JERUSALEM (AP) — The head of surgery at Gaza’s largest and most advanced hospital held up his phone Saturday to the hammering of gunfire and artillery shelling. “Listen,” said Dr. Marwan Abu Sada as fighting raged around Shifa Hospital.
Kinda similar to the “human shields” argument. When I read comics growing up, when a villain takes a hostage the answer was never “kill the hostage” except for the edgiest of antiheroes, yet here we are with “human shields” being used as a justification to kill civilians. It’s fucking wild.
This exactly is my main gripe with how Israel is conducting this war. They’re completely unwilling to take any additional risk to preserve civilian life.
It’s not just in “this war”, they weren’t giving a shit about Palestinian civilians for decades.
Not like they care about any non Israelis in the area. Especially if they are press
They don’t care about Israelis either! They’ve killed a bunch of the hostages, and there was a lot of friendly fire at the music festival.
That’s why concluded that the Israeli leadership at the moment are full-blown Fascists: their treatment of people who they see as “not us” as subhuman and the style and intensity of their propaganda entirelly anchored on blaming the victim and them providing a variety of unverifiable excuses for their own killings which are even inconsistent amongst each other (often the excuses for different bombings have inconsistent criteria, which means they’re to a large extent arbitrary or the excuses are being made up after the fact and hence false) are quite the throwback to quite a style of Fascism which is almost a century old and manage to exceed just about everybody since WWII.
Even Russia in its invasion of Ukraine did not get this close to the historical worse kinds of Fascism, probably because the Russians are nowhere as racist towards Ukranians as Israelis are towards Arabs, especially Palestinians.
this war
You mean “this genocide”. They don’t see civilians, they see targets for extermination.
If you kill hospitals, you kill a generation.
I wonder if a lot of people’s idea of war has been shaped by the recent American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which were wars of choice where at least in theory American soldiers were fighting largely for the benefit of the natives. Countries that believe they actually need to win and don’t have the option of just giving up and going home fight wars in a very different way. Consider for example World War II, the proverbial “good versus evil” war fought by the generation that originally came up with the comic book characters you read about. The Allies certainly didn’t hesitate to kill enormous numbers of Axis civilians in the course of destroying military targets. (IMO the Allies actually went way too far and a lot of the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan served no military purpose, but I suppose they were more worried about bombing too little than they were about bombing too much.)
So, in WW2, the vast vast vast majority of the fight against “evil” was done by the USSR, because the Third Reich had, as one of its pillars, the destruction of the workers’ movement and the enslavement of the Slavs. The USSR lost far more than any other party to the war because the Third Reich made the war of choice, dehumanized the Slavs, and engaged in genocidal mass murder as a choice. The USSR defeated 80% of the Third Reich’s forces.
On the flip side, the American and British government and business communities were pro-fascist. They funded the rise of the Third Reich, they funded domestic and international eugenics programs, they were deeply invested in apartheid states and women’s oppression. (By way of contrast, the Brits and Americans used women as prostitutes to support the war effort while the USSR had women all over their military as snipers, tank operators, pilots, machine gunners, etc.)
So given that context, let’s look at the end of the war and what happened after. At the end of the war, the US wanted to make sure that the USSR didn’t liberate the rest of Western Europe from the Third Reich because they were anti-communist. The USA led the Western allies to Germany to create a border with the USSR (also a member of the allies, remember). It was this insistence that divided Germany into East and West Germany. Berlin was in East Germany because the USSR was the predominant victor in the war.
But then what of Japan. Before the USA nuked Japan, the USA and Japan were negotiating terms of surrender. The USA had made a very strict and ultimately untenable set of terms. Japan replied that they needed some domestic face saving in order to prevent their country from descending into violent and bloody internal revolution immediately. The USA received that message, and then chose to nuke 2 civilian cities. There was no emergency. The US wasn’t fighting for survival. Everything had already been secured. The USA was in active negotiations and Japan was participating (albeit through third parties because of the political sensitivity). The USA made an active deliberate choice to nuke civilians unnecessarily.
Why? Because communism was their real enemy. It was the reason they got involved in the war, it was the driving force behind their strategic decisions. They got involved against communism, they went to Germany against communism, they partitioned Germany against communism. And they nuked Japan as a show of force, or to demonstrate how bat shit they were, to create conditions of fear and restraint.
But if that were true, then wouldn’t the USA have just launched a war against communism? They did. They launched wars of choice against Vietnam and Korea. They destroyed Cambodia. They bombed Laos. The most bombed countries in the world were bombed by the USA, with multiple countries having the USA drop more bombs on them than all bombs dropped by all parties in WW2 combined.
They continued their eugenics programs for 20 more years after WW2, they advanced their chemical weapons programs and deployed atrocity after atrocity in these wars of choice, mostly against civilians.
Are people in the USA used to wars of choice? Yes, because in essence all USA wars have been wars of choice, even before the USA existed. Was it a necessity to invade The Phillipines? How about Grenada? Overthrow the Iranian government? Afghanistan in the 80s? Was it an existential necessity to genocide the indigenous peoples of the Americas, poisoning their water, destroying their ecosystems, destroying their agriculture and their sources of food?
The entire Western European project, which became the North Atlantic project, is about wars of choice - brutal wars of choice of genocide through war, through rape, through collective punishment, through environmental devastation, through eugenics, through slavery, through death camps, through occupation and extraction. The number of necessary wars the USA has been in is so vanishingly small that the very few exceptions prove the rule.
So, in WW2, the vast vast vast majority of the fight against “evil” was done by the USSR, because the Third Reich had, as one of its pillars, the destruction of the workers’ movement and the enslavement of the Slavs. The USSR lost far more than any other party to the war because the Third Reich made the war of choice, dehumanized the Slavs, and engaged in genocidal mass murder as a choice. The USSR defeated 80% of the Third Reich’s forces.
Ignores the fact Stalin sided with Hitler and invaded Poland. The Allies also had a substantial supply train back and forth between the UK and Russia to help fight the Germany army there.
On the flip side, the American and British government and business communities were pro-fascist. They funded the rise of the Third Reich, they funded domestic and international eugenics programs, they were deeply invested in apartheid states and women’s oppression. (By way of contrast, the Brits and Americans used women as prostitutes to support the war effort while the USSR had women all over their military as snipers, tank operators, pilots, machine gunners, etc.)
Governments were shits back then across the world. As for the Eugenics, that was how the world worked. You are using the current standards to demonise the past. We know the past was broken, that is why we have change. Eugenics is still a thing today. There will always be those who think they are better than everyone else. As for using women for prostitutes, just read on how the Russians treated the German women. Or more so what is happening in Ukraine right now.
Countries have been funding partisan groups and wars for time immemorial. The enemy of your enemy is my enemy etc. The west is funding Ukraine right now. Ukraine is funding partisan groups in Russia. Russia in turn has mercenaries from all over the world. The Wagner group is active in many areas.
But then what of Japan. Before the USA nuked Japan, the USA and Japan were negotiating terms of surrender.
No they were not. The emperor of Japan refused to surrender, the Allied forces did not see the need to offer good terms. There is a famous scene in the movie Oppenheimer, where Roosevelt gets the news of the successful test of the nuclear bomb at the Potsdam summit. Good terms are at the behest of the position you are in. Japan was not in a good place.
The USA made an active deliberate choice to nuke civilians unnecessarily.
Damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. The counter argument is that it has prevented the use of Nukes since then. Or rather anyone who commits to using one know exactly what they are doing. What is a certainty is that fewer died as a result of the bomb. Not the most palatable end justifies the means, I agree.
Why? Because communism was their real enemy. It was the reason they got involved in the war, it was the driving force behind their strategic decisions. They got involved against communism, they went to Germany against communism, they partitioned Germany against communism. And they nuked Japan as a show of force, or to demonstrate how bat shit they were, to create conditions of fear and restraint.
Japan was nuked in the fight against communism>? Stalin was making imperial demands. The land grab by the Russians was the beginnings of soured relations. Remember Russia was directly responsible for the UK and France entering the war when it invaded Poland.
As for the rest, no one could argue that governments have only just moved away from being shits. It is a recent thing, and not all governments are complying with the change in attitude. Judging the actions of the past by the standards of today is just a “better than thou ism”. It is easy to be pompous and pious in the current environment. Not so much when the whole world is working to different values. I am 100% certain that they will be shits again should the need arise. Looking in the direction of Israel on that one.
We need the whole world to agree to not invade each other. We do not need to justify the actions of today by the misdemeanours of those in the past.
Your understanding of pretty much every single point you made is entirely ahistorical and inconsistent with actual records. However, it’s 100% consistent with Western liberal propaganda including schooling.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement was made, according to historical record, to give the USSR a better chance at surviving the coming onslaught. There were no illusions on Stalin’s part that the war was coming for the USSR as Hitler literally announced his intentions in Mein Kampf.
The idea that the USSR invaded Poland is a Western narrative reframing of the conflict between the USSR and the Third Reich.
The idea that allied supply lines are equivalent to millions of Soviet deaths is divorced from reality.
The idea that Stalin engaged in a land grab is equally a Western narrative reframing the post-war reality. The USSR marched all the way to Berlin. Every country they marched through had been destroyed by the war. The options were to leave them for the anti-communist to come through and attempt to destroy the USSR or stay behind and build self-governing Soviet republics. Unlike the land grabs of Japan, Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the USA, the USSR built democratic republics and gave them the right to secede from the union. The majority of people in the former republics have said, through polls, that dismantling the USSR did more harm to them than good.
In the years immediately following the war the USA built NATO, staffed it with Nazis, executed Operation Paperclip to distribute Nazis all over the Western hemisphere, and executed Operation Gladio to arm, train, fund, and organize fascist militias all over Europe so that if the USSR ever backed out of any place it would immediately be taken over by fascists. Then the USA went on a massive killing spree all over the world.
As for your incorrect understanding of the Japanese surrender, you need to actually read the historical record. The USA and Britain disagreed on the terms and the USA insisted in strongarming the negotiations. The Soviets were trying to negotiate with Japan, but the USA wanted the Soviets out of the Pacific. The Japanese were in active negotiations and after several back-and-forths the USA made the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese, imagining they were negotiating with rational human beings, rejected the terms and asked for specific conditions about maintaining their social institutions around the monarchy. The USA nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians in response.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it saved lives. Your entire framing is that the USA was allowed to just decide to do whatever it wanted because it won, up to and including nukes on civilians. This position is psychopathic.
Governments were shit back then
Mother fucker it was only 80 years ago. Are you that fucking daft? The USA got WORSE in those 80 years, not better.
Comparing Wagner group to the Mujahideen is ridiculous. Just pure brain rot.
As for this ridiculous idea that governments are better now… Isn’t it curious that it happened after you were born? Almost like now that you’re here, things are better. Of course they’d have to be, otherwise you would be living in an evil empire. And you aren’t are you? That would be terrible.
The reality is that the CIA still operates black sites where they torture people, the supreme Court protects them, the Congress protects them, the executive branch protects them. The US has invaded more countries after WW2 than before. In Libya, the country with the highest standard of living in all of Africa, the US bombed it to oblivion. After the president was lynched in the streets, Hillary Clinton, paragon of governments not being shits anymore, said “We came. We saw. He died.”
The amount of violent oppression the USA has delivered around the world since the end of world war 2 is unfathomable. The School of the Americas, alone, is responsible for so much bloodletting, and that’s just a fucking school.
Your entire world view is a collection of false narratives created by North Atlantic propagandists based on cherry picked facts that give them the veneer of authenticity. The reality is that the USA is the inheritor and current head of the 6 century North Atlantic project of global domination and nothing is off the table for them: nuking civilians, genocide, species extinction, child trafficking, systematized torture, overt military occupation, assassination, coups of democratically elected governments, medical experiments, apartheid, ghettoization, mass incarceration, slave labor.
Just because you’re here now doesn’t mean that suddenly governments are more rational.
Because Israel is committing war crimes. Because Israel has stated, unequivocally, that Palestinians are animals and must be scourged off the face of the earth.
Removed by mod
Oh, Hamas is airstriking hospitals and refugee camps too? No? They’re not? Only Israel is doing that?
Why wouldn’t this genocide be blamed on the ones committing it? Use your head.
Removed by mod
Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.
And before you bring up human shields, the only ones to do so were the Israelis in operation Cast Lead. Read up on it of you don’t know. If you do and still say this, then you’re a genocidaire and I don’t give a shit what you say.
I’m reading through the Wikipedia article and don’t see anything about the Israelis using human shields. Part of it mentions Hamas using human shields, hiding under hospitals, keeping weapons in houses or mosques, etc.
Can you help narrow it down for me which part you’re talking about?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150152009en.pdf
Page 48.
Israel does a good job of making the world forget their actions.
According to testimonies, in several cases Israeli forces also forced unarmed Palestinian civilian males (mostly adults but in two cases also children) to serve as “human shields”, including making them walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives. These practices are not new. Numerous such cases have been documented in recent years and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that such practices contradict International law and prohibited them in October 2005.73
Thanks!
Removed by mod
Can you please reread what you just said? You’re saying it’s okay to kill children and innocent people in order to kill someone else you actually want to kill?
Removed by mod
" Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Not yours. Israel isn’t doing a thing in Qatar.
You’re either a liar or you believe in obvious lies.
No cost is too great
Eat shit.
Removed by mod
Hamas isn’t forcing Israel to commit war crimes.
Removed by mod
lol, Israel doesn’t “have to” do anything.
Could you cite that law for me? Because last I checked there is no such law forcing Isreal to shoot back, school or otherwise.
Intentionally bombing civilians is a war crime. I don’t care how many of your “intended targets” you think you’re getting. If you are bombing civilian centers, like, oh let’s say a hospital for instance, then you are a war criminal, Full stop. There is nothing forcing Isreal to do that.
So, if Hamas hid in a Israeli hospital would it be justifiable to bomb it?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“forcing”
Nobody is forcing Israel to do anything.
Operation Cast lead.
You really think using human shields is really a good excuse to bomb hospitals. “they’re using hostages! Quick teach those hostages a goddamn guided 2000lb lesson!”
Removed by mod
Get the fuck out of here justifying genocide.
Never again was for everyone.
Look hamas killing “millions” is unlikely given they haven’t topped 5000.
Coolio. So lemme grab your kids take them hostage and you can tell me again that murdering me and your children is the only solution to hostage situation.
deleted by creator
Would you say the same thing is the US was the one shelling hospitals?
Operation cast lead.
Every accusation is a confession.
Because that’s where the Palestinians are, and this is a genocide.
deleted by creator
Does that headline not read war crime to you somehow?
Well it’s kind of open to interpretation, which may be why they didn’t want to directly say that, just imply it.
Article 19 of the Geneva convention:
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
Now are firing qassam rockets “harmful to the enemy”? Probably.
Has due warning been given? Maybe? It’s not well defined what that means. Does roof knocking count? Do you need to submit a form to their embassy?
I think the big problem is that the kind of warfare we are seeing here is unlike what they saw when they wrote those laws.
deleted by creator
Given most people aren’t reading the article, the particularly relevant points:
International humanitarian law lends hospitals special protections during war. But hospitals can lose their protections if combatants use them to hide fighters or store weapons, the International Committee of the Red Cross said. […]
In an editorial published Friday in Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan issued a warning to combatants that the burden of proof is on them if they claim hospitals, schools or houses of worship have lost their protected status because they are being used for military purposes. And the bar for evidence is very high.
“If there is a doubt that a civilian object has lost its protective status, the attacker must assume that it is protected,” Khan wrote. “The burden of demonstrating that this protective status is lost rests with those who fire the gun, the missile, or the rocket in question.”
TL;DR: If Hamas is conducting military operations from hospitals, they can be legitimate targets in the eyes of international law, but precautions still need to be taken to avoid civilian casualties and the case for their military use should be overwhelming, not amorphous or tenuous.
So just shouting, “They’re coming right for us!” Isn’t enough?
I’m shocked.
Because Israel is trying to genocide.
They don’t care about Hamas, they just want Palestine gone.
That doesn’t explain why the rest of the world is ok with it.
We aren’t. But anyone that voices an opinion against Israel in my country is labeled an anti-Semite, so people stay quiet.
Also Putin is doing the same, global out rage, no one really stepped in due to politics
Because if you don’t support genocide you are an antisemite, and only one of those can destroy your political aspirations (hint, it isn’t supporting genocide).
Most civilians aren’t but they’ve found out in 3 weeks time that they live all live in pretend democracies and not real ones. Mask off we’re the Russia now.
Ever seen an oil tanker turn? That is the the way the world works with Israel slowly and not quick to judge. The rest of us though have had enough, fuck Israel and no funding of them whatsoever.
Removed by mod
Netanyahu doesn’t give a duck.
Crazy thought, why don’t we just not bomb hospitals? Anyone?
Or how to make people hate you more than Hamas, a book by the IDF.
And if rockets and other weapons really are being fired from hospitals? What do you do then?
Removed by mod
That’s up to them to figure out how to do it with the least amount of civilian casualty then. Moot point anyway considering nothing has come out with overwhelming proof of Hamas using the hospital as cover.
We already know Hamas is in that hospital and have fired at least one anti-tank rocket out of it.
There’s also the time Islamic Jihadists fired missiles from right next to a different hospital.
Hamas has always used civilian infrastructure to attack from, it’s their MO. They want Palestinian civilians to get killed by Israel.
Removed by mod
Oh, well if bad people did bad thing, that definitely justifies bombing civilians, which totally isn’t a war crime.
Because Zionism is a genocidal ideology.
Rules apply only to peasants
Why are hospitals in Gaza under Israel’s crosshairs? Why? Is it truly that difficult to step back and think for a moment about why Israel would want to erase the current populace entirely?
Amazing, what a mystery
Yeah, I mean there are people in the Israeli Government calling all Palestinians (not just Hamas) “animals”, others who say that Palestinians won’t be allowed to get back to Northern Gaza and there’s even a member of that Government who seriously suggested Israel should nuke Gaza.
And then, of course, there is the long track record of Israel doing things like murdering journalists and killing Palestinian kids throwing rocks at their armored diggers, especially under governments with these same people in them.
People who have a track record of murdering journalists and children, bombing hospitals full of those they see as “animals” which they want to see dead or out of Gaza, and then providing to the World some unverifiable excuse that blames somebody else and doesn’t even pass the sniff test when it comes to proportionality in the use of force is hardly out of character, especially because History has various examples of people who think like that going full on mass-murderer in similar ways.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Sorry, what? Newborn babies can’t shoot a gun and can’t take care of themselves if their homes are bombed and their parents die. Not to mention that half of Gaza is already under 18 and probably won’t be having babies any time soon, given that hospitals are being targeted. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Even if we accept the casualty figures provided by Hamas (and I don’t)
I don’t know why you wouldn’t, unless your justification is just your own bigotry.
One snippet out of a lengthy article.
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements.
“Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “In the times in which we have done our own verification of numbers for particular strikes, I’m not aware of any time which there’s been some major discrepancy.”
Shakir said Human Rights Watch would not use figures provided by parties with “a propensity to misrepresent information.”
Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls
And another:
Throughout four wars and numerous bloody skirmishes between Israel and Hamas, U.N. agencies have cited the Health Ministry’s death tolls in regular reports. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Palestinian Red Crescent also use the numbers.
In the aftermath of war, the U.N. humanitarian office has published final death tolls based on its own research into medical records.
In all cases the U.N.’s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies.
— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385.
— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251.
— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256.
What is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war’s death toll?
This is literally the same language used for every genocide to justify it.
Israel doesn’t wanna wipe out Gazans; that’s just unrealistic. However, a sizeable part of the Israeli government is very much fine with expelling them.
Complete displacement of a peoples is a genocide
Yeah not saying otherwise. Just countering the point that Gazans aren’t being wiped out so it’s fine.
You do realise that the birth rates will slow down during the conflict, right? Who’s going to be having a baby when the nearest hospital is being shelled? Assuming of course that both parents even survive.
That 50,000 per year won’t hold for this duration and I won’t be surprised if it shrinks to below 1,000 by the time Israel is finished.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
JERUSALEM (AP) — The head of surgery at Gaza’s largest and most advanced hospital held up his phone Saturday to the hammering of gunfire and artillery shelling.
“It was the thing we somehow told ourselves wouldn’t happen,” he said, speaking by phone from the central city of Deir al-Balah, where he arrived by foot Friday after escaping what he said were strikes on the hospital with tens of thousands of others.
“It’s to say, ‘Not only will we kill and wound you, we will ensure you have nowhere to go to be treated,’” said Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta, a British Palestinian surgeon working for Doctors Without Borders in Gaza City.
Nonetheless, there must be plenty of warning before attacks to allow for the safe evacuation of patients and medical workers, ICRC legal officer Cordula Droege said.
Even if Israel succeeds in proving Shifa conceals a Hamas command center, the tenets of international law remain in place, said Jessica Wolfendale, expert in military ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
In an editorial published Friday in Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan issued a warning to combatants that the burden of proof is on them if they claim hospitals, schools or houses of worship have lost their protected status because they are being used for military purposes.
The original article contains 1,155 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
From the ISW report today: Israeli forces fought Palestinian militia fighters near the Square of the Unknown Soldier less than half a kilometer from the al Shifa Hospital complex.[1] A Palestinian journalist reported that the al Qassem Brigades—the military wing of Hamas—ambushed Israeli forces south of the Square of the Unknown Soldier on Shuhada Street.[2] Other Palestinian militia fighters fought Israeli forces on Omar Mukhtar Street, which bounds the square.[3]
If you build your defense in urban environment you are supposed to evacuate the civilians. This is standard for any half competent army.
If you build your defense in urban environment you are supposed to evacuate the civilians. This is standard for any half competent army.
To where? Gaza is small enough as is, and the whole strip is being bombed by Israel.
Also, Hamas isn’t an army; they’re a resistance force. Gaza doesn’t have a proper army, which is why they have to resort to asymmetrical warfare.
Away from Gaza City were they currently focus their defensive efforts.
They have a structure and recognition marks, they fall under the Geneva convention as lawful combatants.
Asymmetrical warfare does not allow you to use perfidy and abuse of a protected status.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places in Earth.
Removed by mod
explain
Removed by mod
I do not think 10,000+ dead is “trying to minimize civilian casualties”
Removed by mod
If they actually did that the entirety of West Asia and North Africa would attack them and all their allies would abandon them.
So actually, no, Israel doesn’t have that capability.
You seem to have a different understanding of capability than I do. They could do it, so they have the capability, but that says nothing about the consequences.
No, they would be dogpiled as they did it. They wouldn’t be able to finish the job before the whole world ate them alive.
Hamas killed around 1100 israelis on Oct 7.
Israel killed at least 122 of the 1200 themselves. Most likely more
350 of the israelis killed were IDF
This mean the civilian casualty rate was around 70%. On Oct 7.
Hamas has a far better civilian casualty rate than America which goes around 80-90 while committing their supposed genocide attack. This is not an accident you can realize by blind firing into civilian areas.
Purely from these numbers we can conclude in ACTIONS not words that Hamas takes decent care to avoid civilian deaths even when attacking. Far better than israel which just bombs everything that moves.
Israel uses human shields. Operation Cast lead is what human shields looks like.
Stop justifying war crime in defense of an apartheid ethno state trying to commit genocide.
That was 15 years ago, and I see absolutely no mention of Israeli human shields anywhere regarding Cast Lead.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150152009en.pdf
Page 48.
Israel does a good job of making the world forget their actions.
According to testimonies, in several cases Israeli forces also forced unarmed Palestinian civilian males (mostly adults but in two cases also children) to serve as “human shields”, including making them walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives. These practices are not new. Numerous such cases have been documented in recent years and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that such practices contradict International law and prohibited them in October 2005.73
