Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumCol. Kemp tells UNHRC it’s become “tool of Hamas’ murderous strategy”
Mr. President, during the 2014 Gaza conflict, Hamas, to its eternal shame, did more to deliberately and systematically inflict death, suffering and destruction on its own civilian population, including its children, than any other terrorist group in history. Hamas deliberately positioned its fighters and weapons in civilian areas, knowing that Israel would have no choice but to attack these targets, which were a clear and present threat to the lives of Israel’s own civilian population.
...cont'd in video below and at webiste:
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/06/29/col-kemp-tells-unhrc-its-become-tool-of-hamas-murderous-strategy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)I have the utmost respect for him.
shira
(30,109 posts)....just for being a mensch & telling it like it is, but these are the times we're in.
asturias31
(85 posts)Palestinians to get their own state. Let them stand on their own, create their own economy, stop depending on "refugee" handouts to the hundredth generation, and control their own destiny.
Sadly, current affairs show what will happen when Palestine comes into being, as it should and will:
Hamas or a similar group will claim the helm by virtue of having the most guns and greatest ability to inspire young men to kill and die for Allah. The Jew-hating rhetoric will not subside but be emboldened. The Muslim world's power players (Arab and Persian) will happily ship arms to their new bloodthirsty puppets, who will desperately try to stay on top of rival Islamists by being the best at exacting Allah's Revenge on the conveniently located Jewish State next door.
A lot of Israelis will be slaughtered in the ensuing cross-border attack. The Israelis will strike back hard at the aggressors and win, prompting the proxies to scream "Murdering Jews!" while jihadists rush in from all corners of the Muslim world.
In the end Israel will stagger onward, burying its dead. The Muslim (and left-wing) spin will be "The Palestinian state was provoked and cant be held responsible. Israel deserved to be invaded because Israel is evil and all its people should be deported, possibly to Madagascar. The Israeli military response was out of proportion because Israeli weaponry is just...too advanced! Which isn't cricket!"
Hence, the Palestinians will have their own country but the regular people won't be any better off as corruption and fundamentalism keep them (women and gays and freethinkers especially) in chains.
The narrative of "Blame your troubles on the Zionists and the west!" will still be the convenient bedtime story whispered in the ears of Arab children, for as long as Israel exists. (If Israel falls and all Jews there are slaughtered, the whisper will change slightly: "Blame your troubles on the diaspora Jews - they run the world you know! - and blame the West which still hates us Muslims and does the Jews' bidding."
Israel's people will face Islamist armies bent on religiously motivated slaughter.
And Arab leaders will continue to live very well.
In other words: business as usual in the middle east.
I hope I live to see an end to the nonsense. . But I see not even the beginning of the intro to the end, even when I smoke a joint and squint really hard at the far horizon.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Richard Kemp is trying to put the all the responsibility for enemy civilians on the enemy. With his thinking all civilians in Gaza are legitimate targets at one time or another, depending on whether an enemy combatant could be suspected to be nearby, or they are in a building where enemy combatants have been at one time or the other, or if they are trying to dig out their dying relatives from the rubble of their home. There is no way a civilian in Gaza can know whether they are legitimate targets at any time, and there is nowhere a civilian can take safe shelter and reasonably expect they will not be killed. The responsibility will be on civilians to prove they are not combatants to avoid being legitimate targets.
With this thinking, Israel showed considerable restraint by not targeting all 1.8 million legitimate military targets in Gaza. With this thinking Aleppo, Guernica and Dresden were commendable examples of remarkable restraint.
Fortunately, this tasteless neo-con interpretation of the laws of war finds little traction with the UN and the ICC. It's very sad that the IDF uses Richard Kemp as moral guidance. Can the IDF ever rise to become the army of a civilized nation?
shira
(30,109 posts)...UN facilities, & apartment complexes. They did not wear military uniforms as they chose to dress like civilians and blend in.
They practically broke every law of combat, used their civilians as human shields, and put Gazan children in combat roles as well.
These are all war crimes and they are no secrets. There are literally mountains of evidence for all this, but the UN ignores it.
The UN defends & enable all these Hamas war crimes, and thus, has blood on it's hands. It encourages Hamas to do more of the same in the future. It's a pro-Hamas tool that is horrifically anti-Palestinian, as it's Hamas' strategy to have as many Palestinians killed as possible in these battles. Hamas does this in order to demonize (and isolate) Israel. This is supposed to tie Israel's hands up during battle, making it practically impossible to defend their own civilians. It's a brilliant strategy by Hamas, but only possible with the help of their UN friends (as well as NGO's and media).
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I also trust HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem and Break the Silence.
But I don't trust Kemp.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)comfortable arm chair in London, he cut his military teeth in Belfast and Londonderry during the Troubles
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Many tweets, almost all of them on the same subject. I think they give an insight into his motivation.
https://twitter.com/colrichardkemp
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts).....all those military experts.
BTW, the UN had no military expertise on its panel. So it had no legal basis for its charges. For that matter, NGO's like HRW, Amnesty, and B'tselem have no legal experts that they use for their reports either.
It's scandalous.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)unless of course they were on oppisite sides, but in the case here all concerned could well be every bit as guilty in their own right as Israel, the closest any of them has to clean hands is washing each others
shira
(30,109 posts)Which renders their analysis as garbage.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)But it doesn't fly with any objective observer.
Surely they can find a few military experts who know something about the situation, right?
Guess not.
It's like getting 2 know-nothings to do "expert analysis" on some election, and being taken seriously.
Anyway, we all know the UN report is a lie, given that they significantly underplayed Hamas' war crimes of hiding behind civilians.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)much like Col Kemp?
shira
(30,109 posts)...to their eternal shame.
NGO's that ignore Hamas' war crimes against Gazans are just as bad.
I trust the Israelis who know that the UN & NGO's are covering for Hamas in their war on the Jews, down to the last drop of Palestinian blood.
I'm not sure what's more revolting - Hamas - or their neofascist supporters who loathe Palestinians almost as much as they do Israelis.
shira
(30,109 posts)Major-General Michael D. Jones, former Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command, addressed the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of UN Watch, in the debate on the Commission of Inquiry into the 2014 Gaza conflict. Geneva, June 29, 2015.
Mr. President,
My name is Mike Jones, a retired U.S. Army general officer who, with four other retired U.S. generals, conducted a JINSA-sponsored, but independent, study of the 2014 Gaza conflict. We conducted research, and interviewed Israeli, UN, and Palestinian Authority officials. Our focus was what the U.S. should learn from the conflict, but our report is relevant to the Council.
I am pleased your report acknowledged that all combatants are required to abide by the law, and that Hamas’ and other groups’ indiscriminate rocket fire at Israel was unlawful.
However, it is disappointing that the report fails to condemn these groups for unlawfully failing to distinguish themselves as combatants, as well as purposefully co-locating amongst civilians, knowingly placing them at risk, with absolutely no military necessity to do so.
I am also disappointed that the report, while acknowledging that lawful targeting is a balance between the military necessity and the known risk to civilians, came to conclusions without sufficient information to make a judgment. Specifically, they condemn the IDF for engagements without any information on the IDF’s objectives, military necessity, or known information on risk.
Our team did have access to much of that information. We concluded that the IDF consistently applied lawful criteria in their targeting. Conversely, we concluded that based on verifiable information on the launch sites, weapons and ammunition storage, command locations, and the trajectories of fired weapons, that Hamas habitually violated the law by attacking civilian targets with no military value, and deliberately placing Gazans at risk without military necessity.
[font color = "red"]It is also disappointing that none of the Commissioners had military experience, nor did they use the studies that we and other military professionals who do have experience in conducting lawful combat operations have published.[/font]
Thank you Mr. President.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Their only qualification is that they're completely willing to fellate the donkey without question. They were carefully handpicked for writing a whitewash report that completely exonerates Israel.
The UN, HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem and Break the Silence have found basically the exact opposite of what the High Level International Military Group says.
I would say that one side is lying through their teeth.
Telcontar
(660 posts)They have an agenda to push after all.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Here's one post after another, starting at #24...
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/113471416#post24
You'll notice B'tselem and Breaking-The-Silence there too...
Here's Ken Roth of HRW tweeting no evidence of human-shielding in Gaza...
https://twitter.com/kenroth/status/492445065114312705
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Ken Roth...
Jul 24 #Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau
Roth claims people need to be coerced or forced to become human shields. But interestingly enough, in an HRW article about human shields there's nothing there about coercion or force:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas
That's exactly what was going on in Gaza. Nothing about force or coercion.
There's also nothing from customary IHL stating that the crime of human shielding requires coercion or force.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
[font color = "red"]The real clincher is HRW's report on Yemen...[/font]
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/04/24/un-report-details-casualties-of-yemen-conflict.html
That's exactly what happened in Gaza. Human shielding without coercion.
Just as the Houthis were responsible, so is Hamas. However, Ken Roth and HRW support Hamas and that's why all the blame is put on Israel.
Case closed.
shira
(30,109 posts)I think anyone objective can figure out exactly who that is, based on overwhelming evidence.
shira
(30,109 posts)Heading the delegation was General Klaus Naumann, former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee – the most senior officer in NATO.
"Our mission to Israel was unprecedented," said the group in the summary of its findings. "We were the first such multi-national group of senior officers to visit the country. We were granted a level of access to the Israeli government and Defense Force that has not been afforded to any other group, from the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon, right down to the field commanders responsible for fighting the battle on the ground."
The group said it was aware of allegations that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Protective Edge. But it said it had reached the opposite conclusion. According to the group, it found instead that Israel had sought to avoid a conflict for months despite receiving rocket fire at civilians, and was ultimately forced into a defensive war. Furthermore, the group said that deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians by Hamas and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields were clearly war crimes.
"We believe that in general Israeli forces acted proportionately as required by the laws of armed conflict and often went beyond the required legal principles of proportionality, necessity and discrimination," read the findings. "The measures taken were often far in excess of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. They sometimes placed Israeli lives at risk. To an extent these steps also undermined the effectiveness of the IDF’s operations by pausing military action and thus allowing Hamas to re-group and replenish."
Regarding the number of Palestinian deaths during the operation, more than 2,000, the report emphasized that in a population of 1.8 million, many deaths that are unrelated to fighting will occur over the course of 50 days of war. Some, said the report, were killed when Hamas attacks against Israel failed. While the report accepted Israel's estimate that half of the 2,000 were terrorists, it acknowledged that many civilians were as a result of Israeli military action.
"We recognize that some of these deaths were caused by error and misjudgment…" the report continued. "But we also recognize that the majority of deaths were the tragic inevitability of defending against an enemy that deliberately carries out attacks from within the civilian population.
[font color = "red"]"We must therefore consider that Hamas and its terrorist associates, as the aggressors and the users of human shield, are responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths in Gaza this summer."[/font]
6chars
(3,967 posts)If, as the Naumann report says, civilian deaths were an inevitable result (especially given Hamas tactics that would place civilians in line of fire) of Israel choosing to use military force in Gaza to prevent rocket and tunnel attacks, this leaves the question: is that choice itself criminal by definition?
The argument about whether the ratio of civilian to militant deaths might have been somewhat higher if fewer precautions had been taken or lower if more were taken is secondary.
asturias31
(85 posts)...respond when attacked, because one's attacker is using a criminal and despicable tactic? Guess where that would lead!
Before Hamas, I have never heard of an army putting its own civilians in harm's way. (Using captured POW's as shields, I could at least understand - it's just as criminal but less depraved.)
Has anyone ever heard of this practice in any other past conflict?
I remember when "suicide bombing" was a bizarre new twist on mid-east warfare. Now it is widely adopted in Muslim irregular combat and has become a yawn: every day another guy wants to blow himself up so he can go to heaven while killing the enemy. It has not been shocking for a long time. Is human-shielding going to be the next brilliant innovation to sweep the region?
It is worth noting that the Saudis - now conducting an unprovoked, unilateral air war in Yemen - blame the skyrocketing death toll of Yemeni children and noncombatants on Houthis' habit of hiding among civilians. Could be the Houthis learned from Hamas how useful dead civilians can be.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The idea that Hamas is putting civilians in harm's way because they think Israel won't attack them if they are intermingled among civilians sort of falls apart if Israel attacks Hamas anyway, even if civilians may be killed in the process (which they were).
Israel definitely has taken steps to try to minimize civilian casualties, but when push comes to shove if there is a high value target that they want to hit, they will hit it and live with the fact that some innocent people might die.
Same deal with the Saudis - they aren't going to curb their attacks just because the targets are located in the midst of civilian populations.
asturias31
(85 posts)It works in two way:
First, it puts the opposing army to extra trouble and makes them (at best) inefficient. Look at Israel, withholding fire, dropping leaflets, doing that roof-knocking thing, I think even calling Palestinian homes to try to keep civilians safe. Meanwhile Hamas - which is delighted to kill any Israeli - happily fires away at civilian targets.
Second is the vast PR benefit Hamas derives from being able to show off dead civilians. All the rage and protests in 2014 was spurred by this: look at the loss o life on the Palestinian side; look how monstrous Israelis are. It's another reason why Hamas is happy to build tunnels instead of bomb shelters for their people (and not let civilians seek safety in those tunnels). All that's required is willingness to watch your own people die.
You are right that human shields are useless in some cases: they don't deter armies that are happy to cause civilian deaths. Such as Assad's guys, ISIS, of course Hamas themselves.
(The Houthis problem is that they are discovering that no one cares about dead Yemenis as they do about dead Palestinians. Not DU and not liberal westerners, and certainly not Sunni Arabs. So in Yemen the PR value of dead civilians is minimal.)
shira
(30,109 posts)....are willing to support Hamas' depravity in using children as human shields.
Hamas cannot lose either way when they attack Israel, and it's why they claim victory after each war. They know they can't do much militarily, but the PR benefits are enormous in further damaging Israel's reputation worldwide which lead to increasing attacks & pogroms against Jews internationally.
All with a little help from their neo-fascist Jew-hating western friends in the MSM and NGO's who are all too happy to assist in maximizing civilian casualties. Child-sacrifice for the revolution!
If this scandal isn't enough to turn stomachs, nothing is.
The Media’s Role in Hamas’ War Strategy
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/08/05/the-medias-role-in-hamas-war-strategy/
That article says it all.
Response to shira (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And now a word from Reality land:
When Israel is accused of targeting civilians, a very frequent accusation, apologists for Israel will talk about Hamas placing its fighters in civilian areas. The implication is that Hamas is "forcing" the Israeli government to deliberately violate International Law by targeting civilians.
But the legal aspects, as well as the logistical aspects, show a different story:
The Geneva conventions state: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."
"Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures," the conventions say.
Israel claims Hamas routinely uses hospitals, mosques, schools and private homes to launch rockets at Israel, store weapons, hide command and control centres, shelter military personnel, and conceal tunnel shafts. This is their justification for targeting such places, despite the legal requirement to ensure its attacks are proportional, distinguish between military and civilian objects, and avoid civilian casualties.
Read more:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/gaza-hamas-fighters-military-bases-guerrilla-war-civilians-israel-idf
But there is another related issue:
Does the presence of the IDF's HQ in Tel Aviv endanger the city's population?
No one has ever seriously addressed the possibility of removing the base from the heart of the city. Haaretz investigates the legal and historical implications of the Kirya's location.
The Defense Ministry, by its nature, constitutes a salient military target and, in principle, to attack it is permitted ?including from afar, using planes and missiles?. The same applies, even more obviously, to the compound of the military high command ?the General Staff?. This gives rise to concern about severe damage to civilians, should a target located in the heart of a densely populated civilian area be attacked.” The speaker: Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a world-renowned expert in international law and a former president of Tel Aviv University.
Dinstein: “Article 58?b? of the first Protocol, from 1977, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 1949, stipulates that parties to a conflict should ‘avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.’ No one disputes that this article reflects customary international law, which is binding on the entire international community, although the State of Israel is not a party to the Protocol.”
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/does-the-presence-of-the-idf-s-hq-in-tel-aviv-endanger-the-city-s-population.premium-1.435042
So when apologists for Israel talk about the Palestinians locating military facilities near civilian areas of Gaza, and further claim that this justifies Israel targeting civilians, does the same apply to Israel? Would the Palestinians, or the Iranians, be justified in attacking Israeli military facilities located in Israeli cities?
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #20)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you wrote:
"Even so, there is a difference between building a military HQ under the main hospital in order to ensure massive civilian losses in the case of an attack specificially because no weapons can reach it without reaching what is above it (i.e., using the hospital literally as a shield), vs. building a blocked off military HQ that happens be an urban area (or having an urban area grow up around the HQ)."
you are either unaware or ignoring the fact that the IDF Headquarters, and numerous other military installations, were deliberately built in the capital city of Israel. The city, and the civilians, were already there prior to the military installations being located there.
Second, when you wrote,:
"Could a country have military assets in some proximity to civilians without violating 3? Everywhere is within some proximity of something, but firing missiles from school grounds, putting HQ under a hospital - these are choices where alternatives were available that were equally good except they don't have the benefit of human shields."
are you aware that Gaza is among the most densely populated areas on earth? There is literally no place in Gaza that is remote from civilian areas, so accepting your premise would mean that Palestinians in Gaza would have no right of protection or self-defense without incurring heavy civilian casualties.
Israel uses large bombs, missiles, and white phosphorous, all weapons that are used when there is no intention to be precise. The goal of the Israeli government is to inflict heavy civilian casualties both to terrorize and intimidate the civilian population. There is a long history of the Jews, later the Israelis, using indiscriminate terrorism as a means of controlling the Palestinians.
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #22)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You wrote:
"1) IDF Headquarters, and numerous other military installations, were deliberately built in the capital city of Israel -- built there for administrative convenience, defense of the city, but not to use city as human shield. Important distinction."
And your proof for this assertion is....?
And the fact remains that the city IS a human shield for the IDF Headquarters. And my original point is that Israel claims that civilian casualties in Gaza are unavoidable by-products of their military response, ignoring the inconvenient fact that Israel deliberately uses heavy bombs and ammunition and tactics that can in no way be precise.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)being fired from it just a supposed office
shira
(30,109 posts)This is a map that originates from Peace Now...
There is plenty of empty space for Hamas to set up its operations.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some facts:
"The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean sea, lying about 64km southeast of the West Bank. It is bordered by Israel on the north and east and Egypt on the south under whose rule the area fell between 1950 and 1967. Stretching about 45km from north to south and only about 5km wide it comprises an area of only 365 km sq. With a population numbering 1.4 million it is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Gaza is highly urbanised with the bulk of the population living in cities, towns and eight crowded refugee camps, home to over 800,000 refugees. "
http://www.undp.ps/en/aboutundp/aboutpalpp.html
But this is just the United Nations speaking here.
But from another source:
"The data we found show that the urban area around Gaza City, which has an estimated population of three quarters of a million, is far more dense than many global cities. According to Demographia, it is the 40th most densely populated urban area in the world. It is less dense than some major world cities, including Mumbai, Hong Kong and Karachi, but a lot more dense than some others, and its small geographical size and high level of density seem to be unique.
It's an important point to note, given that Gaza City is one of the major targets for Israeli airstrikes. With a population density like this, are civilian casualties inevitable?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/gaza-city-is-being-hit-by-missile-strikes-this-is-how-densely-populated-it-is/
Given the very high percentage of civilians casualties that result from every Israeli attack, either
a) Israeli missiles and bombs are extraordinarily inefficient, or
b) the IDF has a high percentage of badly trained members, or
c) the Israeli government deliberately targets civilians as a means of terrorizing the Palestinian population.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's patently false and you know it. There are plenty of areas to which Gazans can evacuate & get away from the all the action.
Try again.
a) Israeli missiles and bombs are extraordinarily inefficient, or
b) the IDF has a high percentage of badly trained members, or
c) the Israeli government deliberately targets civilians as a means of terrorizing the Palestinian population.
You have it backwards. Given the high population density in concentrated areas where Hamas tries maximizing civilian casualties, it's amazing there weren't 10's of thousands of deaths (given the hundreds of bombs & tons of ordinance Israel dropped there). The civilian to combatant kill ratio was still around 1:1, which is better than NATO or any other Western forces like the UK, France, or USA.
There is no other military on the planet more careful WRT civilian safety. Western nations do not face the same human-shielding that Israel faces with Hamas; yet their civilian casualty percentages are far higher.
I notice you have yet to condemn Hamas for trying to maximize civilian deaths & sacrificing Gazan children.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the Israeli government, is using the civilian population of Tel Aviv as human shields by locating so many facilities in the midst of a civilian population?
If so, and I think that is a proper reading, obviously the Palestinians and other Arab countries have shown a far better appreciation of International Law than Israel ever has.
As to your 1:1 "kill ratio", the UN reported a SLIGHTLY different ratio:
In its most recent count, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 1,462 civilians, among them 495 children and 253 women. Those U.N. numbers would mean that 69 percent of the total killed were civilians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-un-says-7-in-10-palestinians-killed-in-gaza-were-civilians-israel-disagrees/2014/08/29/44edc598-2faa-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html
Perhaps you are a fan of what was called "new math", but 69% of the casualties were civilians, as opposed to your "amazing" 50% rate. I must infer that you consider a 50% error rate to be a good thing.
Amazing how apologists for Israel can rationalize behavior that they would condemn as appalling if it were directed toward Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Hamas deliberately places rockets in schools, mosques, apartment complexes, hospitals, and UN facilities....choosing to also fire from those locations. They are purposely looking to shield within civilian populations. Hamas builds its infrastructure within civilian populations.
With Tel Aviv, it's the exact opposite. The civilian population grew up around existing military facilities. Happens here in America too, as army bases tend to attract civilians for jobs.
Regardless, Hamas doesn't try to hit just the military. They deliberately go for the civilian population, just as Arab armies have done since before 1948.
I notice you have yet to condemn Hamas' depraved strategy to maximize civilian casualties for PR purposes.
As to the 1:1 ratio, the UN was wrong in the 2009 war when it claimed 70% civilian casualties. Hamas eventually admitted it was 50%, which is what the IDF had claimed back then. Same situation here.
I'm amazed you take the UN seriously. In their recent report, they didn't condemn Hamas even once. They deny Hamas' human shielding. They claimed Hamas was trying to "warn" Israeli civilians about incoming rockets, even though it's obvious Hamas was gloating about it. Finally, the UN report claimed there's no reason to believe the terror tunnels going into Israel are any threat to Israeli civilians.
With a record like that, why do you trust the UN against Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)Episodically attack Israel’s civilians in such as way as to provoke a counter-attack.
Hide behind Palestinian civilians (preferably in crowded neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals), while encouraging them, even forcing them, to stay, guaranteeing that the return fire wounds or kills civilians and damages civilian structures.
Encourage the Western news media to play up the civilian suffering, play down Hamas’ role in it, and accuse Israel.
Conjure a firestorm of outrage around the world that eventually pressures Israel into desisting from counteroffensive measures.
Survive to reap the propaganda victory and prepare the next round of hostilities.
Repeat, with each exchange hurting Israel more, and each round of international news coverage further savaging the Jewish State’s international reputation.
No matter what the Israeli response, the Hamas strategy is win-win. If the Israelis abort a strike to avoid civilian casualties (as they often do), then Hamas is spared the blow; if an Israeli strike causes civilian casualties, Hamas has dead babies to parade before the cameras. And eventually, the bloodletting will get so bad, the pictures so damning, that Israel will stop. Hamas’ endgame goals, at least at this stage of its asymmetrical war, are actually threefold: tie Israel down with constraints on its use of power, delegitimize and demonize it in the eyes of the world, and stir an aggressive “Muslim Street” in the West, where genocidal chants can lead to pogroms against the Jews worldwide.
This time, however, this “dead baby” strategy, despite a pedigree of decades, has become increasingly apparent to the observant, perhaps because Hamas has resorted to ever-more obvious tactics to victimize their own people: storing its weapons and firing them from residential areas, hospitals, schools and mosques and even, hiding its leaders under Shiffa hospital. Asked about this, UN official John Ging readily admits: “Yes the armed groups are firing their armed rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities and residential areas, absolutely.” Indeed, in some cases, while journalists speak to the camera, often following Hamas’ script, Jihadis fire rockets right nearby—live, as it were.
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Gaza-reporters-tweets-Hamas-using-human-shields-368689
Several journalists from around the world reported seeing rockets fired from civilian areas in Gaza in recent days, and received threatening tweets in return accusing them of “informing” the IDF. On Wednesday, Peter Stefanovic of Australia’s Channel Nine News tweeted: “Hamas rockets just launched over our hotel from a site about two hundred metres away. So a missile launch site is basically next door.” An account called @ThisIsGaza said this was Stefanovic’s fourth time “passing and fabricating information to Israel... from GAZA” and threatened to sue him. Another account, @longitude0 wrote: “You are a cretin. Are you working for the IDF” and “in WWII spies got shot.”
Financial Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief John Reed reported seeing “two rockets fired toward Israel from near al-Shifa hospital, even as more bombing victims were brought in.” Shifa, in Gaza City, is the main medical facility in the Strip. In response, @Saritah_91 tweeted: “We’ll hold you responsible if Israel uses your tweet to bomb the hospital & then justify it.” Another twitter user, @ Faysal_FreeGaza, said he’s “subtly justifying and encouraging IDF attacks on hospitals,” and @Maysara_ ara wrote: “Get out of Gaza u informant.”
Wall Street Journal correspondent Nick Casey tweeted on Tuesday a photo of a Hamas official using Shifa hospital for media interviews, writing: “You have to wonder w the shelling how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see interviews.” By Wednesday, the tweet was deleted, but pro-Palestinian Twitter accounts continued to include him on lists of “journos in Gaza who lie/fabricate info for Israel” and “must be sued for crimes.” On Sunday, Janis Mackey Frayer, a correspondent for Canada’s CTV, tweeted that, while in Gaza City’s Shejaiya’s neighborhood, she “saw several Hamas gunmen. One passed dressed in a woman’s headscarf... tip of a gun poked out from under cloak.” She received threats similar to those sent to other reporters.
Harry Fear, a journalist from the UK reporting from Gaza for RT (formerly Russia Today) television, tweeted last week: “Early morning Gaza rockets were fired into Israel. A well-known site in W. Gaza City, near my hotel, was among the origins, confirm locals.” Fear then took on the critics, tweeting soon after that he rejects “loaded complaints that I ‘informed’ Israel about the specifics of Gaza military sites... These sites are well-known among locals and internationals here.” “Should a journalist only report the noise and ferocity of Israel’s attacks & not the sounds of Gaza’s rockets? Both terrify people,” he tweeted. Later that day, Fear tweeted: “Al-Wafa hospital has been hit in the last while; injuries reported – this is the hospital with human shields.”
