“…given my own chosen definition of relic such that the article can be characterized differently”

“It’s not us, it’s the fact checkers…”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/

Anything below mostly factual gets a no from me dawg.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/16/fact-check-tipping-kept-wages-low-formerly-enslaved-black-workers/3896620001/

Our ruling: True

Based on our research, the claim that tipping became popularized by restaurant owners who didn’t want to pay Black workers after the passage of the 15th Amendment is generally TRUE, though more context is helpful.

All I see is you trying to garner understanding towards Hamas using civilians as shields. No history leads to this, Hamas is not forced to do this.

What Hamas is requesting changes to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Underscoring the importance of the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States aimed at reaching a comprehensive ceasefire deal, consisting of three phases,

1. Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;

2. Notes that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases:

(a) Phase 1: an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community;

(b) Phase 2: upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and

© Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families;

3. Underlines that the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue, and welcomes the readiness of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to work to ensure negotiations keep going until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin;

4. Stresses the importance of the parties adhering to the terms of this proposal once agreed and calls upon all Member States and the United Nations to support its implementation;

5. Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;

6. Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

No, I started a topic and you changed it. The article itself says there were hostages held in refugee camps. “Coming in swinging” is just… indicative. I’m ending this with you.

And there is NOTHING that excuses using civilians as shields. Stop trying to justify it.

I’m not wasting the time explaining this to you after the other user already did.

Sounds like the history is that Hamas held hostages in a refugee camp and that’s dangerous for them. No other history involving anyone else legitimizes Hamas doing this.

And to address your accusation of whataboutism, I’ll refer you to my original comment at the top of the chain and ask you what I started to discuss and who changed the topic. “So you would hold Israel to the same standards?” Is textbook whataboutism.

Edit: and I think using civilians as shields is worse. Much worse. End of debate.

If Israel rejects the ceasefire its… Hamas’ fault?

Where does it say that?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj77j7ppj52o.amp

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that if a ceasefire plan backed by the US and UN does not progress, Hamas will be to blame.

Mr Blinken reiterated his call for Hamas to accept the plan as outlined by President Biden 11 days ago.

He said the onus was on “one guy” hiding “ten storeys underground in Gaza” to make the casting vote, referring to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

Mr Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “reaffirmed his commitment” to the proposal when they held talks in Jerusalem on Monday.

Mr Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed what Mr Biden outlined nor said whether it matches an Israeli proposal on which Mr Biden’s statement was based.

Mr Blinken described as a “hopeful sign” Hamas’s response to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Monday supporting what Mr Biden had announced.

The resolution noted that Israel had accepted what Mr Biden had presented and called on Hamas to do so as well.

Hamas issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming “what was included” in the resolution.

But Mr Blinken said Hamas’s response was not conclusive, adding that that “what counts” is what is said by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, “and that’s what we don’t have”.

If the proposal did not proceed then it was “on them”, he said.

Yes, and this is all clear whataboutism. And lazy at that. So that means we both think Hamas should stop using civilians as human shields right? Sweet, tell me when they stop. And I’m gonna just ignore your attempt to equate Hamas charter with 11 points, that’s just silly on its face :)

Hmm, why would a “blog” be a source for fact checkers? Someone ought to tell them they’re sourcing propaganda. And maybe someone should tell Brookings that too.

The rest of your opinion is just… Your opinion. Your personal disapproval of mbfc means nothing. Unless you have another highly reputable source that supports your claim about mbfc, I’m gonna stop listening. It’s simply an attempt to silence information you personally disagree with and would not like to have discussion around. You offer no evidence to support your doubt of mbfc but your own anecdotal experience. They’re a widely accepted trustworthy source, even as described by their competitors.

You attack the source and not the information. This article describes a take on how this punishment may not lead to peace. No one is “discounting” anything, I don’t even understand how you’d get that from what I’d said, since you’re saying I discounted something.

Seems like a lot of users here want this article to say what they desire, but can’t find any way to quote where it says that.

Sure, as I said he needs to go, and he holds some responsibility. Netanyahu has fucked himself through this in too many other ways as well. Hamas is making the decision to use Palestinians as shields, with or without netanyahu’s funding, and could choose to not do this any time. Which I would welcome.

Dropped this in another thread, feel it’s applicable here.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

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.

Hamas actions are their own, no one forced them to put civilians in danger. While netanyahu needs to go, he is not to blame for the attrocities Hamas commits against their own people. Notwithstanding netanyahu’s errors, this is not just the way it goes.

While not all of them were combatants, it only makes sense that Hamas would hold civilians in direct danger because they can’t win otherwise. IDF would wipe the floor with Hamas in direct conflict as Israel’s military power is far greater than Hamas, so Hamas is resorting to using civilians to prevent military action around their territory. Hamas then can use this against Israel in a lawfare sense when netanyahu attacks.

The issue ultimately is the intentional presence of civilians in these active military areas. Normally you wouldn’t bomb schools, but when Hamas sets up shop in these typically protected areas and starts launching missiles from them they start losing that protection. This is a win-win for Hamas, they can call Israel out for being reckless if they’re attacked and use down time to recuperate when Israel is restrained. Though, if you can’t win without subjecting your own people to your own deliberate war crimes, I think you have an obligation to surrender, you clearly don’t have your own people’s interest at heart.

So, sure one could say “what else is Hamas supposed to do? They’re outgunned, how else are they supposed to fight?” Answer is you don’t. Hamas shouldn’t have attacked in October and made the choice to subsequently hide behind civilians, they should surrender for the better of Palestinians.

Can you cite where in that article your claim is substantiated?

Edit: Again, not saying it hasn’t happened, but that article doesn’t say that. And I think it does matter unless you can prove that Israel is purposefully targeting non combat zones with no inclination that Hamas is hiding there. Israel itself has attacked areas deemed non combat zones, mistakes I don’t excuse, but this is by Hamas’ design.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

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.

Ok buddy, I think you’re getting worked up. I’m not cherry picking anything, and your “whitewashing” claim is unfounded even in the linked article. I’m not continuing either of the conversations I’m having with you as a result.

Right, I didn’t deny that happened. I think there’s more to deciding linking to Turkish state media than CNN, like you’re trying to legitimize a propaganda outlet (hence I said also). So you’re not against holding hostages in combat free zones? Good! Who is that incumbent upon? Because I know who has direct control of those hostages.

I don’t think you have an understanding of their military choices to make that claim, and I’m kind of confused as to your point so I’m going to cut to the chase. Are you suggesting it’s ok that Hamas does this because Israel has (not equivalently, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and say I agree with you)?

Edit: because you’re getting fiesty with me in the other comment, I’m not continuing this with you.