Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[icehorse]

It's true that the Gaza strip is heavily populated. It's also true that there are many sparsely populated areas in Gaza.

If Hamas cares about its citizens, why doesn't it build its tunnels and launch its rockets from de-populated areas?

 

[Levite]

It's true that the Gaza strip is heavily populated. It's also true that there are many sparsely populated areas in Gaza.

If Hamas cares about its citizens, why doesn't it build its tunnels and launch its rockets from de-populated areas?

Because building tunnels and launching rockets from populated areas not only makes them harder to destroy in return, but makes them virtually impossible to destroy without incurring civilian casualties amongst the Palestinians.

It's a win-win for Hamas: if Israel does not destroy the tunnels or the rocket launching sites or the storehouses of weapons, Hamas will use them to attack Israel and kill Israeli civilians. If Israel does destroy the tunnels or the rocket launching sites or the storehouses of weapons, Hamas gets to inundate the global media with propaganda about Israel killing Palestinian civilians, thus portraying Israel as evil in the eyes of uncritical media consumers in the West, and winning support and additional funding from sympathetic members of the global Muslim community.

Either way, Hamas gains, and at little real cost to themselves, since they can and will always build more weapons, and care nothing about spending the lives of the civilians they claim to be fighting for.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because building tunnels and launching rockets from populated areas not only makes them harder to destroy in return, but makes them virtually impossible to destroy without incurring civilian casualties amongst the Palestinians.

It's a win-win for Hamas: if Israel does not destroy the tunnels or the rocket launching sites or the storehouses of weapons, Hamas will use them to attack Israel and kill Israeli civilians. If Israel does destroy the tunnels or the rocket launching sites or the storehouses of weapons, Hamas gets to inundate the global media with propaganda about Israel killing Palestinian civilians, thus portraying Israel as evil in the eyes of uncritical media consumers in the West, and winning support and additional funding from sympathetic members of the global Muslim community.

Either way, Hamas gains, and at little real cost to themselves, since they can and will always build more weapons, and care nothing about spending the lives of the civilians they claim to be fighting for.

Yes, but this a completely acceptable tactic when you're dealing with the absolute evil of the horned devil-Jews of Israel. The peace-loving and noble Hamas is defending itself and its people the only way they can.

 

[Levite]

Yes, but this a completely acceptable tactic when you're dealing with the absolute evil of the horned devil-Jews of Israel. The peace-loving and noble Hamas is defending itself and its people the only way they can.

Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Riiiiiiiiight.

Hey, I'm just trying to fit in with the ever-growing, populist narrative.

 

[CMike]

It's true that the Gaza strip is heavily populated. It's also true that there are many sparsely populated areas in Gaza.

If Hamas cares about its citizens, why doesn't it build its tunnels and launch its rockets from de-populated areas?

Because they don't care about their people.

They want them to die because it looks good for the camers.

The Hamas leaders though are living it up in luxury.

 

[xkatz]

Hey, I'm just trying to fit in with the ever-growing, populist narrative.

(True but we don't want the goyim figuring out we are shekel hoarding shape shifting reptilians from dimension X)

 

[Alceste]

It's true that the Gaza strip is heavily populated. It's also true that there are many sparsely populated areas in Gaza.

If Hamas cares about its citizens, why doesn't it build its tunnels and launch its rockets from de-populated areas?

Would you? Guerrilla warfare (aka asymmetric warfare) requires poorly armed combatants to make it difficult or impossible for the far better armed enemy combatants to pick them out from the civilian population. Whether in Vietnam, Latin America or the middle east, standing alone and in uniform in a field with a rocket launcher is simply retarded, unless your aim is a speedy and pointless death.

Israel has a choice whether to make sincere efforts to avoid slaughtering civilians in their efforts to pick off combatants, just as American soldiers who murdered every man, woman and child in Vietnamese villages had. They have chosen the bloody road,paved with civilian corpses, since the risk of losing IDF combatants is far greater if you send soldiers in to kill specific human targets. Also, it is in their interest to destroy a buildings in Gaza, since many Israelis hope to take over the whole of Palestine and drive the Arabs out.

As much as some like to believe one side is more rational than the other, both groups of combatants are behaving perfectly rationally, given that their aim is to kill each other as efficiently as possible, while avoiding being killed. Neither side gives a tinker's damn about killing civilians.

 

[icehorse]

A well reasoned response Alceste.

Why don't we hear this balanced truth in the media?

 

[Levite]

It is Hamas' choice use the Palestinian populace as human shields, and supposedly civilian locales like hospitals and schools as rocket staging areas, weapons chaches, and entrances to tunnels for terrorist attacks-- knowing that doing so makes such locations military targets, and knowing such use of civilians will inevitably increase collateral casualties.

Call it "guerrilla warfare" if it makes you feel better, but it's just nicer language for "terrorism."

Israel warns civilians to leave threatened areas, and to avoid Hamas staging areas. It phones ahead of attacks, it sends texts, it drops leaflets, it broadcasts on the radio. Hamas, by contrast tells the Palestinian populace to avoid Israeli warnings, and to go stand in the line of fire.

Given that it is ridiculous to suppose that Israel should not defend itself and retaliate from strikes, it is doing more to try and avoid civilian casualties than any army in modern history has ever done, and more than the laws of war require.

No one takes pleasure in the deaths of Palestinian civilians-- except perhaps a few lunatics on the extreme right wing-- but civilian casualties are an inevitability in war. If they were going to be truly avoided in Gaza, Hamas should not start wars and should give up terrorism.

 

[CMike]

Would you? Guerrilla warfare (aka asymmetric warfare) requires poorly armed combatants to make it difficult or impossible for the far better armed enemy combatants to pick them out from the civilian population. Whether in Vietnam, Latin America or the middle east, standing alone and in uniform in a field with a rocket launcher is simply retarded, unless your aim is a speedy and pointless death.

Israel has a choice whether to make sincere efforts to avoid slaughtering civilians in their efforts to pick off combatants, just as American soldiers who murdered every man, woman and child in Vietnamese villages had. They have chosen the bloody road,paved with civilian corpses, since the risk of losing IDF combatants is far greater if you send soldiers in to kill specific human targets. Also, it is in their interest to destroy a buildings in Gaza, since many Israelis hope to take over the whole of Palestine and drive the Arabs out.

As much as some like to believe one side is more rational than the other, both groups of combatants are behaving perfectly rationally, given that their aim is to kill each other as efficiently as possible, while avoiding being killed. Neither side gives a tinker's damn about killing civilians.

Utterly rediculous.

No military has drooped leaflets, called on the phone, and texted people exactly where they are going to bomb

The problem is that Hamas wants their people to die.

They also fake deaths for the camera.

Israel cares more about Gaza civilians than their government does. That's what Hamas is counting on.

Not only do they not care about Israeli civilians, they don't care about their own civilians.

 

[CMike]

A well reasoned response Alceste.

Why don't we hear this balanced truth in the media?

You are joking, right?

 

[CMike]

Also in guerrila warfare you still attack enemy combatants not intentionally try to murder civilians.

 

[icehorse]

You are joking, right?

Just because "journalism" is slipping into its own cesspool doesn't mean I have to take it lying down

 

[Alceste]

It is Hamas' choice use the Palestinian populace as human shields, and supposedly civilian locales like hospitals and schools as rocket staging areas, weapons chaches, and entrances to tunnels for terrorist attacks-- knowing that doing so makes such locations military targets, and knowing such use of civilians will inevitably increase collateral casualties.

Call it "guerrilla warfare" if it makes you feel better, but it's just nicer language for "terrorism."

Israel warns civilians to leave threatened areas, and to avoid Hamas staging areas. It phones ahead of attacks, it sends texts, it drops leaflets, it broadcasts on the radio. Hamas, by contrast tells the Palestinian populace to avoid Israeli warnings, and to go stand in the line of fire.

Given that it is ridiculous to suppose that Israel should not defend itself and retaliate from strikes, it is doing more to try and avoid civilian casualties than any army in modern history has ever done, and more than the laws of war require.

No one takes pleasure in the deaths of Palestinian civilians-- except perhaps a few lunatics on the extreme right wing-- but civilian casualties are an inevitability in war. If they were going to be truly avoided in Gaza, Hamas should not start wars and should give up terrorism.

This is very much like saying women who flirt shamelessly and wear short skirts are begging to be raped. It assumes there is little or no choice or free agency on the part of the attacker, and that it is the victims' behaviour alone causes the attacker to behave in a certain way. IOW the aggressor is assumed to be partially or completely under the control of the victim, and the assault is therefore partly or entirely the victim's fault.

I don't buy it in either application. Israel absolutely has a choice. It is already very well defended against rocket attacks, so arguing that bombing thousands civilian non-combatants in Gaza is absolutely necessary for the defence of Israel proper is disingenuous at best. The attacks are very, very obviously about retaliation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Israel has a choice whether to make sincere efforts to avoid slaughtering civilians in their efforts to pick off combatants, ...

Given this and this, what might that choice look like?

 

[InChrist]

It's true that the Gaza strip is heavily populated. It's also true that there are many sparsely populated areas in Gaza.

If Hamas cares about its citizens, why doesn't it build its tunnels and launch its rockets from de-populated areas?

Because it's in their manual on urban warfare and it benefits them to make use of populated areas and civilians.


"This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces."

excerpt from:

Captured Hamas Combat Manual Explains Benefits of Human Shields
http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/04/captured-hamas-combat-manual-explains-benefits-human-shields/

 

[icehorse]

This is very much like saying women who flirt shamelessly and wear short skirts are begging to be raped. It assumes there is little or no choice or free agency on the part of the attacker, and that it is the victims' behaviour alone causes the attacker to behave in a certain way. IOW the aggressor is assumed to be partially or completely under the control of the victim, and the assault is therefore partly or entirely the victim's fault.

I don't buy it in either application. Israel absolutely has a choice. It is already very well defended against rocket attacks, so arguing that bombing thousands civilian non-combatants in Gaza is absolutely necessary for the defence of Israel proper is disingenuous at best. The attacks are very, very obviously about retaliation.

This argument (and extremely weak analogy), can stand only if you're granted a whole boatload of "givens" that are clearly not close to be "given" in this discussion.

- agreement to relative victimhood has not been established.
- agreement to relative aggressor-hood has not been established.
- agreement that perpetually "hunkering down" is a viable strategy is not a given.
- firing from civilian-occupied buildings is a war crime, and it's not been agreed that Hamas has no other choice of launch sites. (In fact it's quite apparent that they have endless, less-populated launch sites.)

 

[Alceste]

A well reasoned response Alceste.

Why don't we hear this balanced truth in the media?

Because we are primates. Tribal, territorial, irrational and violent. We've got massive frontal lobes that hypothetically should allow us to reason, but for the most part we use them to rationalize our primate behaviour.

 

[Levite]

This is very much like saying women who flirt shamelessly and wear short skirts are begging to be raped. It assumes there is little or no choice or free agency on the part of the attacker, and that it is the victims' behaviour alone causes the attacker to behave in a certain way. IOW the aggressor is assumed to be partially or completely under the control of the victim, and the assault is therefore partly or entirely the victim's fault.

That is an insane comparison. A flirting and scantily clad woman is harming no one and doing nothing save minding her own affairs. Hamas is attacking Israel, not minding its own affairs. The fact that Israel has a defense that is extremely successful and reliable, but by no means perfect, does not mean that Hamas' rockets are not dangerous and in need of being stopped. Furthermore, if anything, the tunnels are the greater longer-term threat: the thwarted Rosh Hashanah attack could have been a bloodbath. These real threats have to be taken care of, and it is both ludicrous and lunatic to suggest that Israel simply sit back and passively hope the defenses will be perfect and the enemy will offer no secret sabotage or treacherous attack. No one in their right minds would just sit back and hope that terrorists don't do too much damage. If anything, that is the inverse of your analogy, where Israel must be the violated woman who is advised, "If you're going to be raped, try to make the best of it and hope it will be done sooner."

Israel absolutely has a choice. It is already very well defended against rocket attacks, so arguing that bombing thousands civilian non-combatants in Gaza is absolutely necessary for the defence of Israel proper is disingenuous at best. The attacks are very, very obviously about retaliation.

Israel has a choice to defend itself, knowing that even with it's many precautions, there will be innocent Palestinian casualties, or not to defend itself, knowing that sooner or later there will be innocent Israeli casualties.

Hamas is a terrorist group that, given power as government, has dug in and turned Gaza into a nest of illicit weapons dumps, rocket staging areas, and tunnels going into or toward Israel-- regardless of what civilian uses those same locations are designated for, or how neutral and protected those locations are supposed to be. They recruit civilians to be human shields. And they purposely direct civilians to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. And they engineered the various acts which provoked this war. They are ultimately the ones responsible for all the civilian casualties.