Civilians vs Combatents

[montelatici]

Why don't you post the rest of his statement?

"On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."

Why don't you tell us about "disproportional force" as it relates to defending oneself from acts of Islamic terrorism?

Why would you expect israel to react differently from others when defending itself from Islamic terrorism?

Why don't you tell us why you posted only part of the UN General Secretary's statement you ZioNazi propagandist.

 

[Hollie]

Why don't you post the rest of his statement?

"On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."

Why don't you tell us about "disproportional force" as it relates to defending oneself from acts of Islamic terrorism?

Why would you expect israel to react differently from others when defending itself from Islamic terrorism?

Why don't you tell us why you posted only part of the UN General Secretary's statement you ZioNazi propagandist.

Why do islamo-tap dance around questions you are uncomfortable with and / or unable to address?

Why would you expect Israel to react differently to acts of Islamic terrorism than others do under similar circumstances.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Because you don't understand what a "disproportional" response is.

Why don't you post the rest of his statement?

"On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."

Why don't you tell us about "disproportional force" as it relates to defending oneself from acts of Islamic terrorism?
Why would you expect israel to react differently from others when defending itself from Islamic terrorism?

Why don't you tell us why you posted only part of the UN General Secretary's statement you ZioNazi propagandist.

(COMMENT)

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
​

At the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols, France voted against Article 51 because it deemed that paragraph 5 by its “very complexity would seriously hamper the conduct of defensive military operations against an invader and prejudice the inherent right of legitimate defense”.
​

If, in trying to be a humanitarian and use insufficient "shock and awe" ( military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight), then you have to keep pounding them into submission.

Don't make the mistake that this is some kind of quid pro quo arrangement. A bullet for bullet --- or --- rocket for rocket exchange. It's not a case of they kill one of ours and I kill one of their.

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

If you were a law enforcement officer (LEO), you would say something to the effect:

“You shoot until the threat has stopped,” — aim for the largest “center of mass,” and engage until the threat is total incapacitate or neutralized. “The concept is to incapacitate the threat.”

If the "threat" gets back up and fires another rocket at you, OBVIOUSLY, you did not lay down enough fire to suppress and then neutralize or incapacitate the threat from being a further danger. If the threat gets back up because you did not bring enough firepower on target, then as the commander, that is your fault. And your casualties suffered because you were trying to be a humanitarian may have been unnecessary.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

It serve no useful purpose trying to be the humanitarian on the business of proportional in attack. It serves no useful purpose. " When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the principle of proportionality in attack, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syrian Arab Republic) replied favourably." (ICRC). But one cannot use such reservations that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is not achieved.

(∑ --- Summation)

Between 2001 and 2015, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have fired more than 18,000 rockets and mortar into Israel. It is obvious that Israel has not committed sufficient firepower as to suppress and incapacitate/neutralize the HoAP from being a further threat (the concrete military advantage).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Because you don't understand what a "disproportional" response is.

Why don't you post the rest of his statement?

"On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."

Why don't you tell us about "disproportional force" as it relates to defending oneself from acts of Islamic terrorism?
Why would you expect israel to react differently from others when defending itself from Islamic terrorism?

Why don't you tell us why you posted only part of the UN General Secretary's statement you ZioNazi propagandist.

(COMMENT)

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
​

At the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols, France voted against Article 51 because it deemed that paragraph 5 by its “very complexity would seriously hamper the conduct of defensive military operations against an invader and prejudice the inherent right of legitimate defense”.​

If, in trying to be a humanitarian and use insufficient "shock and awe" ( military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight), then you have to keep pounding them into submission.

Don't make the mistake that this is some kind of quid pro quo arrangement. A bullet for bullet --- or --- rocket for rocket exchange. It's not a case of they kill one of ours and I kill one of their.

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

If you were a law enforcement officer (LEO), you would say something to the effect:

“You shoot until the threat has stopped,” — aim for the largest “center of mass,” and engage until the threat is total incapacitate or neutralized. “The concept is to incapacitate the threat.”

If the "threat" gets back up and fires another rocket at you, OBVIOUSLY, you did not lay down enough fire to suppress and then neutralize or incapacitate the threat from being a further danger. If the threat gets back up because you did not bring enough firepower on target, then as the commander, that is your fault. And your casualties suffered because you were trying to be a humanitarian may have been unnecessary.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

It serve no useful purpose trying to be the humanitarian on the business of proportional in attack. It serves no useful purpose. " When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the principle of proportionality in attack, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syrian Arab Republic) replied favourably." (ICRC). But one cannot use such reservations that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is not achieved.

(∑ --- Summation)

Between 2001 and 2015, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have fired more than 18,000 rockets and mortar into Israel. It is obvious that Israel has not committed sufficient firepower as to suppress and incapacitate/neutralize the HoAP from being a further threat (the concrete military advantage).

Most Respectfully,
R

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

 

[montelatici]

No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.

 

[Hollie]

No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.

No matter. Opinions on the definition of disproportional force will vary. When an enemy has a written manuscript delineating their intended pogrom of offensive gee-had, there really is no such response less than a willingness to crush the barbarians that will be a workable response.

Boko Haram, Daesh, Hamas, Islamic gee-had, etc., are the same ideology with different names.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah, you are a bit off here.

The US Politico's are extremely afraid of what the reaction (Islamic backlash) will be if the US supports Israel too loudly. It is the coercion of the domestic threat combined with the external radical Islamic threat. Remember, HAMAS has made direct threat against the US.

While individual Americans are not easily persuaded by Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and othe asymmetric threat, American Politicos are very susceptible to intimidation to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives. Similarly, the European Union has a similar problem, except that, there general population is intimidated as well as the ruling elite and government officials. They know the do not have the resources or assets to conduct the counterterrorism operations the need to protect themselves from the growing Islamic terrorist threat.

Everyone knows that the very last thing they need is to place Israel in such a position, and under such pressure as to break the security containment of a very well know terrorist and jihadist threat; letting is leak out in every direction, and replaceing a thriving democracy with another threat nation that will spiral into another safe haven for any number of types or kinds or Islamic based threats.

No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.

(COMMENT)

"DAESH is not the first insurgency in history that has seized and governed territory using graphic violence as an instrument of power while indoctrinating and radicalizing its members. DAESH strength derives from the weakness of its adversaries and from its ability to capitalize on the failures of the Arab uprisings. The group has thrived in areas of religious polarization and state collapse: in Iraq and Syria, of course, but also in shattered Libya and post coup Egypt. It has tapped into the same jihadist narratives and networks that once fed al-Qaeda’s insurgencies, and its tactics increasingly involve the types of terrorist attacks once associated with al-Qaeda." (The Lipman Report: Formerly a Confidential and Private Intelligence from exclusive sources. 15SEP15)

((QUESTIONs)

• Given the most recent heroic terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, what would you call an appropriate response?
• Given that the Hostile Arab Palestinians do not follow the Law of Armed Conflict, what is the appropriate response for Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

If it is also "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great. It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Daniyel]

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

Of course. Why would you think I would answer differently? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked. And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza. Israel responds against attacks from Gaza. And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty. Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.

Every time Israel militarily enters Gaza, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians do have the right to defend themselves - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents". I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.

That is a very good point, the thing is that when the IDF enters Gaza it is in order to disable their abilities to attack Israel (which makes it Israel's right for self defense - not theirs)
Self Defense does mean one may (should) protect himself/herself by any means necessary against unprovoked attacker.
Imagen yourself inside your home when your neighbors launching fireworks at your home from theirs, police and threats turned out ineffective, eventually you'll end up going inside their home in order to confiscate the fireworks.
The scenario is always the same..

 

[montelatici]

Rocco,

For the first question, the appropriate response is to indict the perpetrators, bring them to trial determine guilt or innocence and then sentence them in accordance with the law if guilty. That's what civilized societies do. That's what France will do with the miscreants that caused all the deaths in Paris.

For the second let's begin by asserting that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine have every right to be hostile. The land they inhabited was invaded by Europeans, colonized and more than half the population was dispossessed or killed while the other half was put under foreign rule. Replacing the Ottoman rule with Jewish rule. Foreign rule nonetheless.

The "Hostages Case" at the Nuremberg Trials is useful for this answer. It resolves the question of what an Occupying Power (Germany) can do when in conflict with partisans that do not follow the "Law of Armed Conflict", i.e. not in uniform, hiding arms, killing civilians etc., and what the Occupying must do when in conflict with Partisans observing the rules, i.e. wearing uniforms, displaying arms limiting themselves to military targets etc. In both cases the Germans were found to be guilty of committing war crimes in their response. While the case is the precedent that was used to confirm that Gaza represents territory occupied by Israel, it provides a great resource for your second question. For example, the punishing of relatives of the "illegal" partisans was just as much a crime as the punishing of the relatives of the "legal" partisans. Plus there is a lot more. contained in the case documents.

 

[MaryL]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

If it is also "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great. It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this Wikileaks age, propagandists like Rocco are easily thwarted in their attempt to twist the facts. the Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with urban warfare. It is the tactic of considering civilian areas/villages and cities to be military if the civilian residents, including women and children are thought to support an enemy politically. Hence, subject to leveling.

U.S. intelligence reports/cables are quite revealing:


"1. (S) Summary and Comment: Within the span of several days, the Israeli Defense Force Regional Commanders made direct and frank comments in separate interviews to the press regarding the state-of-play in Israel's northern, central, and southern regions. On the northern border, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume. ......

6. (S) Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction...........
Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases."

 

[montelatici]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

 

[MaryL]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

 

[MaryL]

The only criticism of Israel, America or the west I have in general is the heavy handed tactics addressing terrorism, sometimes I am ashamed with the overuse of violence. And it does feed into a vicious cycle. Israel is a nation fearing for it's existence, Arab countries and Muslims, I don't know what they think they will gain by destroying Israel. They can't co-exist in peace and extend a olive branch?

 

[Hollie]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

Are you still whining about some " Jew invasion" that you claim happened but have never offered support for?

 

[Hollie]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

Here's the debate tactic that applies to Islamic terrorists when they get their gee-had on:

 

[montelatici]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

That is propaganda. There was no "hunkering down deliberately among innocent people. It is the usual Zionist attempt to demonize the non-Jews.


Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: “I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.” The Guardian: “In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay.” The Independent: “Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields.”Reuters, 2013: “A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields.”

 

[Hollie]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

That is propaganda. There was no "hunkering down deliberately among innocent people. It is the usual Zionist attempt to demonize the non-Jews.


Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: “I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.” The Guardian: “In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay.” The Independent: “Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields.”Reuters, 2013: “A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields.”

I'm afraid the propaganda is yours. There are multiple instances of reliable reports indicating your Islamic terrorist heroes use Arab-Moslem squatters as human shields.

Your cheap propaganda is easily refuted.

Run along to wiki there, little fella'


Hamas Admits to Using Civilians as Human Shields


The Associated Press reported on Friday that evidence disclosed since the end of this summer’s war between Israel and Hamas indicated that the Palestinian terror group had deliberately used civilians as human shields while launching rockets at Israeli civilians, and that even Hamas officials now admitted they had embraced the tactic. The wire bluntly noted that “discussion is not about whether the Hamas rockets were fired from civilian areas, but exactly how close they were to the actual buildings.”

Hamas officials cited by the AP defended their use of human shields by asserting that the population density of the Gaza Strip gave them little choice except to operate around civilians, a practiced codified as a war crime by the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions:

Throughout the war, the Israeli air force compiled dozens of video clips showing alleged wrongdoing by Hamas, an Islamic militant group sworn to Israel’s destruction.

These videos, many of them posted on YouTube, appear to show rockets flying out of residential neighborhoods, cemeteries, schoolyards and mosque courtyards. There are also images of weapons caches purportedly uncovered inside mosques, and tunnels allegedly used by militants to scurry between homes, mosques and buildings.