AFAIK Hamas didn’t “deliberately” target civilians. That is to say, Hamas soldiers didn’t get orders saying “Kill random civilians”. Not denying that Hamas killed a lot of civilians of course, but we need to distinguish between individual, if rampant, action and leadership policy.
And considering Hamas’s history of targeting Israeli civilians, I’m not really sure why this is all suddenly up in the air because Hamas spokesmen now claim that they would NEVER target civilians intentionally, pinky promise. Considering that the ratio of civilians killed is comparable or in excess to Israel’s current ratio, the only thing that seems to distinguish Israel and Hamas is ability to wage a sustained military effort, not any difference in willingness to slaughter innocent people.
Oh, it’s that one. It says “inflict the enemy as many personnel casualties as possible”. And given that one of Hamas’s goals was to inflict damage against the IDF (and while Hamas soldiers’ conduct was horrible it didn’t quite come as far as “kill as many civilians as possible”), the logical interpretation of those papers is that it means Israeli soldiers or security personnel. That would also align more with their other goal of taking as many hostages as possible.
And considering Hamas’s history of targeting Israeli civilians, I’m not really sure why this is all suddenly up in the air because Hamas spokesmen now claim that they would NEVER target civilians intentionally
It’s up in the air because while Hamas does have a history firing rocket attacks into Israel, that has arguable military benefits (forcing Israel to use the iron dome and getting concessions out of them like in 2021) and isn’t as personal or surefire as just pointing your gun at civilians and firing. Hamas’s history of actually fighting inside Israel is AFAIK just this one time so they don’t really have a track record one way or the other.
Oh, it’s that one. It says “inflict the enemy as many personnel casualties as possible”. And given that one of Hamas’s goals was to inflict damage against the IDF (and while Hamas soldiers’ conduct was horrible it didn’t quite come as far as “kill as many civilians as possible”), the logical interpretation of those papers is that it means Israeli soldiers or security personnel. That would also align more with their other goal of taking as many hostages as possible.
You think they were expecting lots of IDF at the elementary schools they targeted? Hamas, again, had an equal or worse civilian casualty ratio than the IDF has right now, and the IDF has a fucking horrible civilian casualty ratio. Is Israel not going quite as far as “kill as many civilians as possible”? Because I would disagree.
It’s up in the air because while Hamas does have a history firing rocket attacks into Israel, that has arguable military benefits (forcing Israel to use the iron dome) and isn’t as personal or surefire as just pointing your gun at civilians and firing. Hamas’s history of actually fighting inside Israel is AFAIK just this one time so they don’t really have a track record one way or the other.
Hamas also has a history of using suicide bombers against civilian targets, specifically.
You think they were expecting lots of IDF at the elementary schools they targeted?
Hamas, again, had an equal or worse civilian casualty ratio than the IDF has right now,
Irrespective of whether October 7th deliberately targeted civilians or not, that’s only true if you take the IDF’s numbers as is, which is… questionable. AFAIK 70% of casualties are women and children. And the IDF killed their own citizens during the attack so it’s not just Hamas’s casualty ratio (though Hamas did likely inflict most of them).
Yeah I see what you mean now. I still think need a bit more decisive evidence, but this does make Hamas deliberately targeting civilians a lot more believable.
Irrespective of whether October 7th deliberately targeted civilians or not, that’s only true if you take the IDF’s numbers as is, which is… questionable. AFAIK 70% of casualties are women and children.
Hamas’s numbers are at a 68% civilian casualty ratio, which is similar to the range generally accepted for the Israeli civilian casualty ratio, which is estimated from 60%-80%.
Israeli claims are a 50% civilian casualty ratio, which is not regarded as realistic.
And the IDF killed their own citizens during the attack so it’s not just Hamas’s casualty ratio (though Hamas did likely inflict most of them).
And I’m sure that Hamas has inflicted some of the current casualties in Gaza, but it’s not likely to be a large enough percentage to be notable.
Hamas’s numbers are at a 68% civilian casualty ratio,
Hamas’s numbers? Where are those?
And I’m sure that Hamas has inflicted some of the current casualties in Gaza, but it’s not likely to be a large enough percentage to be notable.
It’s different in the case of October 7th because we know a significant number of Israeli civilian casualties was inflicted by IDF shelling or reckless fire. For example, they had orders to prevent Hamas soldiers from retreating even if they had hostages (which they did by shelling Hamas with the hostages).
It’s different in the case of October 7th because we know a significant number of Israeli civilian casualties was inflicted by IDF shelling or reckless fire.
Oh, we do know that, do we? Do you have any actual numbers to back this claim up?
Oh I thought you meant Hamas released their casualty numbers. I’ll just say that when you see “Israeli casualty ratio” most people will think “casualty ratio in October 7th”, not “ratio of casualties inflicted by Israel”, and same for “Hamas casualty ratio”.
Oh, we do know that, do we? Do you have any actual numbers to back this claim up?
So while there are no concrete numbers (I think those are lost to time at this point), we do know it happened in a significant capacity.
https://kbin.social/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/759856/Israel-s-IDF-ordered-to-prevent-Hamas-from-returning-to-Gaza
(contains the Hebrew article and a translation in the comments).
They attacked a music festival with indescriminate gunfire, taking and raping hostages. That’s not a deliberate attack against civilians? Was it exclusively an IDF/Zionist affair?
The fuck are you talking about? How do you know what their orders are?
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
What Hamas (and the IDF, but mostly Hamas) did at the festival was frankly horrible, no arguments there. But the festival was in fact something Hamas didn’t know of in advance, so while it’s very much an indictment of the average Hamas soldier (not that it needed to be said Palestinians hate Israelis) I’m not sure it reflects on the leadership.
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
That’d be the case in an ideal world, but I can’t see a universe where they’d be actually be able to do that.
No like in the particular case of Hamas I don’t think it’s possible. As far as the average Palestinian (or Arab more generally) is concerned Israeli = occupier = criminal = death.
Man, militant organizations have restrained their members from retribution against much more severe crimes than “Being the wrong ethnicity”. Hamas isn’t some after-school sports club who can’t do more than wag a finger at their members. They’re an actual organization, with billions (with a B) in funding, a network of informal clientage, and formal organizational structures.
Hamas’s leadership doesn’t restrain or punish those in its ranks who’ve killed civilians because Hamas is down for it. Every Israeli civilian killed is, to them, another Jew closer to the cleansing of Palestine from the occupying power. Not only that, but every Israeli civilian killed hardens Israeli society against Hamas, and Hamas thrives on conflict - as long as there is conflict between the two, there will be Hamas - and so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
I see this a a lot, but it seems to ignore that Hamas participated in the 2008 and 2012/2013 ceasefires in good faith until Israel proved they had no intention of reciprocating (waiting more than a year in the latter case). This is just a guess, but these seem very counterproductive to me if their aim is to intensify the conflict. Like if Israel had actually lifted the blockade Hamas’s raison d’etre would’ve just ceased to exist right then and there.
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process. Like Israel, Hamas used the duration of the ceasefire to rebuild their capacity for operations (material for Hamas, shaping public opinion for Israel), and was ready and eager to resume hostilities - which was undone by Israel being faster ‘on the draw’ than Hamas in the backstab Olympics and catching them by surprise.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
In any case, if Israel had lifted the blockade, Hamas’s reason to be wouldn’t have changed at all - the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and left-wing).
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process.
That’s not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza specifically are two big ones).
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn’t suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn’t have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza’s missile-worthy problems with Israel.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
It’s basically the same as the 2008 one, but lasted a year so we have more stuff to point at.
the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and socialist).
That’s true, but that only works in a Palestine that’s at war; if peace happens they can’t really do much. At worst they get the IRA treatment.
While lifting the blockade would improve Hamas’s material capacity, and doubtlessly they would take advantage of that, it’s no excuse to keep 2 million plus people in a state of effective siege, especially since the continuation of the siege only offers the prospect of indefinite continuation or the destruction of the besieged considering that the terms offered by Israel are unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Lifting the siege would have materially strengthened Hamas, but could have damaged their support, especially if elections were held in Gaza.
But that requires Israel to have a genuine interest in peace, which it does not.
AFAIK Hamas didn’t “deliberately” target civilians. That is to say, Hamas soldiers didn’t get orders saying “Kill random civilians”. Not denying that Hamas killed a lot of civilians of course, but we need to distinguish between individual, if rampant, action and leadership policy.
Hamas deliberately targeted uninvolved civilians for use as hostages and, yes, for killing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/top-secret-hamas-documents-show-terrorists-intentionally-targeted-elem-rcna120310
And considering Hamas’s history of targeting Israeli civilians, I’m not really sure why this is all suddenly up in the air because Hamas spokesmen now claim that they would NEVER target civilians intentionally, pinky promise. Considering that the ratio of civilians killed is comparable or in excess to Israel’s current ratio, the only thing that seems to distinguish Israel and Hamas is ability to wage a sustained military effort, not any difference in willingness to slaughter innocent people.
Oh, it’s that one. It says “inflict the enemy as many personnel casualties as possible”. And given that one of Hamas’s goals was to inflict damage against the IDF (and while Hamas soldiers’ conduct was horrible it didn’t quite come as far as “kill as many civilians as possible”), the logical interpretation of those papers is that it means Israeli soldiers or security personnel. That would also align more with their other goal of taking as many hostages as possible.
It’s up in the air because while Hamas does have a history firing rocket attacks into Israel, that has arguable military benefits (forcing Israel to use the iron dome and getting concessions out of them like in 2021) and isn’t as personal or surefire as just pointing your gun at civilians and firing. Hamas’s history of actually fighting inside Israel is AFAIK just this one time so they don’t really have a track record one way or the other.
You think they were expecting lots of IDF at the elementary schools they targeted? Hamas, again, had an equal or worse civilian casualty ratio than the IDF has right now, and the IDF has a fucking horrible civilian casualty ratio. Is Israel not going quite as far as “kill as many civilians as possible”? Because I would disagree.
Hamas also has a history of using suicide bombers against civilian targets, specifically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#2000s
Irrespective of whether October 7th deliberately targeted civilians or not, that’s only true if you take the IDF’s numbers as is, which is… questionable. AFAIK 70% of casualties are women and children. And the IDF killed their own citizens during the attack so it’s not just Hamas’s casualty ratio (though Hamas did likely inflict most of them).
Yeah I see what you mean now. I still think need a bit more decisive evidence, but this does make Hamas deliberately targeting civilians a lot more believable.
Hamas’s numbers are at a 68% civilian casualty ratio, which is similar to the range generally accepted for the Israeli civilian casualty ratio, which is estimated from 60%-80%.
Israeli claims are a 50% civilian casualty ratio, which is not regarded as realistic.
And I’m sure that Hamas has inflicted some of the current casualties in Gaza, but it’s not likely to be a large enough percentage to be notable.
Hamas’s numbers? Where are those?
It’s different in the case of October 7th because we know a significant number of Israeli civilian casualties was inflicted by IDF shelling or reckless fire. For example, they had orders to prevent Hamas soldiers from retreating even if they had hostages (which they did by shelling Hamas with the hostages).
Current Israeli numbers of Hamas’s attack by social security data.
Oh, we do know that, do we? Do you have any actual numbers to back this claim up?
Oh I thought you meant Hamas released their casualty numbers. I’ll just say that when you see “Israeli casualty ratio” most people will think “casualty ratio in October 7th”, not “ratio of casualties inflicted by Israel”, and same for “Hamas casualty ratio”.
So while there are no concrete numbers (I think those are lost to time at this point), we do know it happened in a significant capacity.
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/a-growing-number-of-reports-indicate-israeli-forces-responsible-for-israeli-civilian-and-military-deaths-following-october-7-attack/ (source is for some reason rated badly on MBFC, but I think that’s more of MBFC’s bias, and either way all claims are separately sourced).
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/another-israeli-witness-confirms-israeli-tanks-killed-own-citizens-on-oct-7/3079514
https://kbin.social/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/759856/Israel-s-IDF-ordered-to-prevent-Hamas-from-returning-to-Gaza
(contains the Hebrew article and a translation in the comments).
They attacked a music festival with indescriminate gunfire, taking and raping hostages. That’s not a deliberate attack against civilians? Was it exclusively an IDF/Zionist affair?
The fuck are you talking about? How do you know what their orders are?
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
What Hamas (and the IDF, but mostly Hamas) did at the festival was frankly horrible, no arguments there. But the festival was in fact something Hamas didn’t know of in advance, so while it’s very much an indictment of the average Hamas soldier (not that it needed to be said Palestinians hate Israelis) I’m not sure it reflects on the leadership.
That’d be the case in an ideal world, but I can’t see a universe where they’d be actually be able to do that.
You don’t see a universe where a militant organization can release hostages and punish its own members for violating orders?
No like in the particular case of Hamas I don’t think it’s possible. As far as the average Palestinian (or Arab more generally) is concerned Israeli = occupier = criminal = death.
Man, militant organizations have restrained their members from retribution against much more severe crimes than “Being the wrong ethnicity”. Hamas isn’t some after-school sports club who can’t do more than wag a finger at their members. They’re an actual organization, with billions (with a B) in funding, a network of informal clientage, and formal organizational structures.
Hamas’s leadership doesn’t restrain or punish those in its ranks who’ve killed civilians because Hamas is down for it. Every Israeli civilian killed is, to them, another Jew closer to the cleansing of Palestine from the occupying power. Not only that, but every Israeli civilian killed hardens Israeli society against Hamas, and Hamas thrives on conflict - as long as there is conflict between the two, there will be Hamas - and so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
No argument about the rest, but
I see this a a lot, but it seems to ignore that Hamas participated in the 2008 and 2012/2013 ceasefires in good faith until Israel proved they had no intention of reciprocating (waiting more than a year in the latter case). This is just a guess, but these seem very counterproductive to me if their aim is to intensify the conflict. Like if Israel had actually lifted the blockade Hamas’s raison d’etre would’ve just ceased to exist right then and there.
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process. Like Israel, Hamas used the duration of the ceasefire to rebuild their capacity for operations (material for Hamas, shaping public opinion for Israel), and was ready and eager to resume hostilities - which was undone by Israel being faster ‘on the draw’ than Hamas in the backstab Olympics and catching them by surprise.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
In any case, if Israel had lifted the blockade, Hamas’s reason to be wouldn’t have changed at all - the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and left-wing).
That’s not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza specifically are two big ones).
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn’t suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn’t have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza’s missile-worthy problems with Israel.
It’s basically the same as the 2008 one, but lasted a year so we have more stuff to point at.
That’s true, but that only works in a Palestine that’s at war; if peace happens they can’t really do much. At worst they get the IRA treatment.
Lifting the blockade would just allow hamas to get more weapons and do some more slaughtering the thing they like the most
While lifting the blockade would improve Hamas’s material capacity, and doubtlessly they would take advantage of that, it’s no excuse to keep 2 million plus people in a state of effective siege, especially since the continuation of the siege only offers the prospect of indefinite continuation or the destruction of the besieged considering that the terms offered by Israel are unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Lifting the siege would have materially strengthened Hamas, but could have damaged their support, especially if elections were held in Gaza.
But that requires Israel to have a genuine interest in peace, which it does not.