conflict, and this was not from the Israeli media. See this link that you posted yourself: Human shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The use of human shields can be done in different ways, and one of them is to fire missiles/rockets/mortars from civilian areas and then running into homes/schools/mosques/whatever.

That is The IDF's opinion, and I disagree with it (as does international law). Guerrilla fighters have to use different strategies to kill the enemy without being killed than state funded armies who have the luxury of slaughtering from afar.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nonsense.

They are not firing at the shields, they are firing at the terrorists, who intentionally are trying to get their own people killed.

Hamas, and Hamas alone are responsible for these deaths.

How can you even consider saying that with a straight face?

 

[Levite]

That is The IDF's opinion, and I disagree with it (as does international law). Guerrilla fighters have to use different strategies to kill the enemy without being killed than state funded armies who have the luxury of slaughtering from afar.

Translation: it's unreasonable to expect Hamas not to use their civilians as shields, because then it would be so hard for them to successfully be terrorists.

 

[Alceste]

Translation: it's unreasonable to expect Hamas not to use their civilians as shields, because then it would be so hard for them to successfully be terrorists.

No, it is unreasonable to pretend that guerrilla fighters using whatever cover they can find to kill and avoid being killed are any less rational or moral than state-sanctioned fighters who do their killing from afar. Both are cowards and murderers, but both are acting rationally and with equal moral rectitude.

Also, once again, the IDF uses human shields. There is little credible evidence that Hamas does the same. They fight from urban areas. That is not the same thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Translation: it's unreasonable to expect Hamas not to use their civilians as shields, because then it would be so hard for them to successfully be terrorists.

You disappoint me, Levite. I know you are far wiser than this post shows.

 

[Godobeyer]

You disappoint me, Levite. I know you are far wiser than this post shows.

see

we need to declare cease-fire in RF between pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel for 3 days

Brother Levite and many others had empty bullet of wises , they need to a break (time out) to reload wises

 

[Mycroft]

Also, once again, the IDF uses human shields. There is little credible evidence that Hamas does the same. They fight from urban areas. That is not the same thing.

It is a familiar refrain. But in fact as you said, it is the Israeli military itself that turns Palestinians into 'human shields', and strips them of their protected status under international law.

A senior ILD officicial was once quoted in this admission (during his defense of the knock on the roof tactic) that: "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting."

In other words, the Israeli military strips Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip of their protected status under international law, labelling them 'voluntary human shields'. In the same article, an ILD official justified targeting Gaza's "entire governmental infrastructure".

 

[dantech]

It is a familiar refrain. But in fact as you said, it is the Israeli military itself that turns Palestinians into 'human shields', and strips them of their protected status under international law

Except that most, if not all, of the evidence says the opposite.

 

[Mycroft]

Except that most, if not all, of the evidence says the opposite.

Most, if not all evidence, that you'll accept, (IE: from israeli sources) says the opposite.

 

[dantech]

Most, if not all evidence, that you'll accept, (IE: from israeli sources) says the opposite.

Copy your message, paste it, and replace "Quatermass" with "Dantech".

The same can, and is, being said about you.

 

[Mycroft]

The same can, and is, being said about you.

Only by supporters of Israel. Which isn't really that important.

 

[Alceste]

It is a familiar refrain. But in fact as you said, it is the Israeli military itself that turns Palestinians into 'human shields', and strips them of their protected status under international law.

A senior ILD officicial was once quoted in this admission (during his defense of the knock on the roof tactic) that: "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting."

In other words, the Israeli military strips Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip of their protected status under international law, labelling them 'voluntary human shields'. In the same article, an ILD official justified targeting Gaza's "entire governmental infrastructure".

Interviews with Gazans asking why they stayed in their homes despite receiving a warning came up with a few answers. 1) they have nowhere safe to go. 2) the IDF often bombs different buildings than the ones that receive a warning. 3) they feel safer indoors during a bombing than out.

What didn't come up was the desire to sacrifice themselves to protect Hamas personnel and equipment.

 

[Thruve]

Interviews with Gazans asking why they stayed in their homes despite receiving a warning came up with a few answers. 1) they have nowhere safe to go. 2) the IDF often bombs different buildings than the ones that receive a warning. 3) they feel safer indoors during a bombing than out.

What didn't come up was the desire to sacrifice themselves to protect Hamas personnel and equipment.

That came as a surprise. Not.