256 Gazans killed by unlawful Israeli bombardment

[Kowani]

3,000 volunteers show up to help clean up the scars left by the bombing campaign in Gaza

[Greater Miami Shores]

Different Persons have different views on this issue and all issues, no matter what any Fact Checkers and organizations say.

No, there is no "different view" here. Either Hamas is using human shields or they are not. This has nothing to do with a matter of opinion.

I strongly agree with the Persons who say and think Hamas is using human shields. Your views on this issue or any issues by Persons who strongly disagree with you are not Facts to them, that is what counts to them their views, their Facts, it is called Human Nature all of us have. I Rest My Case.

[NationStates Puppet]

No, there is no "different view" here. Either Hamas is using human shields or they are not. This has nothing to do with a matter of opinion.

I strongly agree with the Persons who say and think Hamas is using human shields. Your views on this issue or any issues by Persons who strongly disagree with you are not Facts to them, that is what counts to them there views, their Facts, it is called Human Nature all of us have. I Rest My Case.

But there is no proof that Hamas uses human shields. Therefore you have no facts to present.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I strongly agree with the Persons who say and think Hamas is using human shields. Your views on this issue or any issues by Persons who strongly disagree with you are not Facts to them, that is what counts to them there views, their Facts, it is called Human Nature all of us have. I Rest My Case.

But there is no proof that Hamas uses human shields. Therefore you have no facts to present.

I think we all know they blow themselves up, I think we all know they have used human shields in the Past, I can look up links but I am too lazy to do so, I might anyway at any time. I Rest My Case Again.

[Kubra]

But there is no proof that Hamas uses human shields. Therefore you have no facts to present.

I think we all know they blow themselves up, I think we all know they have used human shields in the Past, I can look up links but I am too lazy to do so, I Rest My Case Again.

>we all know it
>I rest my case
Well my friends, we have been outplayed!

[NationStates Puppet]

But there is no proof that Hamas uses human shields. Therefore you have no facts to present.

I think we all know they blow themselves up, I think we all know they have used human shields in the Past, I can look up links but I am too lazy to do so, I Rest My Case Again.

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

[Heloin]

We can already know that. 2010 was the last year without any protection from the Iron Dome and for 152 rockets and 217 morters we have 2 killed 5 injured. In 2012 the Iron Dome was not really in full effect yet and for 2,256 Rockets and 17 morters we have 6 dead. Assuming Israel didn't have an Iron dome and Hamas lucked into being as effective in 2010 with the name number of missiles launched in 2012 you'd get 12 Israeli dead. Knowing that Hamas fired about 3,400 missiles at Israel in this recent tension you'd get 18 about Israeli civilians dead, as opposed to the 11 in reality.

From what I have read the iron dome was 90% effective in 2012. This extrapolated data also assumes a lack of increased accuracy from hamas/increased population in israel/settlement growth closer to gaza and is quite speculative.

Hamas rockets are just as accurate as when they first started firing, as in not at all. The Iron dome does stop most of the rockets that are launched but the best we can work out from the data we have is that honestly the Hamas rockets are to inaccurate to be considered an existential threat to Israel even when you don't take into account the Iron Dome.

[NationStates Puppet]

But there is no proof that Hamas uses human shields. Therefore you have no facts to present.

I think we all know they blow themselves up, I think we all know they have used human shields in the Past, I can look up links but I am too lazy to do so, I Rest My Case Again.

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think we all know they blow themselves up, I think we all know they have used human shields in the Past, I can look up links but I am too lazy to do so, I Rest My Case Again.

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

You guys haven't proven to me and those who strongly agree with me Hamas doesn't use Human Shields, so we are even. I am not the only one.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

You guys haven't proven to me and those who strongly agree with me Hamas doesn't use Human Shields, so we are even. I am not the only one.

Yes we have. Several reputable and leading international organizations have said the claim is bunk. You're just wrong, as usual.

[NationStates Puppet]

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

You guys haven't proven to me and those who strongly agree with me Hamas doesn't use Human Shields, so we are even. I am not the only one.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/busting-the-myth-of-palestinian-human-shields-in-gaza-46645

[Seangoli]

Until you can prove that Hamas uses human shields and that the IDF doesn't you aren't being very useful.

You guys haven't proven to me and those who strongly agree with me Hamas doesn't use Human Shields, so we are even. I am not the only one.

First, you are asking to prove a negative statement. While you can provide evidentiary support for a negative statement, you can't directly prove it. Rather, you can only disprove the positive statement that Hamas uses human shields.

Second, the notion they are using using human shields largely requires one to use a very broad definition of human shield, probably so broad that it doesn't really apply. One could at least accept this broad notion if they directly used a residential building or the like as an actual direct staging point for attacks; stretching the notion to say that essentially the entirety of Gaza is used as a human shield because that is where they operate is a bit too much of a stretch. It is also a stretch to say that their use of buildings for ancillary purposes is using human shields. Human shields have a pretty specific definition, and many of the attacks do not really apply to the notion of using human shields, unless you broaden the term to be utterly meaningless.

[Seangoli]

Israel talks about Hamas' human shields but you kind of have to wonder what those settlements are about. Think about it, how does Israel keep getting away with annexing more of the West Bank? If they occupied it with soldiers, those are legitimate targets, but build settlements and fill them with families and babies, then Palestine either has to accept the annexation or attack the settlements which makes them "terrorists".

Officially, Israel technically has declared many of these settlements as not legal through their Supreme Court, more or less. Not always, but many. The going explanation, if there is one, is *at best "there is nothing we can do about", and at worst "we need more room to grow" (not to Godwin, but it really doesn't sound good and is a bitter irony when they are effectively claiming lebenstraum).

Unofficially, they *can* stop them, they just don't want to.

[SD_Film Artists]

Israel talks about Hamas' human shields but you kind of have to wonder what those settlements are about. Think about it, how does Israel keep getting away with annexing more of the West Bank? If they occupied it with soldiers, those are legitimate targets, but build settlements and fill them with families and babies, then Palestine either has to accept the annexation or attack the settlements which makes them "terrorists".

You say that like it'll be a change to Hamas' actions.

[Insaanistan]

Hot take:
Militants existing near civilians≠human shields and isn’t an excuse to kill civilians.

[Albrenia]

I think it is both intentional and cowardly of Hamas to fire their rockets from public areas with many innocents, such as schools. Despite not fully fitting the term, I don't find 'human shield' to be too inaccurate since the reason they're firing from those locations is to try to deter Israel from firing back as quickly or as powerfully as they are able.

Not to mention firing unguided missiles into cities is murderous in of itself.

Israel just deciding that they don't give a shit about innocent kids and firing back anyway is by no means excused by this. It's not helped by other things Israel is doing such as forcing Islamic buildings to stop prayer services so they can use their loudspeakers to blast Israeli government messages either.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I think it is both intentional and cowardly of Hamas to fire their rockets from public areas with many innocents, such as schools. Despite not fully fitting the term, I don't find 'human shield' to be too inaccurate since the reason they're firing from those locations is to try to deter Israel from firing back as quickly or as powerfully as they are able.

Not to mention firing unguided missiles into cities is murderous in of itself.

Israel just deciding that they don't give a shit about innocent kids and firing back anyway is by no means excused by this. It's not helped by other things Israel is doing such as forcing Islamic buildings to stop prayer services so they can use their loudspeakers to blast Israeli government messages either.

Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good and vice versa. One side is a bunch of racial supremacists who think being Jewish makes you better than other people and the other side are antisemitic scumbags who wanna blow up buses full of innocent people. Both sides are bigots and cowards. The good guys in this fight are the civilians who didn't wanna be part of this, like most wars.

[Insaanistan]

“How can we provoke more fighting?”
“I think I got an idea!”
Jewish settlers escorted to al-Aqsa Mosque

[The Lone Alliance]

Is there really any such thing as a lawful bombardment really?

[Insaanistan]

Protests at Lebanon-Israel border mark 21 years since Israel left and the recent conclusion to Gaza fighting
Hamas and Fatah fighters clash at al-Aqsa

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Is there really any such thing as a lawful bombardment really?

What's so civil about war anyways?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Protests at Lebanon-Israel border mark 21 years since Israel left and the recent conclusion to Gaza fighting
Hamas and Fatah fighters clash at al-Aqsa

Palestinian civil war now?

[Novus America]

Hot take:
Militants existing near civilians≠human shields and isn’t an excuse to kill civilians.

I have no idea why I came back, if this is the quality of debate, but ugh. I did and this is a really bad take.

Obviously if we followed your thesis to its logical conclusion then anyone could place all their military assets in dangerously close proximity to civilians, and this gain immunity from any counterattack.

Israel could nuke Cairo and Egypt could not respond as long as the missiles were launched from civilian areas.

It is not by default always wrong for civilian deaths to occur in wartime. It is really inevitable. We have laws of war designed to REDUCE, but they do not eliminate civilian deaths. You absolutely CAN legally attack a military target if it is in civilian area. Yes you are supposed to use the weapons you can that can best discriminate. For example if you can use a small accurate missile instead of a big gravity bomb you should do so. You would not use incendiary weapons in civilian areas in most cases.

Also the military advantage you are likely to gain from the attack should be proportional to the risk to civilians.

For example if killing an enemy general, even if it means a dozen surrounding civilians will die will greatly shorten the war, then it might be valid. The gain of ending the war might outweigh the risk to civilians.

But killing a single enlisted cook, whose death would not greatly help your military aim, while causing the same dozen deaths is probably not valid.

You are supposed to take certain steps to reasonably reduce civilian casualties. You are not required to avoid the entirely as if you were, you could not defend yourself at all in many cases.

Also Hamas does not follow the rules of war designed to reduce such casualties. Hamas does not clearly distinguish between its own military forces and the civilians in the area it controls. Israel does.

You are required to give your military forces distinct uniforms/insignia such that they are easily differentiated from civilians.

Hamas however does not do so. They do not draw that line. Many of their attacks are launched by people not officially members of an organized military force.

Even if you are not a uniformed member of the armed forces, if you grab a gun and get involved in the fighting you are a combatant.

So it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes there are reasonable justifications for civilian deaths within the laws of war.

And Israel taken some steps to reduce casualties such as given warnings prior to destroying certain targets, allowing civilians to evacuate the area. Could Israel do more? Almost certainly. But you can only do so much without fatally undermined your military objectives, which you are not required to do.

Could Israel be better? Sure. But you have to be far more specific in how you want them to improve in their decisions on which targets to hit and which weapons to use. Not just “civilians died, Israel bad”.

And you are unlikely to look at it fairly given your bias in the matter.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hot take:
Militants existing near civilians≠human shields and isn’t an excuse to kill civilians.

I have no idea why I came back, if this is the quality of debate, but ugh. I did and this is a really bad take.

Obviously if we followed your thesis to its logical conclusion then anyone could place all their military assets in dangerously close proximity to civilians, and this gain immunity from any counterattack.

Israel could nuke Cairo and Egypt could not respond as long as the missiles were launched from civilian areas.

It is not by default always wrong for civilian deaths to occur in wartime. It is really inevitable. We have laws of war designed to REDUCE, but they do not eliminate civilian deaths. You absolutely CAN legally attack a military target if it is in civilian area. Yes you are supposed to use the weapons you can that can best discriminate. For example if you can use a small accurate missile instead of a big gravity bomb you should do so. You would not use incendiary weapons in civilian areas in most cases.

Also the military advantage you are likely to gain from the attack should be proportional to the risk to civilians.

For example if killing an enemy general, even if it means a dozen surrounding civilians will die will greatly shorten the war, then it might be valid. The gain of ending the war might outweigh the risk to civilians.

But killing a single enlisted cook, whose death would not greatly help your military aim, while causing the same dozen deaths is probably not valid.

You are supposed to take certain steps to reasonably reduce civilian casualties. You are not required to avoid the entirely as if you were, you could not defend yourself at all in many cases.

Also Hamas does not follow the rules of war designed to reduce such casualties. Hamas does not clearly distinguish between its own military forces and the civilians in the area it controls. Israel does.

You are required to give your military forces distinct uniforms/insignia such that they are easily differentiated from civilians.

Hamas however does not do so. They do not draw that line. Many of their attacks are launched by people not officially members of an organized military force.

Even if you are not a uniformed member of the armed forces, if you grab a gun and get involved in the fighting you are a combatant.

So it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes there are reasonable justifications for civilian deaths within the laws of war.

And Israel taken some steps to reduce casualties such as given warnings prior to destroying certain targets, allowing civilians to evacuate the area. Could Israel do more? Almost certainly. But you can only do so much without fatally undermined your military objectives, which you are not required to do.

Could Israel be better? Sure. But you have to be far more specific in how you want them to improve in their decisions on which targets to hit and which weapons to use. Not just “civilians died, Israel bad”.

And you are unlikely to look at it fairly given your bias in the matter.

Israel's own soldiers admitted to intentionally targeting civilian buildings to let off steam. They are lying when they say they're trying to minimize casualties.

[Novus America]

Is there really any such thing as a lawful bombardment really?

Yes. The laws of war are complicated (and sometimes disputed), we could spend hours discussing them, but yes, you absolutely can bomb targets in a civilian area, legally under the laws of war, provided certain conditions are met. Namely you do not use prohibited weapons, you try to ensure the risk to civilians is offset by the likely legitimate military gain, you use the most accurate and discriminate weapons you reasonably can, etc.

The laws of war do not require you avoid civilian casualties entirely, but that you take certain reasonable steps to reduce them.