Israeli Minister Admits Military Is Carrying Out 'Nakba' Against Gaza's Palestinians

[LiberalArkie]

An Israeli cabinet official has publicly admitted to the government’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, saying on television over the weekend that the country is “rolling out the Gaza Nakba.”

On Saturday, security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter sat for a television interview with an Israeli news network. Dichter is part of the right-wing nationalist Likud party, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs.

“We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba,” Dichter said when asked if the recent images of northern Gaza residents evacuating south are comparable to images of the 1948 Nakba.

“From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war ― as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza ― with masses between the tanks and the soldiers,” he continued, according to a translation of the interview by Haaretz.

Snip

Link to tweet

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-minister-admits-nakba-gaza-palestinians_n_65515794e4b0373d70b2aadc

[JI7]

1. What's wrong with what he said ? He wants people to leave so they want go after Hamas

And Israel left Gaza almost 2 decades ago and forced Israeli settlers out.

They are there now becsuse of the attacks that took place on Oct 7 from which there are still many hostages being held by Hamas.

[David__77]

2. .

Last edited Mon Nov 20, 2023, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[JI7]

4. So this has nothing to do with Oct 7 ?

[David__77]

5. .

Last edited Mon Nov 20, 2023, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

[JI7]

6. Ethnic cleansing of israelis that were forced off years ago ?

[David__77]

8. I think the Israel minister was referring no to Gaza people.

[Eko]

55. Here.

Nakba

[Beastly Boy]

12. Tell me what the definition of ethnic cleansing is, and I will tell you what Nakba is not.

[GuppyGal]

36. Do not take the bait

[LiberalArkie]

3. And Israel says the hostages are in the tunnels and the IDF is bombing the shit out of said tunnels

[VernaF]

7. The Term Nakba Has A Very Specific Meaning

The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, romanized: an-Nakbah, lit. 'the catastrophe') was the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is used to describe both the events of 1948, as well as the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) and persecution and displacement of Palestinians throughout the region.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

[JI7]

9. So things that happen after they declared war on Israel and now after Oct 7 attacks

he shouldn't have used the term but Kerry's not pretend the attacks did not happen and that there are no hostages being held.

[David__77]

10. That's right and it is consistent with the conduct of this war of annihilation.

[AdamGG]

84. If he used the word Nakba...

the implication is that the people who left wouldn't be allowed to come back.

If that's the case, I think it would be a dumb move by Israel because it's so high profile and will just draw more global ill will toward them and energize another generation of Palestinians to be more terroristic toward them.

[brush]

11. This Nakba and over retaliation is staining Israel's international image.

Over 10,000 now killed is impossible to justify. Hamas has to be eliminated but continuing to bomb non-combatants has to stop.

Urban warfare is tough going but to ferret out Hamas, the IDF has to take it on. Of course some civilian deaths will occur, but way, way less than the over 10,000 already killed by the inflexible and continued bombing policy.

And Netanyahu/Likud won't even acknowledge their failure in detecting and moving to stop Hamas's Oct. 7 attack. Are they trying to make up for it by continuing to bomb and kill civilians?

10,000 civilians killed by the bombings...come on.

[Beastly Boy]

13. Why is it that you hold Israel responsible for the 10,000 killed?

Why is it Israel's fault all of a sudden that Hamas invaded Israel and slaughtered over 1000 Israelis in a matter of hours?

10,000 were not killed by the bombings. They were killed by the cynical terrorists who turned their homes into a war zone.

[brush]

14. Ok, the bombings killed no one? Please.

Hamas should be eliminated for Oct. 7, but Netanyahu/Likud should be held accountable, not for just failing to detect the Oct. 7 attack but also for not moving to stop it.

I repeat, Hamas should be eliminated so don't get it twisted.

[Beastly Boy]

15. What a ridiculous response.

I don't know why you keep doing this, but by now even you should be able to tell cause from effect.

The cause is Hamas turning Gaza into a military zone. The effect is bombing of the military zone. The cause is the terrorist incursion into Israel. The effect is the deaths and the hostages. Why does this even need to be explained?

Do you seriously expect any army to face any enemy without hitting their military targets? Do you seriously place the blame on the army legitimately targeting the enemy and not the cowards who hid these legitimate military targets in schools and hospitals? What kind of perverted logic is this?

And what kind of twisting of logic would permit anyone to divert the blame for the murderous terrorist attack away from the terrorists? What do you mean by "not moving to stop it" when IDF moved to stop it immediately and drove the terrorists back to Gaza within hours? Where is that nonsense coming from, and why?

Yeah, Hamas should be eliminated. Duh! Other than stating the obvious, are you proposing any brilliant magical strategy by which Hamas could have been eliminated on Oct. 7 before they attacked? And if this magical strategy is not in any way laughable, what kept you from proposing it on Oct. 6?

And what brilliant tactic do you have in mind to drive Hamas out of the schools and hospitals and tunnels they are occupying now?

[brush]

17. You should be ashamed. International organizations and critics....

are calling the what's happening in Gaza war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

I feel sorry for you.

[Beastly Boy]

19. The feeling is mutual.

What do I have to be ashamed of? Not deflecting from Hamas atrocities? Or actually knowing what is in the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, something that the aforementioned organizations and critics routinely neglect to consult before making their incendiary statements?

You may be disappointed, but no, I am not ashamed for not being a useful idiot.

[brush]

20. Ashamed.

[Beastly Boy]

23. By all means. However, your shaming does not create in me a sense of obligation.

Still refusing to be a useful idiot.

[elias7]

101. It's like a broken record, international orgs always call it ethnic cleansing, yet...

In the 75 yrs since Israel became a state, the population of Arabs in Israel and in Gaza has increased tremendously. If Israel wanted to engage in ethnic cleansing, Gaza would have been wiped out decades ago, kind of like what saudis are doing to Yemen or Syrians are doing to Palestinian refugees (which I do not see that you have commented on).

Hamas will not magically disappear by the wave of an international organization wand. Israel is acting, I think, as humanely as could be expected by trying to separate Gazans from Hamas and asking them repeatedly to go South. Hamas proves its evil nature over and over by blocking this process so they can use their own people as human shields.

You should understand that Hamas is no different than al-quaeda or Isis. Radical Islamic jihad has no place in a civilized world. But if you want to get sucked into their PR game, be my guest.

[brush]

102. You should understand that I have consistently called for..

the IDF to move to eliminate Hamas, got that? I've also consistently called the bombings and killings of non-combants and women and children to stop...11,000 and counting...again, 11,000, that's not justifiable when it's just about certain Hamas' terrorists are hiding safely in their tunnels — the air strikes are not getting them,

So where does that leave the IDF? The long, hard slog of urban warfare to ferret out Hamas. And I take it you've heard that that's exactly what they're doing now.

And I wish them success.

[Eko]

56. Nope.

Israel is responsible for those it killed. Period. Or where they not responsible for the Hamas people that were bombed? Does Israel not say that they killed those Hamas terrorists? They do don't they? Why are they responsible for killing the bad guys but not the civilians? Israel made a decision, if you support them and that decision then quit trying to apologize away the bad things that come from making decisions like that. Just say yes, I think its worth it to kill all those civilians to get at Hamas. At least be honest.

[Beastly Boy]

61. I strongly suggest that you read the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Conventions

Both are legal documents that will explain to you why your arguments are ridiculous.

I am not sure what you are getting at, but I think you are confusing targeting with killing. When you target someone and kill him, you are responsible. When you target someone and kill a person being used as a human shield, your target is responsible. International law is very clear on that.

So when IDF intentionally kills a terrorist, they take credit for it. When IDF unintentionally kills a human shield, Hamas takes credit for that.

It is not I who supports IDF. It is international law. All their apologies are written down and codified, so blame them.

Honest!

[Eko]

64. I just read the Geneva Conventions on human shields.

Here it is. I didnt see anywhere in there where the killing of human shields becomes a killing by those using them. It is a war crime but I didnt see what you are saying at all. Feel free to show it to me.
Eko

[Beastly Boy]

67. Hate to disappoint you, but you didn't read the Geneva Conventions

Last edited Wed Nov 15, 2023, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

What you may have read, and I have great doubts you did, was an analysis of a certain Tobias Westner published by the Geneva Center for Security Policy, a Swiss think tank. It has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, except that it quotes Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You can see the quote, as a excerpt, in bold large font on Page 6 pf your source: Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Furthermore, it quotes Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I which establishes a more detailed prohibition: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or
individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

I hope this makes it clear for you that using human shields is prohibited by the above Articles and using human shields constitutes a war crime on the part of those who use them.

You're welcome.

[Eko]

74. Wow!!!!

Great job!!!! Yes, using human shields is a war crime. But nowhere does it state that the person using the human shield is responsible for the death of the person. You can commit a war crime without killing someone. I read the whole thing. Word for word. You are inventing your own version.
You're very welcome!.
Eko

[Beastly Boy]

80. There is a prohibition written into law:

“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations,"

"Shall not" forbids using human shields, no ifs ands or buts. Anyone who violates this prohibition, no matter the consequences, is in violation of international law.

Are you telling me that violating international law doesn't make the perpetrator responsible for one of the consequences of his crime, which is the death of the person? What is the purpose of a prohibition if not to hold the perpetrators responsible? To issue a stern warning?

[Eko]

82. Bud, this is easy.

Lets say there are two people.
Jim, and James.
Jim has a prisoner come to him and tortures him, a clear violation of international law.
James then takes the prisoner away and kills him.
According to international law of which you are an expert who killed him?
Was it Jim who committed a violation of international law?
Or James?
You seem to not be able to accept that nothing in the Geneva Convention says what you are saying. Please, post the exact part that says this.
Eko.

[Beastly Boy]

86. It is easy when you start making stuff up.

The accuracy of your analogy ends with "James then takes the prisoner away and kills him. "

Try replacing it with:

James aims at Jim with his big gun and tells Jim to drop his small gun and release the prisoner.

Jim refuses to release the prisoner and aims at James with his small gun.

Then,

Jim at James shoot at each other as Jim hides behind the prisoner.

James hits Jim and the prisoner as Jim hits James.

The prisoner dies.

According to international law, it was Jim who committed the violation and is therefore responsible for the prisoner's death.

And I already posted what the Geneva conventions are saying. If you see anything in the cited Articles that contradicts what I said, I would love to hear your explanation.

[Eko]

90. I mean, here you are making stuff up.

Most importantly you have yet to show where the Geneva conventions are saying what you are. Feel free to actually show this.
Eko

[Beastly Boy]

95. I showed you what the pertinent parts of the Fourth Geneva Convention say.

Presumably, you read them. What is it in the cited articles that contradicts what I said? Or are you expecting me to recite the Conventions verbatim on demand or else I am making stuff up?

[Eko]

96. Yeah, cmon man, show your work.

Or not.

[Eko]

103. See, you added something here.

Are you telling me that violating international law doesn't make the perpetrator responsible for one of the consequences of his crime, which is the death of the person? What is the purpose of a prohibition if not to hold the perpetrators responsible? To issue a stern warning?
Putting someone somewhere does not kill them. That act just puts someone somewhere. Using them as a human shield is a war crime. It doesn't matter if they die or not, it is still a war crime. They don't have to die for it to be a war crime. The people using others as a human shield are not innocent in any way if that person dies but they did not kill them. The person who killed them killed them and nothing, nothing you have shown from the international law states that if they kill human shields then they didn't kill them.
And here,
4.3 Strategic Communication to Delegitimize the Use of Human Shields
Although the use of human shields is a violation of IHL, its underlying
rationale is to confront the attacker with the dilemma between refraining
from attacking and causing civilian casualties.
You keep equating "its a war crime" to now "Whatever happens is their fault and not the person who did that action" and nowhere does it say that.
Eko

[Beastly Boy]

104. That's a pretty contrived argument.

Let me illustrate it:

&t=8s

The bad guys are not killing the damsel in distress. They are merely placing her on the railroad tracks in the path of the oncoming train that is sure to kill her.

Who would be responsible for her death, the bad guys or the train conductor?...

You sure?... But the bad guys didn't kill her, it was (presumably) the train conductor! Putting someone somewhere does not kill them. That act just puts someone somewhere!

You keep arguing a circular technicality in spite of the principle and the law.

And, to illustrate how the act of using human shields does not "just puts someone somewhere", let me expand on the section you quoted:

4.3 Strategic Communication to Delegitimize the Use of
Human Shields
Although the use of human shields is a violation of IHL, its underlying
rationale is to confront the attacker with the dilemma between refraining
from attacking and causing civilian casualties. The latter may lead to losing
political support to military action at the international and domestic level
as well as among people of where the fighting takes place.
Strategic communication and public diplomacy may counter this effect.
It may reverse the blame for putting civilians at harm by showing that
those who use humans as shields are the faulty. The message to be
communicated would be that they are committing war crimes, whereas
the attackers are abiding by international law and respecting IHL.

You keep arguing against this proposition.

[Eko]

105. Are you saying Israel is a train that cant stop in time?

And this only reinforces my point.
4.3 Strategic Communication to Delegitimize the Use of
Human Shields
Although the use of human shields is a violation of IHL, its underlying
rationale is to confront the attacker with the dilemma between refraining
from attacking and causing civilian casualties. The latter may lead to losing
political support to military action at the international and domestic level
as well as among people of where the fighting takes place.
Strategic communication and public diplomacy may counter this effect.
It may reverse the blame for putting civilians at harm by showing that
those who use humans as shields are the faulty. The message to be
communicated would be that they are committing war crimes, whereas
the attackers are abiding by international law and respecting IHL.

If it "may reverse the blame" then the blame was on those who killed them in the 1st place, so no where does it say that the people killing the human shields are not the ones killing the human shield. It is saying it may reverse the blame, from the ones who killed them to those that put the human shields there. So the blame for the deaths can be on either, per the Geneva Conventions.
Eko.

[Beastly Boy]

106. The "blame" the quote is talking about is the potential perception of the blame by uninformed public.

Sort of what you are insinuating. The proposal is to reach out to the public so as to make sure it is informed about who is to blame. Sort of what I am trying to do. Apparently, the public resists in a fairly irrational way, twisting the well articulated intention of the author, potentially causing the author to turn in his grave.

[Eko]

107. You might want to ask yourself why the only time the author talks about who is to blame

is when it comes to public opinion and that it can go either way. And we are back to square one where nowhere in there does it say that the people killing the human shields aren't killing them.

[Beastly Boy]

108. I read what the author had to say about it.

He cited the law and said it was unambiguous.( "International humanitarian law clearly prohibits the use of human shields.
In the context of international armed conflicts" ). There is no question in the author's mind about who is to blame. There is no question in his mind about educating the ignorant public on who is to blame. The only time the author is mentioning this is in the context of educating the public, since uninformed public opinion is a really terrible standard for gauging who is to blame.

[Eko]

109. Yes it is unambiguous.

"International humanitarian law clearly prohibits the use of human shields.
In the context of international armed conflicts"
It says you cant use human shields, it does not say you cant use human shields and if you do and they get killed then you killed them not the person killing them. It clearly, unambiguously does not say that no matter how much you want it to.
Eko.

[Beastly Boy]

112. You are nor replying to my post.

Instead you are returning to the same argument I already replied to on numerous occasions. Feel free to go back to here
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18457457
and keep rinsing and repeating. I no longer need to contribute: it is a self-sustaining closed loop of circular arguments.

When you get tired of going in circles, take a brake and come back to it at your convenience. I have better things to do, I am off to watch my grass grow.

[Eko]

113. You are the one who keeps saying it says that when it doesnt.

Thanks,
Eko.

[Chuuku Davis]

51. How?

Hamas hides behind civilians, schools and hospitals.
An officer is obligated to destroy the enemy and preserve as many of his troops as possible.

[brush]

53. It has to be the long, hard slog of urban warfare...

which is what the IDF is doing now. It's tough but it can be done as has been done many times during warfare...in Europe during WWll for example. Soldiers know when they sign up, it could come to that. And the bombings are not getting to the terrorist hiding out in their tunnels.

I hope the IDF succeed in wiping out Hamas.

[Celerity]

18. Following your logic, if (hopefully not when) Israel really ramps it up and the slaughter of civilians

starts to become profoundly disproportionate (say 30,000, 50,000, 100,000, or even more, the boundaries are far from set but there is a limit when the paradigm shifts and even the US starts to say 'WTF Netanyahu and the rest of you RW radicals') then a person, if they continue to hew to your line, would start to get into open defence of what is moving into an amount of truly genocidal adjacent proportion.

[Beastly Boy]

21. When my line is hewed, then and only then would the guilty be held accountable.

Right now I see hamas being completely out of the loop for being held accountable for the 10,000 Palestinian deaths. And if they are kept out of the loop for creating the conditions they admit were intentional, then they will never be called out for causing any additional Palestinian deaths.

And yes, Hamas may escape the eventual responsibility for the number of deaths approaching genocidal proportions.

On a related note: genocide is not a number crunching undertaking. There is real legal definition for what constitutes genocide, and people tend to disregard it when using the term.

[Celerity]

24. If the civilians deaths become too high and reach a point where a paradigm shift takes place, very few

are going to be hewing your line.

There is deffo a point (hopefully never reached) where Netanyahu and his merry band of ultra RW bloodthirsty 'wipe out all Palestinians from all of Gaza and all of the West Bank' ghouls cross a line where even the US will turn on them.

Btw, the complete (or near complete) ethnic cleansing (which would entail a horrific amount of civilian murders) of Gaza would most definitely be genocide. Same for the West Bank.

[Beastly Boy]

25. I am paying attention: Israel turned on Netanyahu a long time ago.

And, like the majority of Israelis, I never turned on him because I was always turned off to him, shift in paradigm or no. So this is not the issue. This deed is done.

What is at issue is that international law is not a matter of public opinion. This is why I am contesting the appropriateness of your use of the terms of "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide", which, to repeat myself, are not matters of crunching the numbers.

But that is not my point either. I resent that the responsibility for the Palestinian civilian deaths, whatever their numbers and whatever rhetoric you may use to describe them, being shifted in public discourse away from Hamas. The law is clear on that account.

[Celerity]

26. International law also has disportionate response elements, as does real life global (including the US) public

opinion and its attendant political and geo-military realities.

Israel simply does not possess an absolutely free, unfettered hand to do whatever their RW leaders want to the Palestinian people.

[Beastly Boy]

27. I am not aware of the disproportiomal response elements in international law.

I am aware of the elements that call for maximum possible restraint under the circumstances at hand when civilians are affected, but this has nothing to do with proportionality.

I am also aware of the proportionality as a military doctrine, however. And the proportionality in this respect is gauged by whether taking any military action is proportionally more or less detrimental than not taking it. No military commander would argue there are absolutes in the proportionality doctrine. I would assume that, should you find references to disproportionate response in international law, the same would be true. I doubt, however, that the legal descriptions of disproportionality would mandate any sort of matching the strength of the response to that of the attack. Were this the case, any instance of overwhelming the enemy with superior firepower would be illegal. The same goes for global public opinion: were this the case, public opinion would inevitably fluctuate depending on whose military is superior or inferior regardless of any other considerations. This rarely happens, if ever.

I don't mind responding to ancillary issues, but keep in mind: my focus is on not being swayed by public opinion when it deflects the responsibility for the deaths and suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza away from Hamas. I would like to hear what you think of this particular trend in covering the war, especially as it relates to social media, DU included. Do you think Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas causes the vast majority of civilian deaths? Do you think their cynical contempt for the lives of civilians in pursuit of turning global public opinion against Israel is not a determining factor in the deaths of the said civilians?

[Celerity]

28. IF things go truly pear shaped & the counts of civilians slaughtered go into the tens upon tens of thousands, especially

40,000, 50, 000 and up (or even 6 figures) and some (it will be very few I so fervently wish) people are still saying it is ok, carry on Israel with your rivers of blood, well they are going to be exposed as war crimes/genocide apologists (or worse) to a deep (and hopefully permanent) degree.

[Beastly Boy]

34. So the only answer to my questions you have is to deflect back to Israel and speculate on the casualties,

while presuming, contrary to international law, that Israel is the sole guilty party in this war. Your reply carefully avoids any mention of Hamas, even though I asked you to respond to Hamas' role in the war. Not mentioning Hamas even once, you shy away from blaming them for the anticipated rivers of blood, or bringing up Hamas war crime apologists getting exposed.in any way, shape or form, even as international law points to Hamas as the perpetrators of the said war crimes. And shame on those who do not accept your narrative.

It's weird that you cannot or will not face my questions directly, and it is even weirder to deflect from the terrorists' role in committing war crimes, but that's on you to explain your choices to yourself. If you can live with yours, I can certainly live with mine.

[Eko]

57. I'll anwser your questions.

Do you think Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas causes the vast majority of civilian deaths? No, they have been doing it for years but for some reason it wasnt until bombs started falling that civilians started dying.
Do you think their cynical contempt for the lives of civilians in pursuit of turning global public opinion against Israel is not a determining factor in the deaths of the said civilians?
Yes, it is a determining factor but it is not the determining factor as that would be the actual physical things (bombs) killing the most of them.

[Beastly Boy]

63. And I will answer right back

Do you think Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas causes the vast majority of civilian deaths?

Yes I do. Cause and effect: Hamas is the cause for the deaths, and the deaths are the effect of Hamas causing them. Without Hamas, there would be no cause. Without cause, there would be no effect.

Do you think their cynical contempt for the lives of civilians in pursuit of turning global public opinion against Israel is not a determining factor in the deaths of the said civilians?

No I do not. I DO think that their cynical contempt for the lives of civilians in pursuit of turning global public opinion against Israel is not a determining factor in the deaths of the said civilians, but not in pursuit of public opinion alone. Hiding their military assets undre civilian structures is also s determining factor. And Hamas violating international law is the cause and therefore the determining factor in the actual physical bombs that target Hamas' military assets.

Just to clarify: these are not my random opinions. Both answers are based on international law.

[Eko]

65. I didnt ask a question.

But if you would like to please address my anwsers and why they are wrong. I will post them again for you.
Do you think Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas causes the vast majority of civilian deaths? No, they have been doing it for years but for some reason it wasnt until bombs started falling that civilians started dying.
Do you think their cynical contempt for the lives of civilians in pursuit of turning global public opinion against Israel is not a determining factor in the deaths of the said civilians?
Yes, it is a determining factor but it is not the determining factor as that would be the actual physical things (bombs) killing the most of them.

[Beastly Boy]

73. This is weird. You did ask a question. Two of them, to be precise. They are in your post, for all to read.

Just because you answered your questions yourself doesn't mean you didn't ask them.

And since I answered your questions before, I don't feel like repeating myself, thank you.

[Eko]

75. You are saying that me copying and posting your questions

to show my answer to them is me asking questions?

[Eko]

66. Here's a question.

When did Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas start causing the vast majority of civilian deaths?

[Beastly Boy]

68. The minute Hamas implemented the practice.

The key term is "start causing". The effect may not have been immediate, but the cause was established when their intent became reality.

[Eko]

71. Say what?

When did Hamas' declared and verified practice of hiding their military targets in and under civilian areas start causing the vast majority of civilian deaths?

And your answer is immediately? How many civilians died the first week they started this?
And then you say

The effect may not have been immediate,

when you just said the minute they implemented the practice.

[Beastly Boy]

77. Are you assuming that Hamas implemented the human shield policy just recently?

No, they've been using human shields for years, and they are not shy admitting it.

And yes, the most visible effects of them using human shields, the ones you are referring to, were not immediate, but the cause for them to be happening when they did was established long ago.

[Eko]

79. Dont believe anything I have said points to me thinking they just started this.

Actually, my argument was that this had been going on for a long time and did not kill a lot of civilians when they started this. You totally overlook the fact that this has been going on for a long time and has not resulted in a lot of killed civilians. It was only when Israel started to bomb that this happened. Actual cause and actual effect. Not speculation.
Eko.

[Beastly Boy]

83. Well, my argiment is along the same line, with one critical difference.

The timing of civilian deaths doesn't change the relationship between cause and effect.

You keep arguing that bombing military targets in the presence of civilians is the cause and the civilian deaths are the effect. This is a fallacy. You are just removing the cause from your consideration altogether and, while pretending that the cause does not exist at all, looking at the effect as if it were the cause. The cause is Hamas placing their military assets in and under concentrations of civilians. The effect is IDF lawfully targeting Hamas' military resources. The deaths of civilian is a predictable and eagerly anticipated by Hamas consequence of the effect, which is the bombing of Hamas' military assets.

I am not making this up, it is what the law says. IDF didn't cause this to happen. Hamas did.

[Eko]

85. No law says this man,

This is just your opinion. On edit show me a law that says this.

[Beastly Boy]

88. You read the law.

What does it say that contradicts anything I said?

[Eko]

92. Why don't you defend your position with evidence?

Instead of asking others to do your work for you?.

[Beastly Boy]

99. You already did my work for me.

I am just referring you to the work you did for me

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18455952

[Eko]

94. So show me the law.

You can do this right?

[Beastly Boy]

98. I did. You want to see it again?

Presto!:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18455952

And this is the response to the post in which you cited an article containing the pertinent quotes but didn't find them.

Now you don't have any excuse for not telling me what in these articles you think contradicts anything i said.

[Eko]

87. Is your back hurting?

The amount of bending over to explain this would devastate a normal person. Hamas started this killing of civilians when they built there defenses over two decades ago, But they didn't die then, it was later when bombs started to fall. Who dropped the bombs?

[Beastly Boy]

91. Who caused the bombs to be dropped?

Did IDF arbitrarily decide to bomb civilians, or did they target Hamas military assets?

[Eko]

93. I dont know. Do you?

Are you saying that you are that highly placed with the IDF?

[Beastly Boy]

97. Yes, I know. And so do you.

When a country is at war, the first order of business is to take out the enemy's military assets, not bomb civilians.

Even if you ascribe the most nefarious intentions to Israel, the first order of business will still be taking out the enemy's military assets.

[yagotme]

69. OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW!!!

When Hamas performed a sneak attack on Israel on Oct 7th, breaking a cease-fire that was currently in place, saying that they wanted to eradicate Israel off the map, forcing Israel to retaliate, to stop Hamas from committing genocide, while using their own people as human shields!!! WHAT DID I WIN!!!!!!!!!

[Eko]

70. Is that when it really happened?

There were no other steps from that. No one had to do anything else. When that happened automatically civilians started dying in large numbers?

[yagotme]

72. I figured this part would have been self explanatory:

forcing Israel to retaliate, to stop Hamas from committing genocide, while using their own people as human shields!

Israel retaliated. Bombs were dropped on Hamas targets. Large numbers of human shields began to be killed. Did I miss something?

[Eko]

81. Nope, you are right on the money.

Israel retaliated. Bombs were dropped on Hamas targets. Large numbers of human shields began to be killed.

Thanks for not apologizing for it. Some of us might think its correct, some not, prob more not sure. But it is what they are doing. Everyone has reasons, in the end reasons don't matter as much as what you do. The reasons are excuses and those excuses go on forever.
Eko.

[yagotme]

116. Wasn't a hard question.

Country A heinously attacks country B. Country A has stated numerous times, and has it in their charter, to completely remove country B from existence. Country B then retaliates, attacking country A to remove/destroy their leadership and "military". The big argument, for most, is the process in which country B accomplishes it's goal.

[LiberalArkie]

29. Kind if like why do people hold white Americans at fault for the thousands of native Americans that died

on the Trail of Tears? Uf the native Americans had just gotten off their land when the White Americans wanted them to, no one would have died.

[Thinker Cats]

30. Exactly Right

Americans should give the Indians their land back and go back to Europe .

(Sarcasm)

[LiberalArkie]

32. I know, some things can not be undone. It was not the right thing to do, but it is done.

[Beastly Boy]

38. Yeah, I vividly recall the native Amerivan warriors using their kin as humn shields.

What a strange analogy!

[inthewind21]

110. There's

no flimsy branch you won't crawl out on

[malaise]

45. Great post

Rec

[Autumn]

31. Because Israel is dropping the bombs. Who should have the blame? Palestinians? They are not Hamas.

[Beastly Boy]

37. Just a modest suggestion: how about blaming Hamas?

Why does this logical conclusion so inconceivable to so many people? They are the ones who built their war machine under the houses of the Palestinians, who you rightfully noticed are not Hamas. Not only does Hamas deliberately place military targets in civilian spaces, they make no secret of it and proudly talk about doing so on purpose, gleefully anticipating the casualties, the more the better for them, as a major strategic objective of their plan. They are the ones that impede evacuation of non-combatants from a war zone. They are the ones who steal and hoard supplies intended for civilians. They are the hostage takers. They are the ones in violation of international law.

International law prohibits using civilians as human shields, and deems military resources in the presence of civilians legitimate targets. Failure to remove civilians from the proximity of militatry targets is on Hamas, not Israel. This is what international law says.

Your logic is fool proof: Palestinians are not Hamas. And neither are Israelis.

[Autumn]

40. I do blame Hamas. And in my opinion Israel shares the blame for the needless death of some

10 thousand Palestinians. They are innocents caught in the crossfire of asshole Trump like leaders like Netanyahu who has kept Hamas in charge of Palestine for years and murderous bastards like Hamas leaders who live in Qatar living like fucking kings. There is no fucking way that Israel can kill the Hamas without killing countless innocents. That to me reeks of war crimes and cold blooded murder.

[Beastly Boy]

41. That's refreshing.

Can you say what exactly you blame Hamas for? How short wil you make this list?

And can you for once blame Hamas without mentioning "but...Israel"?

[Autumn]

42. You can't have a conversation about Hamas without saying "but...Israel"

I don't need to make a fucking list, everyone knows what Hamas has done. Your efforts are failing. You know that . As for" once blame Hamas" you pulled that number out of thin air. Like the rest of your posts.

You should for once condemn that fucking corrupt Trump twin Netanyahu for keeping Hamas in power.

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/


For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

[Beastly Boy]

44. Apparently, many people don't know what Hamas has done to gaza civilians

And those who do are strangely silent about it. Many even resist to make a fucking list of what exactly they know, as if they might get embarrassed by that list.

Since you are referring to "the rest of my posts", you must be a fan. Then again, you seem oblivious to the number of posts in which I condemned that fucking corrupt Trump twin Netanyahu. So maybe you are in no position to comment on the rest of my posts after all. But just to repeat myself for the record: I condemn that fucking corrupt Trump twin Netanyahu in the strongest terms possible, including, but not limited to his overtures to Hamas in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Bookmark this for your reference, won't you?

And if you think my efforts are failing, wait til you see what my successful efforts would look like.

[Eko]

58. Because it sounds just like

She made me hit her.

[EX500rider]

22. So really 100% of the killed have all been civilians?

Not a single Hamas member huh

Of course Hamas already admitted they report all their dead as civilians

[inthewind21]

59. So why

Isn't Israel reporting it? Do they have no clue who they are killing? I can find where they say they killed 1500 Hamas fighters on Oct 7th but nothing since. They have the time to shoot video in a basement and other places but not give any detail on how many Hamas fighters they've taken out SINCE they started bombing? I keep hearing about all these civilian shields and hiding among the civilians yet it appears it's ONLY the shields being "taken out" and not actually any Hamas fighters. Huh

[inthewind21]

111. Huh

No response. No surprise.

[EX500rider]

115. Most modern militaries don't give kill tallies

The US stopped doing that after Vietnam

[moondust]

16. Former advisor to Shimon Peres

just said on CNN International that he's afraid Netanyahu is not going to leave Gaza.

[edisdead]

33. Of course he isn't

Gaza as we knew it is gone.

Don’t have to like it. It may be an atrocity of insane proportions but Hamas fucked around and now the whole area is reaping the returns.

Israel is surrounded by neighbors who would have them wiped off the planet if they had their way and some have been very vocal about it.

Again I don’t have to like or agree with their response but they are saying Do Not Fuck With Us.

Not surprising. They apparently are done with the threats.

[GuppyGal]

35. The one bad thing about reading threads when you are logged out is that the people you have BLOCKED

become unblocked. I also see I must update my list !!

[Mossfern]

43. I don't block people

It's not like you're preventing them from posting. I think I can be strong enough to deal with people disagreeing with me. I've never been abused here and I admit to occasionally saying some pretty clueless things.

[maxsolomon]

39. Well, if the Agriculture Minister says it...

This unhelpful hyperbole is exactly what I expect from Likudniks. Another example of why Israel is so poorly served having Likud lead the nation for these last decades.

There's no doubt Gaza City is going to be devastated after this is over, but Gazans have nowhere else to go, and no choice but to rebuild. Israel can't/won't shove they all over the border into Egypt. The IDF isn't going to kill 2.3 million people.

Is it another Nakba? How can you dispossess the dispossessed?

[Model35mech]

46. Starvation, thirst, disease, bombs and bullets

are all possible options for removing Palestinians from Gaza

What will the Likud find to much to choose? Only they know their tolerance limits.

[maxsolomon]

47. I can't really say what the Agriculture Minister means by "Nakba".

If he means that it's the forcible relocation of Palestinians from their homes, then yes, that's what's occurring in Gaza City.

I doubt that he means 2.3 million people, the entire population of the Gaza Strip, will be starved to death while the world watches.

I do think that Likud would empty Gaza into Egypt if that was an option. But it's not.

[Model35mech]

48. I was commenting on how Gaza could be depopulated

Once that political goal is accepted choices on how will need to be made.

Following Israel declaring nationhood, 70+% of Palestinians became unaccounted for.

Angry people are quite capable of terrible things.

[maxsolomon]

49. A slippery slope prediction, then.

You're saying Israel killed 70% of the Palestinian population in 1947? Is that what you mean by "unaccounted for"?

I've never heard that. I'd appreciate a link explaining it.

[Model35mech]

50. No. I mean 70% of Palestinians pre-Israeli nationhood couldn't be accounted for after

what Palestinians call "The Catastrope" phonetically... that's "Nakba". For the Palestinians that is sort of the grandmother of all the Palestinians' grievances.

It's remarkable to me (sensu it BEGS to be remarked on) that Secretaries of Departments of the Israeli government would refer to Israel's current retaliation using a word that is so negative for the Palestinians.

[maxsolomon]

52. I guess I just don't understand what "accounted for" means.

I definitely agree that it was irresponsible to use that term. Salt in the wound.

[Model35mech]

54. Well I'll try this, it means: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM

No government knows, relatives don't know.

Organized communities had most of their populations disappear.

Others would say "disappeared", but I won't because I think that implies disappeared on purpose. And because no one knows what the hell happened to them, it's not possible to say some person, persons, or provisional governments were engaged in causing their disappearance.

[inthewind21]

60. It's pretty

straight forward

account for (someone or something)
phrasal verb

: to show what happened to (someone or something) : know where (something or someone) is

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/account%20for%20%28someone%20or%20something%29

[maxsolomon]

62. OK, thanks for the condescension.

I'm aware of the definition of the word.

From 10 min on Wiki, seems that many Arabs (70%?) fled during the '47-'49 "Mandated Palestine" Civil War, and where they went is unknown. Does that about sum it up?

[AdamGG]

89. The department heads of Netanyahu's far right government...

are extremist religious fundamentalists. It's not surprising that they use extreme and insensitive language.

[Model35mech]

100. As I said, it's worth comment.

They clearly feel no shame in saying it.

[brooklynite]

76. Is it possible that the Agricultural Minister isn't the best source of information on military policy?

[Model35mech]

114. OR the Agriculture minister is testing a LEAD BALLOON

He manifested what he, personally, felt safe in saying.

What does that mean??????????

He had no fear of accountability for saying it.

He felt that saying it didn't jeopardize his position or his income from that position?
He felt it would link him to sentiments in the population of Israel in general?
He KNEW no one would see just how CRASS what he said was.

Sorry, this says things about Israels culture that I don't personally support

[RockRaven]

78. Admits, brags, po-tay-to, po-tah-to