- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
They hide under residential neighborhoods, storing their weapons in miles of tunnels and in houses, mosques, sofas — even a child’s bedroom — blurring the boundary between civilians and combatants.
So they fight like US revolutionaries, the insurgents who fought back against nazi invaders in WWII, and pretty much every population that is being overwhelmed by superior numbers during wartime.
Why is that a bad thing when defending against invaders? Like yeah, it would be pretty shitty for invaders to do that, but pretty reasonable as a defensive tactic.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.
That is appreciated, thanks!
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!
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.
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.
Yes, the difference is all the things I wasn’t talking about.
Did someone say “by design?”
This article reads like if the Bad Hasbara podcast was renamed to The Truth and hosted by Elon Levy.
In other words, typical NYT genocide cheerleading.
Weird… I don’t share that opinion at all. And I’m not sure how this is constructive discussion.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)
Weird… I don’t share that opinion at all
Gee, I wonder why…
I’m not sure how this is constructive discussion.
You’re absolutely right, but not in the way you mean.
FYI, MBFC is not itself reliable. It’s the hobby of one conservative Zionist named Dave, masquerading as an authority on reliability and bias.
Hell, the very summary you quote completely glosses over the Screams without words debacle, which was poorly constructed Hasbara co-written by a former IDF official with no reporting experience and a gigantic anti-Palestinian chip on her shoulder, basedfact unreliable testimony from inherently biased sources.
There are countless other examples, but that the NYT published that gigantic pile of fateful journalistic malpractice and stand by it to this day is in itself enough to disqualify them as a reliable source when it comes to anything regarding Israel.
Likewise, that MBFC completely ignores that in their review, claiming that the NYT has not failed ANY news reporting fact checks in recent years is proof positive that MBFC can’t be trusted to judge the reliability and bias of the NYT, if any outlet at all.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.” They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.”
It’s one guy who sometimes has the help of volunteers and paid freelancers, with no transparency as to who writes and researches what and as evidenced by their thoroughly negligent
They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
That’s probably more to do with collegial courtesy/not wanting beef with Dave than all of his competitors (and NPR, whose own standards have been slipping perilously in recent decades) actually thinking that he’s great at it.
Or it could not even be that. Your implicit trust in the Hasbara along with you completely ignoring the substantive parts of my comment implies that you may have just made up their trust in Dave from whole cloth 🤷
MBFC has been studied by independent researchers.
Cited by NPR, Reuters Fact Check.
Newsguard analysis (perfect score from a competitor):
Thank you for motivating me to research this - I learned that MBFC is actually far more reliable and trusted by the news industry and scientific community than I realized.
Here’s that analysis with true statements marked green, mostly false ones marked blue, and complete and utter nonsense marked red
A perfect score full of obvious errors isn’t worth much.
MBFCDave is actually far morereliable and trustedpropped up by the [main stream] news industry andscientific communitycommercial fact guessers than I realizedFixed that for you.
Dave and his site are only slightly more reliable on matters pertaining to Israel than the spokesperson for the IDF.
In return, Duranty won rare interviews with Stalin and wrote glowingly about Stalin and his plans. The Pulitzer board cited his “dispassionate interpretive reporting” in awarding him a prize in 1932 for a series of reports the previous year. The first was a front-page article that started with the line: “Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms.”
In 2003, public pressure led the Times and the Pulitzer Prize Board to conduct parallel reviews of Duranty’s work and the prize. The board found no “clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception.” It decided against withdrawing his award.
Exhibit No. 1 for for NYT’s editorial quality.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097097620/new-york-times-pulitzer-ukraine-walter-duranty
The posted article is not an editorial, so I don’t understand the relevance.
Duranty example shows that editors at NYT will permit political/ideological bias to shape coverage even if it is to cover up a genocide.
Now today’s example is hard to cover up, but NYT is not here on Palestinians team, never has been. Their coverage is there to make liberal American to accept the situation as is, nothing can be done, Israel is not doing a genocide but if they are, Gaza residents had it coming anyway.
This is completely unfounded with regards to the reporting (not editorializing). You provide absolutely no evidence to support this biased opinion.
This is verging on conspiratorial misinformation, and an attempt to baselessly discredit the posted article.
I provide a historical fact where NYT was instrumental of covering up a genocide in 1930s and I suggested that they are a bad faith actor here too, which is my opinion.
conspiratorial misinformation
You not liking another person’s opinion does not make their opinion a conspiracy btw
I could be wrong, clearly another poster feels similar though.
But the bottom line is that NYT already did this before, that is a fact. Time will tell what role they played here, it took 70 years for truth to come for the last “trick”
I’m not going to continue this with you. How absolutely absurd that you’re attempting to discredit this article due to something that happened nearly a century ago. Mbfc’s analysis of nyt now strikingly doesn’t include your aforementioned concern, perhaps your should update them with this insight and see if it moves their needle? :)
Hamas fights in defence of its land, Israel slaughters children to gain more.
The IDF are monsters.
