EPTStocking weapons in schools, hospitals, and conducting various military activities in/around those areas is what people are meaning when they say "human shields". That is the definition we have generally been using in this thread. Is that not a good definition to you? I feel like however you want to navigate the semantics, Hamas of course has been utilizing civilian buildings for military purposes. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 328
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Stocking weapons in schools, hospitals, and conducting various military activities in/around those areas is what people are meaning when they say "human shields". That is the definition we have generally been using in this thread. Is that not a good definition to you? I feel like however you want to navigate the semantics, Hamas of course has been utilizing civilian buildings for military purposes. What exactly are you disagreeing with? | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5600 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12461 Posts
On September 25 2024 04:56 Elroi wrote: That doesn’t make sense. Why would the IDF use human shields to deter their enemies? Hamas and Hizbollah are actively targeting civilians. The perpetrators of the oct 7 attack had maps with schools and kindergartens highlighted in order to kill as many children as possible. They mean they're using Palestinians as human shields, not Israelis. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
I think this distinction is important enough to focus on and iron out before subsequent discussions because it contextualizes a wide array of ethical questions. Disagreeing on this very basic premise will just harm any subsequent conversations because it will just be people talking past each other. Edit: I also remember many conversations that centered around "Is it reasonable for Israel to strike a civilian building being used for military purposes? If Israel knows civilians will die due to human shields, Israel is morally failing when they decide to prioritize eliminating Hamas military capabilities over preservation of civilians being used as human shields" We also discussed at length the rescue of various hostages from various residential areas/buildings. We have specific stories of specific civilians being held in civilian buildings. Those stories have been framed as "Israel killed the doctor who lived in the house where a hostage was being held". But I want to be clear all of these conversations were always predicated on the basic assumption that Hamas is of course using human shield tactics. The only question was how Israel ought to adjust their plans knowing that. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1090 Posts
Whoever Neve Gordon is, he's a fucking moron or else he's being completely misrepresented. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12461 Posts
On September 25 2024 05:21 RenSC2 wrote: The argument that they are not human shields because Israel is attacking anyways is complete garbage. A shield that doesn't work well is still a shield. If I'm a barbarian who's charging into battle with a wooden shield and I get blasted with a cannon ball, I still used a shield, it just wasn't very effective. Hamas is still putting their military assets in hospitals and schools. Hamas is still the one committing the war crimes by using human shields. Whoever Neve Gordon is, he's a fucking moron or else he's being completely misrepresented. The purpose of a shield is not to be broken, it's to protect. Hamas doesn't want the civilians to protect them, it wants the civilians to die. As such, the term is not an accurate description of what's happening, and it is apparent (to me) that the only reason why the term is used is to protect Israel. If I recall correctly a long time ago Israel was claiming literal human shields, like they're in battle and the Hamas soldiers are hiding behind civilians. Then this was debunked and human shield took on this new meaning of "existing in the same general area as civilians" that I find annoying to read. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 25 2024 05:25 Nebuchad wrote: The purpose of a shield is not to be broken, it's to protect. Hamas doesn't want the civilians to protect them, it wants the civilians to die. As such, the term is not an accurate description of what's happening, and it is apparent (to me) that the only reason why the term is used is to protect Israel. If I recall correctly a long time ago Israel was claiming literal human shields, like they're in battle and the Hamas soldiers are hiding behind civilians. Then this was debunked and human shield took on this new meaning of "existing in the same general area as civilians" that I find annoying to read. What should they be called? human sacrifices? You seem to agree Hamas has been mixing military operations in highly populated civilian areas/buildings, and hiding hostages in civilian buildings, knowing those civilians will die. So how ought we label them? Are you saying this distinction shifts the moral considerations in some way? Honestly, I feel like there are a couple assumptions you are assuming we all understand and it appears at least a few of us don't follow your logic. I'm not asking for some kinda PhD thesis, but if you could go a few levels back and explain how this is a different moral consideration from "human shield", I'd appreciate it. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9847 Posts
On September 25 2024 05:35 Mohdoo wrote: What should they be called? human sacrifices? You seem to agree Hamas has been mixing military operations in highly populated civilian areas/buildings, and hiding hostages in civilian buildings, knowing those civilians will die. So how ought we label them? Are you saying this distinction shifts the moral considerations in some way? Honestly, I feel like there are a couple assumptions you are assuming we all understand and it appears at least a few of us don't follow your logic. I'm not asking for some kinda PhD thesis, but if you could go a few levels back and explain how this is a different moral consideration from "human shield", I'd appreciate it. Human sacrifices is way more appropriate tbh. | ||
|
Billyboy
1720 Posts
Time will tell long term is Iran's strategy to destroy Israel and kill all the people that live within their borders will be successful, but there is certainly a brilliance to it. If you can get past the whole massive human sacrifice for their own benefit and evil intentions thing. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12461 Posts
On September 25 2024 06:11 Billyboy wrote: Sadly the human sacrifice* is a very successful strategy for the terrorist groups because of how it wins the war of optics which is a very underrated part of the war. Another big factor is allows them to hide the true numbers. Like you never see numbers of how many combatants vs Civilians have died (you might from Israel but they are instantly discarded as biased). So even when the terrorist groups lose fighters and combatants it increases the outrage against Israel. Time will tell long term is Iran's strategy to destroy Israel and kill all the people that live within their borders will be successful, but there is certainly a brilliance to it. If you can get past the whole massive human sacrifice for their own benefit and evil intentions thing. I don't think it's that sad that it's effective to be honest, I think it's good that when humans die it elicits a reaction. Most of the people who I think of positively have that. | ||
|
Billyboy
1720 Posts
On September 25 2024 06:25 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think it's that sad that it's effective to be honest, I think it's good that when humans die it elicits a reaction. Most of the people who I think of positively have that. Seems like a very "strange" way to read my post, yes it is sad when anyone dies, combatants included. But generally it is considered worse when non-combatants are killed. That is why is sad that maximizing death is an effective strategy. I think if Israel starts having proxy armies in the various states and uses these tactics that you would see my point. It is well known that it is an effective strategy hence the whole war crimes rules. The issue is the UN is getting (or seen as) more toothless by the day and without enforcement they are pretty useless. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 25 2024 06:25 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think it's that sad that it's effective to be honest, I think it's good that when humans die it elicits a reaction. Most of the people who I think of positively have that. The sad part is people dying who otherwise would not have died. Just to reiterate: The Geneva convention defines "using hospitals for military purposes" as a war crime because it is a conscious decision to increase the % chance of a civilian being killed. Here is the logic diagram as I understand it: Assumption 1: Military targets will always be a high priority to bomb because military targets being destroyed provides both offensive and defensive value Assumption 2: When a nation decides to engage in war, they are assumed to be highly motivated to the extent that they are willing to kill other humans because they decided the ends justify the means. Conclusion 1: Using a hospital for military purposes increases the % chance a civilian in a hospital will be killed compared to the same military purpose being done in a non-civilian location. The net result of using a hospital for military purposes is an increase in the total human death because hospitals being bombed creates more death than an alternative military target. This is due to lots of people in hospitals and the secondary effect of the hospital no longer being able to prevent other deaths. I want to be clear I am not citing the geneva convention or my understanding of it as direct proof your perspective is wrong. The Geneva convention was crafted by humans and should be assumed to be as vulnerable to flaws as the humans who contributed to it. And that is why there has been a lot of disagreement among all of us. This is where people generally disagree on who has blood on their hands. Many of our conversations around this topic have been focused on defining how to assign blame for civilian deaths when Hamas uses human shield methods and Israel still bombs or attacks some civilian area like a hospital or house or school. One end of the spectrum represents absolute pacifism, where each death is assessed in a pure vacuum and all guilt is assigned to whoever pressed the "bomb" button. The opposite side of the spectrum assigns all guilt to the Hamas fighters conducting military operations in the hospital. So with all that being said, I think we still need to at least decide whether or not Hamas is using human shield tactics if we are to continue the discussion that began above. If you are operating from the perspective of "Hamas does not use human shields", please specify what terminology you think is more appropriate or define why you don't think Hamas uses these tactics. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12461 Posts
On September 25 2024 07:13 Billyboy wrote: Seems like a very "strange" way to read my post, yes it is sad when anyone dies, combatants included. But generally it is considered worse when non-combatants are killed. That is why is sad that maximizing death is an effective strategy. I think if Israel starts having proxy armies in the various states and uses these tactics that you would see my point. It is well known that it is an effective strategy hence the whole war crimes rules. The issue is the UN is getting (or seen as) more toothless by the day and without enforcement they are pretty useless. I definitely agree with you there, we should make it so the UN can enforce stuff. | ||
|
Billyboy
1720 Posts
On September 25 2024 07:47 Nebuchad wrote: I definitely agree with you there, we should make it so the UN can enforce stuff. I don't think that. In a world where the UN was an altruistic free and fair organization, that was unbiased and not politically influenced, it would be great. But that seems as likely as the people in this conflict realizing we are all human and it is better to not kill each other and work together. Or stop following any leader preaching violence and blame on the "others" whether that is religion, political or both. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9847 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26793 Posts
On September 25 2024 14:49 Jockmcplop wrote: Its amazing how many new posters come on to this forum only to post in this thread in defence of Israel. I mean I get much of my news and engage in basically all political discussion solely on TL these days, but it does seem a strange port of call for newcomers to gravitate to to discuss this particular topic | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12461 Posts
On September 25 2024 15:31 WombaT wrote: I mean I get much of my news and engage in basically all political discussion solely on TL these days, but it does seem a strange port of call for newcomers to gravitate to to discuss this particular topic Especially when they gravitate to discuss the topic in order to not say anything  But it's probably not as many new people as we suspect, right? | ||
|
Billyboy
1720 Posts
On September 25 2024 14:49 Jockmcplop wrote: Its amazing how many new posters come on to this forum only to post in this thread in defence of Israel. This is a strange take if you are talking about me. Can you point out what part of posts are in defense of Israel? I reread them and I read them as factual about Iran's terrorist groups. Is the purpose of the thread not to discuss a very complicated and awful set of events? Or is it just to talk only about the bad stuff Israel does? If so why? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9847 Posts
On September 25 2024 21:06 Billyboy wrote: This is a strange take if you are talking about me. Can you point out what part of posts are in defense of Israel? I reread them and I read them as factual about Iran's terrorist groups. Is the purpose of the thread not to discuss a very complicated and awful set of events? Or is it just to talk only about the bad stuff Israel does? If so why? Ok cool. | ||
| ||
