@mbrown0315 (continued)sorry, also forgot to giv 1 other factor.. palestinians "receive more aid per capita than any other country" [middle east quarterly, summer 2008]. hamas also receives significant funding from iran. taking this into consideration, their potential in conventional warfare isn't as "suicidal" as u describe, in my opinion. take the '48 war, for instance. the only people that gave the jews ammunition for that war was soviet czechoslovakia, & we were outnumbered. fair point?
@mbrown0315 "..hamas' completely understandable strategy of operating amongst civilians..." -no way understandable or justifiable. for it to be understandable, their entire movement, as declared in their charter, should be understandable &even then its morally bankrupt. what's understandable is for them to surrender if it means avoiding a brutal end to their group, instead of exploiting their civilians in this way. alternatively, what would be understandable is them taking a diplomatic approach.
@adribon This comment leads me to suspect that you did not watch the entire video. I say explicitly (several times, I think) that I don't blame Hamas for its shielding strategy. This video is not about how reprehensible this or that tactic is. It's about the myopia of international law.
@mbrown0315 The issue you raise is quite interesting from a technical point of view. And unlike most comments on the armed Palestinian resistance groups you show comprehension for their position. But in the end I feel you are mainly discrediting the human rights organizaions' reports which show the lack of evidence for the IDF claims that Hamas (and Hezbollah in 2006) use human shields.
Firstly, the Goldstone Report was just recently rescinded because its original report was largely assumptive and lacked sufficient evidence. Secondly, human shields or not, what are your thoughts on Hamas purposefully targeting Israeli civilians while the IDF makes sincere efforts to avoid Palestinian civilians? Goldstone himself, and others on the fact-finding mission, admitted this to be true in their latest findings.
The problem is Israel uses excessive force in Civilian areas. Watch the video " Gaza: the killing zone" here on youtube. It shows the Israeli helicopters firing on a crowd of civilians. Hamas isn't stupid...... they know the Israeli's don't hestitate firing a shot bc of civilians. For god's sake, Israel just killed 10 activists when they KNEW the international press was watching. What about when Israelis bar the press from these conflict areas?
To Palestinians, the building approval was more evidence of what they had suspected all along - that Mr Netanyahu wanted the cover of some kind of process, but was far from serious about the concessions needed for actual peace.
The Israeli media is now filled with speculation about how much the crisis will cost Mr Netanyahu - what he will have to do to convince the Palestinians he is serious about the indirect peace talks the announcement may have torpedoed.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was "insulting". An aide to US President Barack Obama, David Axelrod, dubbed it "an affront" and a "calculated" attempt to undermine the expected launch of indirect talks...
..To some in Israel, currently battling what many here see as a wave of international hostility evidenced by the Goldstone report accusing it of war crimes in Gaza, angering its strongest ally and greatest friend on the world stage is major worry.
"The meeting revealed that the IDFs conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Its investigation centered on mathematical models said to show a statistical impossibility that a shell fired by IDF artillery was responsible for killing the civilians.
The reliability of such a conclusion should be evaluated by independent experts with access to the underlying data.
An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible, said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. The IDFs partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation.
-----
Why won't Israel cooperate with an independent investigation?
Right, that's true. And as I've said, you're right in part. But I am certainly disagreeing with you on the point that Hamas could have chosen to fight on Gaza's outer borders.
If an option is not viable, I don't consider it an option. Had the IDF gone into Gaza in the same way they went into Jenin, Hamas would have been able to score a victory. Bear in mind that for a guerrilla force scoring a victory does not necessarily mean suffering fewer casualties than the enemy does. It's true that Hamas stores weapons in civilian areas to deter the IDF (the Goldstone Report records this), but it's also more practical to have weapons stored where you do the fighting.
You're right, the battlefield Hamas chose entails civilian casualties, but it's not as if Hamas had the viable option of operating in open areas. I'll respond to arjuna later (though I'm not looking forward to it, since he appears to be as long-winded as I am).
4horseman, the point I made in the video is that Hamas didn't really have the choice of repelling the IDF from the outer borders of Gaza. That would have been suicide. The only way to put up a decent resistance for them is operating out of civilian areas. It didn't make much of a difference in the end because the IDF did not take the same approach they took in Jenin (ground troops), and it turns out Hamas was anticipating that the IDF would do that again.
I want to see an IDF study on human shields in Gaza. I want to see data that proves that this tactic in Gaza, used by Hamas is why so many civilians died.
None has been provided. It's not that they have done it before, but whether they've done it so much + with intent, that THAT is why 300 Palestinian children died. Etc. etc.
Semantics indeed. This is a petty quibble.
Zionists use the human shield line, because it's a form of 'point-scoring' (see: Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus)
I'm going to respond to your comments and then let you have the final word. I'm in the midst of finals and simply don't have the time for a drawn-out dialogue.
I don't know what you would consider proof, but I think that the fact that the UN and human rights organizations condemn Hamas' proximity to civilians is proof enough. Everyone knows that it results in civilians being killed (which is why they condemn it).
The problem, as I explain in the video, is that they have an often-warped understanding of human shields (hostage situation) and intent (obviously they draw a defensive advantage from it, otherwise they'd be fighting on Gaza's outer borders...which would be stupid), which in turn leads to a preoccupation with the issue of frequency (does our misunderstanding happen routinely?). All explained in my video...
I also reference the Allied invasion of Europe and all the civilian casualties to make the point (yet again) that war inevitably entails this. Did the Allies want to kill 70,000 of the people they were trying to liberate.
HRW critized Fatah and Hamas of intentionally killing civilians during their little war in Gaza. So now Hamas and Fatah are wantonly killing their own people? It really has nothing to do with the urban environment and how they operate within it? Can these organizations really be this clueless? As evidenced by my video...yes, they can be.
Just because Abbas said something, does not automatically make it true.
I'm not saying the human shield argument is 100% false.
I'm saying the only relevant point concerning human shields is whether so and so used this tactic to SUCH AN EXTENT, that, THAT would explain the huge civilian death toll.
In Lebanon 2006, Hezbollah also fought from villages - which were emptied. There was little to no intermingling w/ civilian. Yet 1000-ish Lebanese civilian died. How do you explain that?
When you say "I'm not saying it's 100% false," you sound exactly like the Goldstone Report. As I've said in my video, on the matter of frequency, hostage-ish human shield scenarios most likely did not happen routinely (would lead to mutiny), but that doesn't mean that Hamas does not operate among civilians routinely in a way that endangers them....intent is irrelevant, but it is obviously there. They're doing it for (understandable) defensive reasons.
I've already addressed the matter of Lebanon 2006, but I've reviewed human rights literature covering the matter and it still seems to center on this misunderstanding of intent. Also, sicne you're quoting the U.S. Army, I'll reference retired Lebanese general Elias Hanna, who explained that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for damage and death to civilians.
I'll be the first to say that the 2006 Lebanon War was largely mismanaged and fought sloppily. The Winograd Commission report came to the same conclusion and urged the IDF to discontinue use of certain munitions, etc., but when Halutz articulated the Dahiya Strategy he said that it should happen to any village that launches rockets. Combined with leaflets telling civilians to leave, one finds that this is not just pure belligerence.
The definition of human shields is largely flawed when used to assess whether or not damage caused to civilians is understandable. That's what my video is partially about. That said, in my entire exchange with you, I've only used the term once, and that was when I was quoting a Hamas official as saying that the organization proudly uses the strategy. I always say Hamas "dresses as, hides behind, and operates among civilians."
Obviously, as you should be able to understand from my video, the emphasis here is on operating among civilians. And essentially, as I say, this strategy does entail shielding because Hamas operates there for defensive purposes. But no, it's not a hostage situation, which is what the misguided understanding of human shielding applies...but again, that more extreme version of human shielding does happen, just not so routinely.
When you mention the open spaces to fight from. You're not including the obvious context of where the action of the battle is. Many Israeli soldiers reported not even meeting Hamas militants on the battlefield.
So not sure what the point is of that segment of your analysis. Seems like more hypothetical musings.
Can you, or anyone else prove the only relevant matter concerning human shields - whether the use of this tactic is the reason for the civilian casualties, such as they were?
How does the level of confrontation factor into this? I was bringing up the point as a response to the question of intention and whether or not it was possible for Hamas to operate away from civilian areas. This misunderstanding, along with your insistence on a definition of human shields that I've already addressed, leads me to suggest to you that you watch my video again and pay closer attention. I know I speak quickly and cover lots of points, but I try to keep it under 10 minutes.
If Hamas or whoever is using human shields. That's a crime, no doubt.
However, the claim itself has no value as simply a statement of fact.
Israel and it's supporters use this claim to
A) demonize the Palestinian resistance (it does not matter WHO represents the Palestinians - so long as they resist the colonization of their lands and subjugation and fracturing of their society)
B) to mitigate, excuse or dismiss the criticism of Israel with regard to Palestinian civilian deaths.
Not much to say here except that you've apparently not listened to what I said in my video about the understanding of human shields. Your mention of demonizing Palestinian fighters also indicates that you missed all my statements about how Hamas' tactics are entirely understandable and to be expected.
The point about the rhetorical value of the 'human shields' line is that it is used to mitigate criticism of the disproportionate amount of Palestinian civilian casualties.
What you have done is spent all this time begging the question about Hamas's alleged use of human shields.
You've then tried to redefine the word to fit your perspective. Hence, you're no different from the clown, Col. Kemp - who did not go to Gaza and who simply reiterated that Israel was 'the most moral army'.
Also, the POINT of my criticism is that YOU can't provide any kind of substantiated argument that proves that there is a systematic use of human shields by Hamas.
The point is NOT whether it happens, in and of itself.
But rather whether it's happening to SUCH A (extent) degree that, THAT IS THE REASON for the civilian deaths.
@mbrown0315 As I understand they use it 2 the extend,that there would B even more civilian casualties 4 media effects.I saw a vid,where some storage of weaponry caused double detonations @ gas stations, mosques&schools.Or when a Hamas official was warned,he phoned other surrounding peops 2 come together 2 crowd the house/tell civilians to wave white flag, so he can escape.fighting in a civilian area is one thing,causing more deaths another:Why again R they fighting,when settlers had left?
You early on quote a line from the report which states that Palestinian fighters were mixed w/ the civilian population.
That does not imply human shields. Neither does 'operating from civilian infrastructure'.
In the 2006 Lebanon War, the villages had been deserted at the time Hezbollah began using them. The US Army War College report states similar findings to those found in the Goldstone on this issue of 'human shields'.
So while there is a 'semantic' concession - it's just that, semantic.
Again, seems you did not watch my video carefully enough. I've already responded to all of this. And the US Army War College report does not say the villages were deserted, but only largely evacuated, meaning most (but not all) civilians had heeded Israeli warnings. Those who remained were probably often considered militants, as consistent with Haim Ramon's statements.
That's all. Go ahead and have the last word. I need to get back to work.
In those videos you can see that hamas used people as human shields, used civilian buildings for fighting and used houses and mosques for storage of ammunition and weapons
So how can this be that there is no visual evidence?! I believe that IDF has much more videos of this kind... Even from those 3 videos there is enought visual evidence...
odfighter, I think you misunderstood my argument somewhat. What we have here is a case of multiple intersecting ignorances on the part of the fact-finding mission. In the case of evidence that combatants operate near civilians, the intent is questioned. In the case of evidence that combatants operate near civilians with clear intent to shield (generally, in the classical and misguided understanding of shielding), frequency is questioned.
Uh - you might want to consider these quotes from the Goldstone Report:
"Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations & launched rockets from urban areas.
The Mission cannot discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups were active in the vicinity of U.N. facilities & hospitals.
Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger."
"Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger."
Right, but the issue of frequency still remains. The Goldstone Report expresses ambivalence towards whether this happens "routinely."
And if it's done with specific intent or just out of the practical impossibility of fighting away from civilian areas in such a densely-populated area.
@mbrown0315 (continued)sorry, also forgot to giv 1 other factor.. palestinians "receive more aid per capita than any other country" [middle east quarterly, summer 2008]. hamas also receives significant funding from iran. taking this into consideration, their potential in conventional warfare isn't as "suicidal" as u describe, in my opinion. take the '48 war, for instance. the only people that gave the jews ammunition for that war was soviet czechoslovakia, & we were outnumbered. fair point?
oc00011 9 months ago
@mbrown0315 "..hamas' completely understandable strategy of operating amongst civilians..." -no way understandable or justifiable. for it to be understandable, their entire movement, as declared in their charter, should be understandable &even then its morally bankrupt. what's understandable is for them to surrender if it means avoiding a brutal end to their group, instead of exploiting their civilians in this way. alternatively, what would be understandable is them taking a diplomatic approach.
oc00011 9 months ago
Why so much attention for all the purported human shields of Hamas, and leave the infamous IDF "neighbor procedure" unmentioned?
adribon 10 months ago
@adribon This comment leads me to suspect that you did not watch the entire video. I say explicitly (several times, I think) that I don't blame Hamas for its shielding strategy. This video is not about how reprehensible this or that tactic is. It's about the myopia of international law.
mbrown0315 10 months ago
@mbrown0315 The issue you raise is quite interesting from a technical point of view. And unlike most comments on the armed Palestinian resistance groups you show comprehension for their position. But in the end I feel you are mainly discrediting the human rights organizaions' reports which show the lack of evidence for the IDF claims that Hamas (and Hezbollah in 2006) use human shields.
adribon 10 months ago
@adribon With all due respect, you're still not getting it.
mbrown0315 10 months ago
Firstly, the Goldstone Report was just recently rescinded because its original report was largely assumptive and lacked sufficient evidence. Secondly, human shields or not, what are your thoughts on Hamas purposefully targeting Israeli civilians while the IDF makes sincere efforts to avoid Palestinian civilians? Goldstone himself, and others on the fact-finding mission, admitted this to be true in their latest findings.
cobey321 10 months ago
The problem is Israel uses excessive force in Civilian areas. Watch the video " Gaza: the killing zone" here on youtube. It shows the Israeli helicopters firing on a crowd of civilians. Hamas isn't stupid...... they know the Israeli's don't hestitate firing a shot bc of civilians. For god's sake, Israel just killed 10 activists when they KNEW the international press was watching. What about when Israelis bar the press from these conflict areas?
Suicide666Commando 1 year ago
Israeli security services have fired tear gas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and on occasion live rounds at protesters.
There have been two fatalities among protesters and an American peace activist remains in a coma after being hit by a rubber bullet.
Monday, 15 March 2010
BBC
LSRochon 2 years ago
To Palestinians, the building approval was more evidence of what they had suspected all along - that Mr Netanyahu wanted the cover of some kind of process, but was far from serious about the concessions needed for actual peace.
The Israeli media is now filled with speculation about how much the crisis will cost Mr Netanyahu - what he will have to do to convince the Palestinians he is serious about the indirect peace talks the announcement may have torpedoed.
BBC Jeruselem 15 03 2010
LSRochon 2 years ago
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was "insulting". An aide to US President Barack Obama, David Axelrod, dubbed it "an affront" and a "calculated" attempt to undermine the expected launch of indirect talks...
..To some in Israel, currently battling what many here see as a wave of international hostility evidenced by the Goldstone report accusing it of war crimes in Gaza, angering its strongest ally and greatest friend on the world stage is major worry.
BBC Jeruselem 15 03 2010
LSRochon 2 years ago
Pillage is a war crime.
LSRochon 2 years ago
From the above link:
"The meeting revealed that the IDFs conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Its investigation centered on mathematical models said to show a statistical impossibility that a shell fired by IDF artillery was responsible for killing the civilians.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
Continued:
The reliability of such a conclusion should be evaluated by independent experts with access to the underlying data.
An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible, said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. The IDFs partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation.
-----
Why won't Israel cooperate with an independent investigation?
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
The Goldstone Report is not an indictment.
It is a fact-finding mission. It is to be used as a marker, for a fuller investigation.
I do not think one will happen.
Israel has not cooperated - WHY?
When Israel has done previous investigations, it has refused to accept the reports from other NGOs.
Why is it that every single mainstream NGO is ignored?
Google: IDFs Partisan Probe No Substitute for Independent Inquiry
Third link.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
Right, that's true. And as I've said, you're right in part. But I am certainly disagreeing with you on the point that Hamas could have chosen to fight on Gaza's outer borders.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If an option is not viable, I don't consider it an option. Had the IDF gone into Gaza in the same way they went into Jenin, Hamas would have been able to score a victory. Bear in mind that for a guerrilla force scoring a victory does not necessarily mean suffering fewer casualties than the enemy does. It's true that Hamas stores weapons in civilian areas to deter the IDF (the Goldstone Report records this), but it's also more practical to have weapons stored where you do the fighting.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Till then...back to class.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
You're right, the battlefield Hamas chose entails civilian casualties, but it's not as if Hamas had the viable option of operating in open areas. I'll respond to arjuna later (though I'm not looking forward to it, since he appears to be as long-winded as I am).
mbrown0315 2 years ago
4horseman, the point I made in the video is that Hamas didn't really have the choice of repelling the IDF from the outer borders of Gaza. That would have been suicide. The only way to put up a decent resistance for them is operating out of civilian areas. It didn't make much of a difference in the end because the IDF did not take the same approach they took in Jenin (ground troops), and it turns out Hamas was anticipating that the IDF would do that again.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I want to see an IDF study on human shields in Gaza. I want to see data that proves that this tactic in Gaza, used by Hamas is why so many civilians died.
None has been provided. It's not that they have done it before, but whether they've done it so much + with intent, that THAT is why 300 Palestinian children died. Etc. etc.
Semantics indeed. This is a petty quibble.
Zionists use the human shield line, because it's a form of 'point-scoring' (see: Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus)
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
I'm going to respond to your comments and then let you have the final word. I'm in the midst of finals and simply don't have the time for a drawn-out dialogue.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I don't know what you would consider proof, but I think that the fact that the UN and human rights organizations condemn Hamas' proximity to civilians is proof enough. Everyone knows that it results in civilians being killed (which is why they condemn it).
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The problem, as I explain in the video, is that they have an often-warped understanding of human shields (hostage situation) and intent (obviously they draw a defensive advantage from it, otherwise they'd be fighting on Gaza's outer borders...which would be stupid), which in turn leads to a preoccupation with the issue of frequency (does our misunderstanding happen routinely?). All explained in my video...
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I also reference the Allied invasion of Europe and all the civilian casualties to make the point (yet again) that war inevitably entails this. Did the Allies want to kill 70,000 of the people they were trying to liberate.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
HRW critized Fatah and Hamas of intentionally killing civilians during their little war in Gaza. So now Hamas and Fatah are wantonly killing their own people? It really has nothing to do with the urban environment and how they operate within it? Can these organizations really be this clueless? As evidenced by my video...yes, they can be.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Just because Abbas said something, does not automatically make it true.
I'm not saying the human shield argument is 100% false.
I'm saying the only relevant point concerning human shields is whether so and so used this tactic to SUCH AN EXTENT, that, THAT would explain the huge civilian death toll.
In Lebanon 2006, Hezbollah also fought from villages - which were emptied. There was little to no intermingling w/ civilian. Yet 1000-ish Lebanese civilian died. How do you explain that?
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
When you say "I'm not saying it's 100% false," you sound exactly like the Goldstone Report. As I've said in my video, on the matter of frequency, hostage-ish human shield scenarios most likely did not happen routinely (would lead to mutiny), but that doesn't mean that Hamas does not operate among civilians routinely in a way that endangers them....intent is irrelevant, but it is obviously there. They're doing it for (understandable) defensive reasons.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Prove their 'intent'.
You have to first show a systematic usage of human shielding.
Where is the independent investigation that proves this? Where is the proof, other than single scenarios?
If you show a pattern of behavior, maybe your argument would mean something.
You're grasping at straws and weasal wording.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
I've already addressed the matter of Lebanon 2006, but I've reviewed human rights literature covering the matter and it still seems to center on this misunderstanding of intent. Also, sicne you're quoting the U.S. Army, I'll reference retired Lebanese general Elias Hanna, who explained that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for damage and death to civilians.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Oh, and I'll reference Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur, who said in 1978, after a major Israeli incursion into Lebanon -
"For 30 years, from the War of Independence until today, we have been fighting against a population that lives in villages and cities. "
"In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it."
Haaretz, May 15, 1978
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
"with the objective" to yada yada "shield from attack"
Yea, because you know what? You are ignoring the 'dahiya strategy'.
I mean, what happened in Gaza, was similar to what happened in Lebanon 2006.
The enemy population needed an 'education' (as Tom Friedman equivocates).
It seems like your entire argument is based on the BS from Kemp.
No wonder Israel wants to change the rules of war.
You've simply weasal wording the definition of a human shield.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
I'll be the first to say that the 2006 Lebanon War was largely mismanaged and fought sloppily. The Winograd Commission report came to the same conclusion and urged the IDF to discontinue use of certain munitions, etc., but when Halutz articulated the Dahiya Strategy he said that it should happen to any village that launches rockets. Combined with leaflets telling civilians to leave, one finds that this is not just pure belligerence.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The definition of human shields is largely flawed when used to assess whether or not damage caused to civilians is understandable. That's what my video is partially about. That said, in my entire exchange with you, I've only used the term once, and that was when I was quoting a Hamas official as saying that the organization proudly uses the strategy. I always say Hamas "dresses as, hides behind, and operates among civilians."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Obviously, as you should be able to understand from my video, the emphasis here is on operating among civilians. And essentially, as I say, this strategy does entail shielding because Hamas operates there for defensive purposes. But no, it's not a hostage situation, which is what the misguided understanding of human shielding applies...but again, that more extreme version of human shielding does happen, just not so routinely.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
When you mention the open spaces to fight from. You're not including the obvious context of where the action of the battle is. Many Israeli soldiers reported not even meeting Hamas militants on the battlefield.
So not sure what the point is of that segment of your analysis. Seems like more hypothetical musings.
Can you, or anyone else prove the only relevant matter concerning human shields - whether the use of this tactic is the reason for the civilian casualties, such as they were?
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
How does the level of confrontation factor into this? I was bringing up the point as a response to the question of intention and whether or not it was possible for Hamas to operate away from civilian areas. This misunderstanding, along with your insistence on a definition of human shields that I've already addressed, leads me to suggest to you that you watch my video again and pay closer attention. I know I speak quickly and cover lots of points, but I try to keep it under 10 minutes.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If Hamas or whoever is using human shields. That's a crime, no doubt.
However, the claim itself has no value as simply a statement of fact.
Israel and it's supporters use this claim to
A) demonize the Palestinian resistance (it does not matter WHO represents the Palestinians - so long as they resist the colonization of their lands and subjugation and fracturing of their society)
B) to mitigate, excuse or dismiss the criticism of Israel with regard to Palestinian civilian deaths.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
Not much to say here except that you've apparently not listened to what I said in my video about the understanding of human shields. Your mention of demonizing Palestinian fighters also indicates that you missed all my statements about how Hamas' tactics are entirely understandable and to be expected.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Wrong.
The point about the rhetorical value of the 'human shields' line is that it is used to mitigate criticism of the disproportionate amount of Palestinian civilian casualties.
What you have done is spent all this time begging the question about Hamas's alleged use of human shields.
You've then tried to redefine the word to fit your perspective. Hence, you're no different from the clown, Col. Kemp - who did not go to Gaza and who simply reiterated that Israel was 'the most moral army'.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
Also, the POINT of my criticism is that YOU can't provide any kind of substantiated argument that proves that there is a systematic use of human shields by Hamas.
The point is NOT whether it happens, in and of itself.
But rather whether it's happening to SUCH A (extent) degree that, THAT IS THE REASON for the civilian deaths.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
@mbrown0315 As I understand they use it 2 the extend,that there would B even more civilian casualties 4 media effects.I saw a vid,where some storage of weaponry caused double detonations @ gas stations, mosques&schools.Or when a Hamas official was warned,he phoned other surrounding peops 2 come together 2 crowd the house/tell civilians to wave white flag, so he can escape.fighting in a civilian area is one thing,causing more deaths another:Why again R they fighting,when settlers had left?
INdiverCT 10 months ago
You early on quote a line from the report which states that Palestinian fighters were mixed w/ the civilian population.
That does not imply human shields. Neither does 'operating from civilian infrastructure'.
In the 2006 Lebanon War, the villages had been deserted at the time Hezbollah began using them. The US Army War College report states similar findings to those found in the Goldstone on this issue of 'human shields'.
So while there is a 'semantic' concession - it's just that, semantic.
Arjuna1901 2 years ago
Again, seems you did not watch my video carefully enough. I've already responded to all of this. And the US Army War College report does not say the villages were deserted, but only largely evacuated, meaning most (but not all) civilians had heeded Israeli warnings. Those who remained were probably often considered militants, as consistent with Haim Ramon's statements.
That's all. Go ahead and have the last word. I need to get back to work.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
No visual evidence?!
watch?v=2vHDyuSTneA
watch?v=8LGubwghyEw&feature=PlayList&p=1CF89A096D625360&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45
watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=related
In those videos you can see that hamas used people as human shields, used civilian buildings for fighting and used houses and mosques for storage of ammunition and weapons
odfighter 2 years ago
So how can this be that there is no visual evidence?! I believe that IDF has much more videos of this kind... Even from those 3 videos there is enought visual evidence...
odfighter 2 years ago
odfighter, I think you misunderstood my argument somewhat. What we have here is a case of multiple intersecting ignorances on the part of the fact-finding mission. In the case of evidence that combatants operate near civilians, the intent is questioned. In the case of evidence that combatants operate near civilians with clear intent to shield (generally, in the classical and misguided understanding of shielding), frequency is questioned.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Uh - you might want to consider these quotes from the Goldstone Report:
"Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations & launched rockets from urban areas.
The Mission cannot discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups were active in the vicinity of U.N. facilities & hospitals.
Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger."
JerrySPsy 2 years ago
"Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger."
Right, but the issue of frequency still remains. The Goldstone Report expresses ambivalence towards whether this happens "routinely."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
And if it's done with specific intent or just out of the practical impossibility of fighting away from civilian areas in such a densely-populated area.
mbrown0315 2 years ago