this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
172 points (93.4% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2400 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Man, I'm so tired of seeing "human shield" comments. We can't trust Israel's claims when it comes to human shields. They have a track record of lying about it. Check out what happened in the Great March of Return in 2021-- IDF snipers killed 185 unarmed adults and 35 children. Israel claimed each of them were being used as a human shield. However, "human shield" refers to civilian deaths when targeting militants in combat. If all those journalists, medics, children, and unarmed activists were human shields, who were they shielding? Killing that many unarmed protestors would be a war crime, if we bothered to hold a tribunal. Israel is using the fog of war today to make their claims seem reasonable, but just five years ago the IDF showed an undeniable pattern of killing innocent people then lying about it.

Furthermore, if we're going to accept Israel's claims that Hamas is using human shields and their flawed definition of what a "human shield" is, then we also must accept that Israel uses human shields, too. The majority of their military bases are in densely populated areas. Their army broadcasts from a residential tower. The IDF's main HQ is in the middle of a residential and shopping sector in Tel Aviv. Is anyone accusing Israel of using human shields? On the other hand, if Hamas were to level any of those military buildings in residential areas of Israel, is there any doubt in your mind that Hamas would be accused of war crimes?

What this really is is a double standard. Israel uses the "human shield" defense for any civilian they kill in an attempt to give themselves international support under the color of law, but Hamas does not get that privilege and does not attempt to claim it.

The purpose of laws for international war is to create a standard that's applied equally to everyone. Israel (and the US, too) seems to think that standard only applies to their enemies.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Man, I’m so tired of seeing “human shield” comments

I, too, am tired of Hamas purposely encouraging civilian casualties.

On the other hand, if Hamas were to level any of those military buildings in residential areas of Israel, is there any doubt in your mind that Hamas would be accused of war crimes?

They absolutely would be doing this if the Iron Dome did not exist, and sometimes accomplish it even when it does.

Quick reminder this entire shitfestival began with Hamas murdering over a thousand innocent people directly.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you honestly think this began on October 7th, 2023, then you should genuinely stay out of this discussion until you educate yourself on the last 100 years of history.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i mean if you want to bring up Palestine losing two separate wars and thus losing their land, and Hamas refusing every single peace treaty (even though the West Bank accepted the terms), feel free.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bruh are you calling what's going on in the West Bank peace? These people are the victims of an explicit genocide campaign.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No. I said that West Bank accepted peace treaties but Hamas refused them every single time, thus ending the treaties.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll engage just in case, but yeah this is very wrong. First, until 2006 the West Bank and Gaza were under one government, so the idea that the West Bank alone accepted any terms is very interesting, to say the least. Second, Israeli bullshit peace offers are too many so just say which one you want and I'll explain why it was bullshit. The only exception was the Oslo accords in 1993-1995, but those fell through when the Israeli PM was fucking assassinated by a Zionist and replaced by Bibi, who called the whole thing off.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I was referencing the Oslo Accords, yes. However, I'm curious about your saying that Bibi called it off.

I thought it was because of attacks from jihadist groups who weren't in favour of the accords started attacking again.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The West Bank isn’t ruled by Hamas, they have zero presence there. You have a very limited perspective on this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hamas can’t refuse a treaty for a territory they do not rule. Your argument is still ridiculous on its face.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, they can. They refused by attacking Israel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is Hamas affecting a treaty between two parties that aren’t Hamas? You keep restating the premise but you haven’t justified why your premise is valid. The reality is that Hamas is a great excuse for Likud and the Zionist coalition to push for the one state solution they want without as bad of a pr storm.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because at the time, while the Palestine Government operated in Gaza, they didn't actually hold power inside of Gaza. No, Hamas controlled Gaza and was in close contact with Arafat during the Accords.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ok? You said the West Bank refused treaties. Hamas doesn’t run the government there. The only reason the actions of extremists would affect negotiations with moderates is if you’re negotiating in bad faith and want to break the agreement while posturing as moral. Which I’m pretty sure is the Likud party’s policy given all the actions they’ve taken.