Human shields in Gaza: The UN is part of the problem

[Jayjay]

This quite frankly is one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

The notion of people defending themselves from a brutal oppressor is the most insane thing you've ever heard?

An oppressor has no right to kill simply to maintain the oppression.

If human shields are killed they are killed unjustly.

The insane notion is that you can use other people as shields and somehow twist that to mean legitimate self defense. I guess in your world, soldiers should be wearing baby carriers instead of body armor?

 

[laughing dog]

But she does speak in bureaucrat.

And in these matters, you post bullshit.

You missed the point. What actions could they take other than refusing to move the children out of harm's way?

No, I didn't miss the point, but you persistently do. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Can you actually address what she said rather than keeping trying to derail?

Since you are not actually addressing what she said, but your biased interpretation, you need to refresh your understanding of the meaning of "derail". As I pointed out, your reasoning means the IDF engages in the murder of Palestinian civilians. So, either your reasoning is faulty or your position is hypocritical.

Do you have any other reasonable meaning of her words other than they engaged in human shield tactics?

Yes. The actual words she said. Nothing she said means the UN engaged in human shield tactics unless you are making the ridiculous interpretation that the UN actively prevented anyone from leaving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're looking at things through a Palestinians-can-do-no-wrong filter and thus reaching nonsense conclusions.

Their wrong is mitigated by the fact that they live under brutal oppression.

It's good to know that should we ever fall under brutal oppression you will tell us we have no right to resist, even with violence.

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

- - - Updated - - -

And in these matters, you post bullshit.

You missed the point. What actions could they take other than refusing to move the children out of harm's way?

No, I didn't miss the point, but you persistently do. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Can you actually address what she said rather than keeping trying to derail?

Since you are not actually addressing what she said, but your biased interpretation, you need to refresh your understanding of the meaning of "derail". As I pointed out, your reasoning means the IDF engages in the murder of Palestinian civilians. So, either your reasoning is faulty or your position is hypocritical.

Do you have any other reasonable meaning of her words other than they engaged in human shield tactics?

Yes. The actual words she said. Nothing she said means the UN engaged in human shield tactics unless you are making the ridiculous interpretation that the UN actively prevented anyone from leaving.

The question was simple enough: If she didn't mean human shields what did she mean?

You keep evading and bringing up side issues--derailing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel knew, Israel repeatedly asked for them to be withdrawn. They weren't, Israel finally quit considering them a protected target.

Your source? Despite trying, I could not find a single news article or source anywhere that would make such a claim. In fact Ban Ki Moon made a statement that Olmert had specificly said UN posts were going to be protected (which nobody in Israel denied), and the investigation that Israel conducted afterwards concluded that the reason was outdated maps.

So, I think you're just bending into a pretzel as usual when you try to defend the indefensible.

They were protected at first--but Hezbollah was using that protection to attack Israel.

Trying to find anything other than Palestinian propaganda that far back is awfully hard without exact search terms.

Even Wikipedia admits there was a problem, though:

In an email dated 18 July received by CTV and published 24 July, the deceased Canadian peacekeeper Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, stated: “What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.”

According to retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie, interviewed on CBC radio on 26 July, Hess-von Kruedener's phrase ‘due to tactical necessity’ was “veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them.”

 

[untermensche]

The notion of people defending themselves from a brutal oppressor is the most insane thing you've ever heard?

An oppressor has no right to kill simply to maintain the oppression.

If human shields are killed they are killed unjustly.

The insane notion is that you can use other people as shields and somehow twist that to mean legitimate self defense. I guess in your world, soldiers should be wearing baby carriers instead of body armor?

The people that do this do it freely.

If you were part of a weak group of people that was oppressed and constantly attacked by a much stronger group of people you might think differently.

 

[laughing dog]

The question was simple enough: If she didn't mean human shields what did she mean?

She probably meant people. You seem to be under the logical delusion that refusal to help move people from Israeli targeted areas in Gaza means engagement in human shield tactics. No one, including the UN, is required or expected to assist the IDF in achieving their militaristic and terroristic goals.

You keep evading and bringing up side issues--derailing.

Your claim continues to be observably false. Perhaps your persistence is a juvenile attempt to blow smoke from the logical implication that your "reasoning" means the IDF engages in the murder of Palestinian civilians.

 

[untermensche]

Their wrong is mitigated by the fact that they live under brutal oppression.

It's good to know that should we ever fall under brutal oppression you will tell us we have no right to resist, even with violence.

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

Again it is good to know where you stand when some murderous country takes us over and begins to oppress us.

No, no, no you will cry. We must respect the superior rights of our murderous oppressor.

 

[Jayjay]

Your source? Despite trying, I could not find a single news article or source anywhere that would make such a claim. In fact Ban Ki Moon made a statement that Olmert had specificly said UN posts were going to be protected (which nobody in Israel denied), and the investigation that Israel conducted afterwards concluded that the reason was outdated maps.

So, I think you're just bending into a pretzel as usual when you try to defend the indefensible.

They were protected at first--but Hezbollah was using that protection to attack Israel.

Trying to find anything other than Palestinian propaganda that far back is awfully hard without exact search terms.

Even Wikipedia admits there was a problem, though:

But that was not your claim. Your claim was that Israel asked them to evacuate, which is clearly not true. If Israel knows that there is a UN position, and they promise the UN not to bomb it, then they have no excuse to bomb it even if Hezbollah is trying to use it as cover. Same with UN facilities in Gaza. If they are being used by Hamas, the right way to deal with it is to lodge a complaint to UN, not by indiscriminately shooting them to smitherees first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She probably meant people. You seem to be under the logical delusion that refusal to help move people from Israeli targeted areas in Gaza means engagement in human shield tactics. No one, including the UN, is required or expected to assist the IDF in achieving their militaristic and terroristic goals.

The choices were: Move them and thus protect them, or don't move them and put them in harm's way. She chose the latter because she saw it as hampering the Israeli invasion. That's human shield tactics.


And you also don't know what "terrorism" means.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

Again it is good to know where you stand when some murderous country takes us over and begins to oppress us.

No, no, no you will cry. We must respect the superior rights of our murderous oppressor.

Note that I did not say they're not allowed to shoot at the IDF. That's what you normally do in a war--shoot at enemy soldiers.

The point is they rarely do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They were protected at first--but Hezbollah was using that protection to attack Israel.

Trying to find anything other than Palestinian propaganda that far back is awfully hard without exact search terms.

Even Wikipedia admits there was a problem, though:

But that was not your claim. Your claim was that Israel asked them to evacuate, which is clearly not true. If Israel knows that there is a UN position, and they promise the UN not to bomb it, then they have no excuse to bomb it even if Hezbollah is trying to use it as cover. Same with UN facilities in Gaza. If they are being used by Hamas, the right way to deal with it is to lodge a complaint to UN, not by indiscriminately shooting them to smitherees first.

The UN does nothing and has no power to do anything anyway.

Normal convention in such cases is to tell the other side that a protected target is being misused and will be considered a valid target if the misuse continues. Their options are to show the claim is a mistake, quit misusing it or accept that it's now on the target list. Hamas never does #1 or #2.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

Again it is good to know where you stand when some murderous country takes us over and begins to oppress us.

No, no, no you will cry. We must respect the superior rights of our murderous oppressor.

Note that I did not say they're not allowed to shoot at the IDF. That's what you normally do in a war--shoot at enemy soldiers.

The point is they rarely do.

Of course when one side has an incredible advantage in power they want the rules of war applied to their oppression.

Nice try. It doesn't work like that.

Oppression isn't war and no amount of words can make it war.

 

[Jayjay]

But that was not your claim. Your claim was that Israel asked them to evacuate, which is clearly not true. If Israel knows that there is a UN position, and they promise the UN not to bomb it, then they have no excuse to bomb it even if Hezbollah is trying to use it as cover. Same with UN facilities in Gaza. If they are being used by Hamas, the right way to deal with it is to lodge a complaint to UN, not by indiscriminately shooting them to smitherees first.

The UN does nothing and has no power to do anything anyway.

Normal convention in such cases is to tell the other side that a protected target is being misused and will be considered a valid target if the misuse continues. Their options are to show the claim is a mistake, quit misusing it or accept that it's now on the target list. Hamas never does #1 or #2.

That's precisely my point: The normal convention is to lodge a complaint about the misuse. Israel more often than not doesn't follow the the normal convention, they bomb UN installations without warning.

 

[laughing dog]

The choices were: Move them and thus protect them, or don't move them and put them in harm's way. She chose the latter because she saw it as hampering the Israeli invasion. That's human shield tactics.

The civilians are in harm's way because of the IDF targeting. The UN is under no obligation to move anyone for any reason. Their apparent refusal to move people may have the effect of endangering those people (although, since the UN was not preventing anyone from moving, they were free to go), but it is not engaging in human shield tactics.

However, applying your "logic" to the IDF, the IDF has a choice to either target and deliver missiles, etc... onto civilians or not to do so. By choosing the former, that is murdering civilians.

And you also don't know what "terrorism" means.

Yes, I do. Apparently you do not. Since you tacitly endorse and defend the murder of civilians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

Again it is good to know where you stand when some murderous country takes us over and begins to oppress us.

No, no, no you will cry. We must respect the superior rights of our murderous oppressor.

Note that I did not say they're not allowed to shoot at the IDF. That's what you normally do in a war--shoot at enemy soldiers.

The point is they rarely do.

Of course when one side has an incredible advantage in power they want the rules of war applied to their oppression.

Nice try. It doesn't work like that.

Oppression isn't war and no amount of words can make it war.

Calling war a reaction to oppression doesn't make it not a war.

And I'm simply applying the normal laws of war which have nothing to do with Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The UN does nothing and has no power to do anything anyway.

Normal convention in such cases is to tell the other side that a protected target is being misused and will be considered a valid target if the misuse continues. Their options are to show the claim is a mistake, quit misusing it or accept that it's now on the target list. Hamas never does #1 or #2.

That's precisely my point: The normal convention is to lodge a complaint about the misuse. Israel more often than not doesn't follow the the normal convention, they bomb UN installations without warning.

Normally such misuse is a rare event.

Furthermore, with Hamas the misuse is generally something that could be quickly changed. Doing complain & wait would be futile--they would just shuffle the stuff around repeatedly. Thus Israel gives them enough time to run away but that's it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The civilians are in harm's way because of the IDF targeting. The UN is under no obligation to move anyone for any reason. Their apparent refusal to move people may have the effect of endangering those people (although, since the UN was not preventing anyone from moving, they were free to go), but it is not engaging in human shield tactics.

However, applying your "logic" to the IDF, the IDF has a choice to either target and deliver missiles, etc... onto civilians or not to do so. By choosing the former, that is murdering civilians.

The IDF is attacking Hamas, not civilians. Unfortunately, Hamas goes to great lengths to get civilians into the blast zone.

As for choosing to move--we're talking about kids. They undoubtedly didn't even know the situation. Their caretakers are responsible for leaving them in harm's way despite being warned. Furthermore, their explicit purpose in doing so was to hinder the Israeli invasion--thus human shields, not merely despicable inaction.

And you also don't know what "terrorism" means.

Yes, I do. Apparently you do not. Since you tacitly endorse and defend the murder of civilians.

You just proved that you don't know what it is.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody has a right to target civilians.

If Hamas wants to resist they should be shooting at the IDF or the government. Except when Israel invades they do neither.

Again it is good to know where you stand when some murderous country takes us over and begins to oppress us.

No, no, no you will cry. We must respect the superior rights of our murderous oppressor.

Note that I did not say they're not allowed to shoot at the IDF. That's what you normally do in a war--shoot at enemy soldiers.

The point is they rarely do.

Of course when one side has an incredible advantage in power they want the rules of war applied to their oppression.

Nice try. It doesn't work like that.

Oppression isn't war and no amount of words can make it war.

Calling war a reaction to oppression doesn't make it not a war.

And I'm simply applying the normal laws of war which have nothing to do with Israel.

The oppression is real.

This so-called war is imaginary.

It's a nebulous spirit that washes everything away. The blockade. The endless incursions and kidnappings and rapes and murders and destruction of homes. The strangulation of the economy. The limitation of food and medicine. The use of weapons when any reasonable person would know civilians will be killed.

All of this is oppression, not war.

 

[laughing dog]

The IDF is attacking Hamas, not civilians. Unfortunately, Hamas goes to great lengths to get civilians into the blast zone.

Sorry, but your "logic" still applies. The UN was not engaging in human shield tactics to hinder the IDF, it was just refusing to help the ID. So, intellectual honesty and logical consistency means you have to also claim the IDF engages in murder of civilians if you claim the UN was engaging in human shield tactics.

As for choosing to move--we're talking about kids. They undoubtedly didn't even know the situation. Their caretakers are responsible for leaving them in harm's way despite being warned. Furthermore, their explicit purpose in doing so was to hinder the Israeli invasion--thus human shields, not merely despicable inaction.

Your characterization is characteristically inaccurate. The UN referred to apartment building and schools not UN sites. That means there were other caretakers there. And the UN's stated explicit purpose was to avoid helping the IDF with its military mission with despicable side effects which does not imply using any tactics whatseover.

You just proved that you don't know what it is.

The great irony is that you just reconfirmed you don't know what terrorism is with that response

 

[Arctish]

The IDF is attacking Hamas, not civilians. Unfortunately, Hamas goes to great lengths to get civilians into the blast zone.

As for choosing to move--we're talking about kids. They undoubtedly didn't even know the situation. Their caretakers are responsible for leaving them in harm's way despite being warned. Furthermore, their explicit purpose in doing so was to hinder the Israeli invasion--thus human shields, not merely despicable inaction.

Your entire argument rests on the notion that the Israelis were guaranteed to kill those children if the UN didn't move them, so by not moving them the UN caretakers were either criminally negligent or downright evil. If I accept your argument I must conclude the IDF are baby-killers, you know they're baby-killers, and you fully support the killing of babies.

I don't accept your argument, though. I think there was a very good chance the IDF would respect a UN shelter and not kill the children huddled inside. I think it was a good enough chance that the safest thing those caretakers could have done was keep the kids off the streets and make sure the IDF knew the building was a shelter with civilians inside.

 

[arkirk]

What are you smoking?!?! IDF troops visit under a white flag?? Hamas isn't going to respect that!

Besides, that isn't even the issue. The IDF knew what was there--Hamas and human shields.

Their accuracy is very good but it doesn't protect people who are right next to ground zero--especially when Hamas goes out of it's way to use human shields.

The only skin I have in this game is that the Islamists are a threat to all of us. Just because it's currently a fairly small brush fire doesn't mean we should ignore it until it's a raging inferno.

This isn't about Israel vs Palestine, that's just one of the current battlefields. It's about hardline Islam vs the world.

- - - Updated - - -

1) The key point is they are knowingly and willingly standing there with the intent to impede hostile action. That makes them a combatant in my book. (If they're unwilling they're a human shield.)

2) You have it backwards--you're the one who wants to give one side (the terrorists) unlimited rights and the other none. We are calling for equal treatment.

They are trying to impede illegal killing.

Killing that only has the purpose of trying to calm down resistance to an illegal quarantine, decades of oppression and endless violence directed at the Palestinians.

Even if it's illegal they weren't impeding it much. How about if they sacrificed your child, would you feel the same?

However, killing in war is legal. It would have been legal for Israel to simply smash the places, there was no question they were being put to military purpose. Instead they bent over backwards to get civilians out of the way even though it impairs their military objectives.

The side engaging in the illegal killing is your beloved Palestinians.

If you have no skin in the game (INVESTMENT IN WAR PRODUCTION OR PERHAPS SOME KIND OF JOB LOBBYING FOR ISRAEL) then I have to conclude you are simply a racist who hates Arabs or Muslims in general. Your moral arguments make swiss cheese seem solid. The IDF should have NO RIGHT WHATEVER TO FORCE U.N. PERSONNEL TO VACATE THEIR FACILITIES. THE IDF HAS NO RIGHT TO KILL CHILDREN AND WOMEN AND OLD PEOPLE....NO RIGHT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? There were no secondary explosions when the IDF turned its guns on the U.N. schools.

You know damned good and well there were no armaments in those buildings. You know those buildings were in no way part of the Hamas command and control structure. You still have to give me some explanation why you cannot suggest any way to reduce the violence of the IDF and insist it must continue. That makes you essentially the same as you claim Hamas is in this conflict.

Stop being so self righteous and stop this talking point war you are playing here with people who really are interested in seeing this horror continue.