Whatever Israel says, why it is impossible for Hamas to use human shields in Gaza

First topic message reminder :

Israel has a pathological disregard for the humanity of Palestinians and you can't use human shields against an enemy that doesn't recognise you as human.

WHAT does it mean to use human shields? Employed by the Germans and Japanese in the Second World War, the tactic is premised on an underlying trust in your enemy’s humanity. It appeals to the compassion and mercy of the combatant that they not slaughter the innocent in order to avenge their target.

The ‘shield’ is not the human bodies surrounding the ‘guilty’ party, the shield is the clemency that mankind instinctively affords the innocent. The shield evaporates only when confronted by an enemy who is not merely a fellow solder locked in a power battle, but a psychopath unconcerned with the pain of others.

Such is the case with Hamas. They are faced with an enemy who is willing to obliterate pregnant women, babies, kids, handicapped people, schools and crowded hospitals in order to smash their target. The Israelis repeatedly demonstrate a pathological disregard for any life that is not a Jewish life, and it is for this reason alone, that Hamas are utterly incapable of ever using ‘human shields.’

However, Netanyahu, pro Israeli media and Zionist supporters can’t resist endlessly recycling their trope that Hamas use civilians to guard their rockets. They are clearly flummoxed as to why this assertion does nothing to quell the snowballing international outrage at the massacres they are committing. Their argument attempts to plant in our minds the notion that Hamas actively invite the Israeli military to slaughter and maim innocents and, in doing so, prove that their savagery deserves to be annihilated.

Paradoxically therefore, according to the twisted logic of Zionists, the more innocent Palestinians that die, the worse the Palestinians are. As a collective they are guilty of being innocent.

But this propaganda ploy doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, it boomerangs completely. Every time a Zionist apologist repeats their ‘human shield’ accusations they merely advertise their own deficit of basic humanity. They tell us ‘Hamas think we have empathy for our fellow human beings, but if you look at the casualty figures, you’ll see how mistaken they are.’

The other issues at play here are the rights of the Palestinians to defend themselves and the pragmatics of warfare in a refugee camp. Israel is extremely fond of telling the world that they have the right to defend themselves. They enjoy a nuclear arsenal, cutting edge American weaponry and the formidable Iron Dome technology.

Yet, although Israel constantly brags about its own egalitarian credentials, for some reason Israel refuses to grant the Palestinian people this same intrinsic right to defense that it demands for itself.

Palestinians are not allowed to protect themselves. They are not allowed to fight. Instead we are invited to imagine that it is somehow acceptable for the Palestinians to have no weaponry whatsoever, no army, no solders, no rights. We are lead to believe that the only way for Palestinians to prove their integrity, is to lie down like lambs and quietly live out the unspeakably miserable lives of squalor, poverty and despair that Israel has designed for them. In short, Israel wishes the Palestinians were suicidal but, inconveniently, they keep proving to us that they are not.

Obviously asking a people to passively embrace their own ethnic cleansing is implausible. One would hope that the Jews, more than anyone, might be capable of grasping such a fundamental truth – but sadly not. Given then, that the people of Gaza, like any other human beings, have right to defense, where exactly should they store their weapons? In the rolling valleys and tumbling hills of Haraat al-Daraj? Amid the fauna-filled acres of Shuja’iyya?

Gaza is home to approximately 1.8 million people, it is 25 miles long by 5 to 7 miles wide and sealed by both an Egyptian and Israeli blockade. It is the most crowded open air prison on earth. The only place to feasibly store weapons is inevitably in the proximity of the people forced to live there cheek by jowl.

Israel has now ordered some 43% of the territory to be evacuated. But where to? The Kafka-esque request to insist people go, knowing there is nowhere to go to, is clearly there to benefit Israeli PR, not save lives. And it doesn’t fool anyone. There are currently hundreds of thousands of displaced. The schools that have opened to receive those fleeing are already overflowing and Palestinians that endured the bombings of schools during Operation Cast Lead, know that even a so-called ‘refuge’ can not guarantee safety.

Let’s be clear: the only people putting the Palestinians in danger are the Israelis. The only people killing innocent people are the Israelis. Hamas may not be the party that the chattering classes of the West would want to govern them, but they are democratically elected and they have as much right as Israel, Britain, France and America to fight against an oppressor that quite literally wants to ‘wipe them off the map.’

They face a tough job, but one thing they can’t do is use human shields against an enemy that doesn’t recognise them as human.

Sarah Gillespie is a writer and musician living in London. She can be reached through her website: www.sarahgillespie.com

Source: Counterpunch

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/whatever-israel-says-the-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza-is-impossible

Well said that girl.

Cuchulain wrote:Also sharing power does not mean Hamas is not in control of Gaza

Seriously how short sighted are you sassy lol

Don't keep showing your ignorance, it's really embarassing now. Hamas handed over power, said it would not have ANY government officials in the Unity Government and would co-operate with anything the Government wanted to do. Netanyahu then stopped the Government meetings, attacked Gaza allowed them to meet in the October and then stopped further meetings.

Now I'm off to bed, because talking to someone who doesn't have a bloody clue, just parrot fashions stuff he reads off propaganda sites is really boring. I prefer to speak to people with some intelligence at least.

sassy wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:You didn't know about it full stop.  Netanyahu stopped them meeting until the October because he doesn't want unity.  Abbas has said many things since, but legally the Unity Goverment is still the ruling power.

Actually it shows how little you are in the know, because Hamas has been in peace talks with Israel the last couple of months.
They are more concerned about ISIS at the moment than anything else.
I keep very much up to date, clearly you do not

Yes Didge, I told you that many threads ago, that's because Netanyahu would not deal with the Unity Government, because he doesn't want them unified.  

Exactly. That's what he said. You can make friends with Hamas on a unity government or you can make friends with Isreal but you can't have both.

And so Isreal pulled out of the peace talks. How convenient was that for Netanyahu.

Yep, and didge didn't know. Pure bloody ignorance.

Irn Bru wrote:

sassy wrote:


Yes Didge, I told you that many threads ago, that's because Netanyahu would not deal with the Unity Government, because he doesn't want them unified.  

Exactly. That's what he said. You can make friends with Hamas on a unity government or you can make friends with Isreal but you can't have both.

And so Isreal pulled out of the peace talks. How convenient was that for Netanyahu.

You mean the peace talks that Israel excepted in the first week of conflict brokered by Egypt which Hamas refused thus then causing 90% more of the casualties Irn?

You mean that peace talk?

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Exactly. That's what he said. You can make friends with Hamas on a unity government or you can make friends with Isreal but you can't have both.

And so Isreal pulled out of the peace talks. How convenient was that for Netanyahu.

You mean the peace talks that Israel excepted in the first week of conflict brokered by Egypt which Hamas refused thus then causing 90% more of the casualties Irn?

You mean that peace talk?

No Didge, not those peace talks! Point made.

Night

You mean the important peace talks that would have saved 90% of the causalities in the conflict which Hamas refused, because they did not have enough cannon fodder by then.
You see its so easy to catch the pair of you out.
When it really mattered Hamas refused any peace, they wanted more Palestinians to die first
It proves Hamas had no intention of peace, but you both ignore the facts.

Night then Sassy

Israel has accepted an Egyptian truce proposal for the conflict with Gaza.
Hamas, which controls Gaza, is still discussing the plan, but its armed wing has rejected it as a "surrender".
Under the terms, the ceasefire should begin immediately, followed by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both sides.
Palestinian officials say at least 192 people have been killed by Israeli air strikes launched eight days ago to stop militants firing rockets into Israel.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28305830


If ever anyone wanted more proof that Hamas has no care for its civilians there it is. At this point there had been less than 10% of the causalities for the conflict. It proves Hamas does not care about peace and clearly are able to fool some extreme lefties.

How many would be alive today if Hamas actually wanted peace?

Cuchulain wrote:Israel has accepted an Egyptian truce proposal for the conflict with Gaza.
Hamas, which controls Gaza, is still discussing the plan, but its armed wing has rejected it as a "surrender".
Under the terms, the ceasefire should begin immediately, followed by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both sides.
Palestinian officials say at least 192 people have been killed by Israeli air strikes launched eight days ago to stop militants firing rockets into Israel.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28305830


If ever anyone wanted more proof that Hamas has no care for its civilians there it is. At this point there had been less than 10% of the causalities for the conflict. It proves Hamas does not care about peace and clearly are able to fool some extreme lefties.

How many would be alive today if Hamas actually wanted peace?

Israel want peace but only if they can all of Eretz Israel and they make that quite clear.

Night.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Israel has accepted an Egyptian truce proposal for the conflict with Gaza.
Hamas, which controls Gaza, is still discussing the plan, but its armed wing has rejected it as a "surrender".
Under the terms, the ceasefire should begin immediately, followed by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both sides.
Palestinian officials say at least 192 people have been killed by Israeli air strikes launched eight days ago to stop militants firing rockets into Israel.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28305830


If ever anyone wanted more proof that Hamas has no care for its civilians there it is. At this point there had been less than 10% of the causalities for the conflict. It proves Hamas does not care about peace and clearly are able to fool some extreme lefties.

How many would be alive today if Hamas actually wanted peace?

Israel want peace but only if they can all of Eretz Israel and they make that quite clear.

Night.

Israel agree here, Hamas did not so as to ensure they had far more cannon fodder for people like you to then feel sorry for something they ensure and made happen. More Palestinians dying.
There is more proof for you that Hamas called on and ensured Palestinians died

Cuchulain wrote:You mean the important peace talks that would have saved 90% of the causalities in the conflict which Hamas refused, because they did not have enough cannon fodder by then.
You see its so easy to catch the pair of you out.
When it really mattered Hamas refused any peace, they wanted more Palestinians to die first
It proves Hamas had no intention of peace, but you both ignore the facts.

Night then Sassy

No Didge, these Peace Talks:

Israel halts peace talks as Hamas and Fatah strike unity deal
Death knell sounded on talks as Israel pulls out in protest at Palestinian unity government announcement

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10785715/Israel-halts-peace-talks-as-Hamas-and-Fatah-strike-unity-deal.html

Which Israel used as an excuse to bomb Gaza, before the Egypt ones (which they didn't include Gaza in, either Hamas or the Unity Government), so Israel is the reason the talks failed and the responsibillity for all those lives lost lies on Israel's head in every way possible.


Yet again showing your ignorance.

sassy wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:You mean the important peace talks that would have saved 90% of the causalities in the conflict which Hamas refused, because they did not have enough cannon fodder by then.
You see its so easy to catch the pair of you out.
When it really mattered Hamas refused any peace, they wanted more Palestinians to die first
It proves Hamas had no intention of peace, but you both ignore the facts.

Night then Sassy

No Didge, these Peace Talks:

Israel halts peace talks as Hamas and Fatah strike unity deal
Death knell sounded on talks as Israel pulls out in protest at Palestinian unity government announcement

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10785715/Israel-halts-peace-talks-as-Hamas-and-Fatah-strike-unity-deal.html

Which Israel used as an excuse to bomb Gaza, before the Egypt ones (which they didn't include Gaza in, either Hamas or the Unity Government), so Israel is the reason the talks failed and the responsibillity for all those lives lost lies on Israel's head in every way possible.


Yet again showing your ignorance.

No ignorance as why should Israel entertain peace talks with either when neither recognise the state of Israel and both call for the destruction of Israel.
If you want peace talks to even start, you have to offer something tangible, which neither did.
What I am pointing out is how these so called peace talks were a sham, easily proven by the actual offer of a ceasefire during the conflict, all of which debunks your claim to peace talks as nothing more than a sham from both Hamas and Fatah. This is backed up that 3 times the Palestinians have been offered a nation and 3 times in history they have declined taking the opportunity and why?
Because they want to continue the fight with Israel

Palestinians Rejected Statehood Three Times, Claim Frustration -- with Israel

Palestinian spokesmen from PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on down have expressed their frustration with the Oslo peace process, charging that it failed and is dead, thanks to alleged Israeli intransigence, and that therefore they have no choice but to go to the United Nations to seek full membership and therefore statehood.   It should be noted at the outset that for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood, or even to take the issue to the United Nations, would be a grave violation of the PLO's signed agreements with Israel, which explicitly barred such unilateral actions and appeals to outside parties. All of these agreements were also witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU, etc. If any of these countries now go along with material violations of agreements that they witnessed, that would raise serious questions about the worth of such agreements and the worth of such witnessing.   As for Palestinian frustration, they may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders? For the fact is, just as the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.   Why do the Palestinians refuse a negotiated peace? Because a negotiated peace means the end of the conflict, or at least promising to end the conflict and accept Israel. But the Palestinian leadership wants a state so that they can continue the conflict from a stronger position. In particular, they want a state and they want to keep pressing in every way for the "right of return" to Israel.   Israel would not agree to that in negotiations, which is why Palestinians want a state without negotiations, and without having to make any compromises. In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details: 1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem. Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return." Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper: From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations. On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles. One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years... And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.] He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009) And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down: In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further. Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009) Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:   2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive. Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada). Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview: ... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002) According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself. Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat: 3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan. The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war. The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee. Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state. Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.   While the Palestinian people have much to be frustrated about, the object of their frustration should be not Israel, but their own leaders, who have thrown away opportunity after opportunity to establish the Palestinian state they claim to desire above all else.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116


Now Sassy its best you know your history before making claims to notions of peace, as Israel has attempted this and seen that it is a sham by Hamas/PLO and Fatah.

And sassy cannot counter my facts.

Happy days

Why should Israel entertain peace talks with either when neither recognise the state of Israel and both call for the destruction of Israel.
If you want peace talks to even start, you have to offer something tangible, which neither did.
What I am pointing out is how these so called peace talks were a sham, easily proven by the actual offer of a ceasefire during the conflict, all of which debunks your claim to peace talks as nothing more than a sham from both Hamas and Fatah. This is backed up that 3 times the Palestinians have been offered a nation and 3 times in history they have declined taking the opportunity and why?
Because they want to continue the fight with Israel

Cuchulain wrote:And sassy cannot counter my facts.

Happy days

Why should Israel entertain peace talks with either when neither recognise the state of Israel and both call for the destruction of Israel.
If you want peace talks to even start, you have to offer something tangible, which neither did.
What I am pointing out is how these so called peace talks were a sham, easily proven by the actual offer of a ceasefire during the conflict, all of which debunks your claim to peace talks as nothing more than a sham from both Hamas and Fatah. This is backed up that 3 times the Palestinians have been offered a nation and 3 times in history they have declined taking the opportunity and why?
Because they want to continue the fight with Israel

They were never offered a nation as in they would have their own sovereign state. And besides it wasn't Israel's place to offer that anyway.

Both Fatah and Hamas have said they would recognise Israel within the pre 1967 borders and you have been shown that countless times.

All Netanyahu has done is use that to break off peace talks. And the cat really is out the bag now in that he said he will never accept a two state solution - something he has always maintained anyway behind a cloak of deceipt.

You're backing the extreme Zionists that want all the land but you're too blind to see it..

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:And sassy cannot counter my facts.

Happy days

Why should Israel entertain peace talks with either when neither recognise the state of Israel and both call for the destruction of Israel.
If you want peace talks to even start, you have to offer something tangible, which neither did.
What I am pointing out is how these so called peace talks were a sham, easily proven by the actual offer of a ceasefire during the conflict, all of which debunks your claim to peace talks as nothing more than a sham from both Hamas and Fatah. This is backed up that 3 times the Palestinians have been offered a nation and 3 times in history they have declined taking the opportunity and why?
Because they want to continue the fight with Israel

They were never offered a nation as in they would have their own sovereign state. And besides it wasn't Israel's place to offer that anyway.

Both Fatah and Hamas have said they would recognise Israel within the pre 1967 borders and you have been shown that countless times.

All Netanyahu has done is use that to break off peace talks. And the cat really is out the bag now in that he said he will never accept a two state solution - something he has always maintained anyway behind a cloak of deceipt.

You're backing the extreme Zionists that want all the land but you're too blind to see it..

Its so amusing to see how the left are so gullible.
As seen Hamas has no intention of do anything unless it serves its hateful purpose of Israel. 3 Times the Palestinians have been offered statehood and each time they have rejected which at every time you ignore. You ignore that Hamas has a charter calling for the genocide of the Jews. Even Fatah daily tells its people its going to claim Israel as their own and yet you ignore all these facts that clearly put your claim into the toilet. Now I am all for two state solutions, but please spare me the absolute garbage about peace processes when at every turn Hamas attacks Israel ever after Israel had withdrawn. Again there is wrongs done by Israel, of this I do not deny. But we are talking about one terrorist organization and one former with religious extremist ideologies. So cut the crap with your leftist drivel, nobody is buying, what the shocker is that someone like you buys into it and would claim to thin such Islamic extremists really want peace. It shows you know very little about the history of Islam or the religion itself.

Is sassy still rambling on about how bad Israel are the stupid buffoon