this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024

31 points (72.5% liked)

News

23259 readers

3768 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

How Hamas Is Fighting in Gaza (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 months ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They hide under residential neighborhoods, storing their weapons in miles of tunnels and in houses, mosques, sofas — even a child’s bedroom — blurring the boundary between civilians and combatants.

So they fight like US revolutionaries, the insurgents who fought back against nazi invaders in WWII, and pretty much every population that is being overwhelmed by superior numbers during wartime.

Why is that a bad thing when defending against invaders? Like yeah, it would be pretty shitty for invaders to do that, but pretty reasonable as a defensive tactic.

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I hope you do understand that all you just said totally contradicts the genocide narrative , right?

You can say its not a bad thing, but then you cant complain about the high civilian casualties.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Actually he can do both. The argument that Israeli forces have to go into these areas due to some immediate, imminent threat is not credible.

There’s no reasonable way to draw out an insurgent force embedded in a civilian population, and insurgents will always use that to their advantage. The invading force will always create a new generation of insurgents as they are forced to abuse the general population to root out their enemy.

I do understand your frustration if you support Israel in this conflict, because the IDF going in paints them very much the bad guy. But as an american whose country went in and rooted around both Iraq and Afghanistan, we were the bad guy, we created new generations of terrorists in our wars, and Israel is doing the same.

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Its not an imminent thread. Its like people forgot theres a terrorist organization there holding 120 israeli women, children, babies, etc… and not giving them back. Somehow Israel is going to get them back eventually. The cost of Palestinians lives is solely determined by who is holding those hostages.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hostages you say?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/

“Over the last month we have witnessed a significant spike in Israel’s use of administrative detention – detention without charge or trial that can be renewed indefinitely – which was already at a 20-year high before the latest escalation in hostilities on 7 October. Administrative detention is one of the key tools through which Israel has enforced its system of apartheid against Palestinians. Testimonies and video evidence also point to numerous incidents of torture and other ill-treatment by Israeli forces including severe beatings and deliberate humiliation of Palestinians who are detained in dire conditions,” said Heba Morayef, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“The summary killings and hostage-taking by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October are war crimes and must be condemned as such, but Israeli authorities must not use these attacks to justify their own unlawful attacks and collective punishment of civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip and the use of torture, arbitrary detention and other violations of the rights of Palestinian prisoners. The prohibition against torture can never be suspended or derogated from, including – and especially – at times like these.”

The important thing to keep in mind is that the conflict did not start on Octover 7th and the whole situation was escalating. Yes, Hamas committed war crimes and that is terrible, but that does not justify all of the war crimes that Israel has committed onto Hamas.

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you're going to go that BS route then own up to the fact that Palestine et al started the conflict within a week after the formation of Israel. It's been random acts of terrorism with periodic legit wars for almost a century since.

Hamas etc needs to start understanding Israel doesn't care about justifying war crimes. They want their hostages back and for this BS to end... completely. If that means they pile up martyrs until the count is so high there are no more future martyrs to find then they are okay with that. Anyone that truly wants to avoid that outcome needs to call for an end to this Jihad nonsense, for the release of the hostages, and for UN intervention to force a 2 state solution that neither party is happy with but can tolerate because otherwise it will be a 1 state solution that Israel is happy with and everyone else is ashamed of.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Palestine et al started the conflict within a week after the formation of Israel

Palestine started the conflict when Israel was founded by taking land in Palestine by force.

That isn't the great point you might think that it is.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 8 points 3 months ago

No it doesn’t?

Them fighting back by any means does not contradict they Israel today has gone from merely oppressing and murdering innocent people on a whim to actively trying to destroy every bit of medical aid, sanitation, food supply, etc to wipe out the Palestinian people.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, it doesn't contradict anything about the genocide.

Israel didn't need to completely destroy infrastructure and also deny foreign aid because of how Hamas fights. How Hamas fights doesn't justify the IDF killing reporters, or the unarmed children being gunned in the streets, or strapping injured Palestinians to hoods, or atracking aid workers that the IDF knew were coming through, or the most likely true reports of torture. We know all of this is intentional by how Israel acts, and they are using the excuse that civilian casualties are happening despite the IDF being careful, but they keep killing dozens of civilians and getting caught lying about things which is why they are not trustworthy.

Plus Israeli senior leadership has made and keeps making statements consistent with genocide that align with their actions. All of that would still be genocide even if Hamas fought some other 'acceptsble' way.

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So let me ask you this, Do you think Abdalla Aljamali the “innocent” journalist would still be dead and all his children and family given they wouldnt have held Israeli hostages IN THEIR FUCKING HOUSE with their children separated only by carpet and sheets?

I think he would have, and all his family and children would have lived today.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Now explain away the IDF killing Issam Abdallah who was standing by a news van in Jordan.

Or the attack on the World Central Kitchen aid convoy.

Guess they shouldn't have had hostages in their homes!

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The attack on the central kitchen convoy was a horrible mistake. The government itself said they were sorry. I personally feel ashamed of that incident.

Not sure about the first one.

I dont see though how these two contradict what I said or take any blame from hammas fighting within civilian population on purpuse. It can indeed explain that because of how hammas fights the IDF is on the edge and mistakes are bound to happen.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago

The government itself said they were sorry.

They said the same thing about USS Liberty.

[+] fukhueson@lemmy.world -9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

How insightful... I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity...

Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.

The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.

“We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.

Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn't simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.

Additionally, I don't recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics...

https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it's head when confronted with:

https://www.justsecurity.org/27005/human-shields-weapon-strong/

During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.

There isn't a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I'm somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you're not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.

Edit: here's a novel thought... Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user's homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I'm not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.

[+] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You quoted the article saying Hamas blurs the lines between civilians and combatants, and used that to compare the allies in WW2 to Hamas. You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment. The quote (and article) clearly encompasses a wider view of the tactics in that sense, and in my opinion is not doing any justice to the comparison you're making now.

Thank you for your concern with my reading comprehension, but based on your words, I feel my response is appropriate. Now that you have clarified your position, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not attempting to characterize the allies were fighting like Hamas as the article further elaborates, but in a much more narrow, less obvious and in my opinion less meaningful sense since I haven't read any article criticizing Hamas simply of employing guerilla warfare in the way you're using it, but in that this is a deliberate use of human shielding and prolonging of Palestinian suffering, as I've cited.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You make no mention of this only involving guerilla warfare in such a narrow way, and you did not restrict your comparison to that alone in your comment.

I didn't clearly say my comment wasn't about every other possible thing? It wasn't about child labor laws or women's suffrage either.

I onky stated it in a narrow way and you read things into it that weren't there. That is on you.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I read your quote, along with the entire article, which is the subject of discussion. Choose a better quote next time, one that maybe expresses what you're trying to say. What you failed to do was specify what you meant by how they're fighting, and after reading the article (which I trust you also did) and the quote (introductory paragraph of the article) you chose to back up what you meant, I would find little reason to think that you're referencing any other form of warfare than what is described in the article.

Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

Goodbye, I refuse to speak to you anymore.

That is appreciated, thanks!

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Wait wait wait... You're saying disguising combatants as civilians and using civilians as shields is bad because it directly results in a huge increase in civilian casualties? But that means you see how Israel might not be gratuitously committing genocide but rather it being an unfortunate side effect of the terrorist's strategy!

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So the French Resistance in WWII, where they hid weapons of war in their homes and businesses to blend in with the population while hiding from nazis were just terrorists trying to increase civilian casualties? Would you consider their fellow citizens to be human shields?

Maybe Isreal's narrative about 'human shields' is bullshit. Especially after they got caught strapping Palestinian prisoners to the hoods of IDF vehicles.

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The difference ofc being that the French Resistance didn't cry for sympathy when a Tiger tank plowed through their building. They knew and accepted the risks. Also, they didn't start the war. Also also they hid the equipment in THEIR buildings and homes and not every school/hospital/nursery they could find.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

Yes, the difference is all the things I wasn't talking about.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Did someone say "by design?"

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This article reads like if the Bad Hasbara podcast was renamed to The Truth and hosted by Elon Levy.

In other words, typical NYT genocide cheerleading.

[+] fukhueson@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Weird... I don't share that opinion at all. And I'm not sure how this is constructive discussion.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Weird... I don't share that opinion at all

Gee, I wonder why..

I'm not sure how this is constructive discussion.

You're absolutely right, but not in the way you mean.

FYI, MBFC is not itself reliable. It's the hobby of one conservative Zionist named Dave, masquerading as an authority on reliability and bias.

Hell, the very summary you quote completely glosses over the Screams without words debacle, which was poorly constructed Hasbara co-written by a former IDF official with no reporting experience and a gigantic anti-Palestinian chip on her shoulder, basedfact unreliable testimony from inherently biased sources.

There are countless other examples, but that the NYT published that gigantic pile of fateful journalistic malpractice and stand by it to this day is in itself enough to disqualify them as a reliable source when it comes to anything regarding Israel.

Likewise, that MBFC completely ignores that in their review, claiming that the NYT has not failed ANY news reporting fact checks in recent years is proof positive that MBFC can't be trusted to judge the reliability and bias of the NYT, if any outlet at all.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person "hobby." They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person "hobby."

It's one guy who sometimes has the help of volunteers and paid freelancers, with no transparency as to who writes and researches what and as evidenced by their thoroughly negligent

They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.

That's probably more to do with collegial courtesy/not wanting beef with Dave than all of his competitors (and NPR, whose own standards have been slipping perilously in recent decades) actually thinking that he's great at it.

Or it could not even be that. Your implicit trust in the Hasbara along with you completely ignoring the substantive parts of my comment implies that you may have just made up their trust in Dave from whole cloth 🤷

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

MBFC has been studied by independent researchers.

Cited by NPR, Reuters Fact Check.

Newsguard analysis (perfect score from a competitor):

Thank you for motivating me to research this - I learned that MBFC is actually far more reliable and trusted by the news industry and scientific community than I realized.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Here's that analysis with true statements marked green, mostly false ones marked blue, and complete and utter nonsense marked red

A perfect score full of obvious errors isn't worth much.

~~MBFC~~ Dave is actually far more ~~reliable and trusted~~ propped up by the [main stream] news industry and ~~scientific community~~ commercial fact guessers than I realized

Fixed that for you.

Dave and his site are only slightly more reliable on matters pertaining to Israel than the spokesperson for the IDF.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In return, Duranty won rare interviews with Stalin and wrote glowingly about Stalin and his plans. The Pulitzer board cited his "dispassionate interpretive reporting" in awarding him a prize in 1932 for a series of reports the previous year. The first was a front-page article that started with the line: "Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms."

In 2003, public pressure led the Times and the Pulitzer Prize Board to conduct parallel reviews of Duranty's work and the prize. The board found no "clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception." It decided against withdrawing his award.

Exhibit No. 1 for for NYT's editorial quality.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097097620/new-york-times-pulitzer-ukraine-walter-duranty

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The posted article is not an editorial, so I don't understand the relevance.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Duranty example shows that editors at NYT will permit political/ideological bias to shape coverage even if it is to cover up a genocide.

Now today's example is hard to cover up, but NYT is not here on Palestinians team, never has been. Their coverage is there to make liberal American to accept the situation as is, nothing can be done, Israel is not doing a genocide but if they are, Gaza residents had it coming anyway.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is completely unfounded with regards to the reporting (not editorializing). You provide absolutely no evidence to support this biased opinion.

This is verging on conspiratorial misinformation, and an attempt to baselessly discredit the posted article.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I provide a historical fact where NYT was instrumental of covering up a genocide in 1930s and I suggested that they are a bad faith actor here too, which is my opinion.

conspiratorial misinformation

You not liking another person's opinion does not make their opinion a conspiracy btw

I could be wrong, clearly another poster feels similar though.

But the bottom line is that NYT already did this before, that is a fact. Time will tell what role they played here, it took 70 years for truth to come for the last "trick"

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not going to continue this with you. How absolutely absurd that you're attempting to discredit this article due to something that happened nearly a century ago. Mbfc's analysis of nyt now strikingly doesn't include your aforementioned concern, perhaps your should update them with this insight and see if it moves their needle? :)

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am providing context on how NYT behaves. People can make their own decisions on NYTs credibility. Maybe it was just one off.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

"Context"

[+] Deceptichum@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Hamas fights in defence of its land, Israel slaughters children to gain more.

The IDF are monsters.

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

How did OCT 7 work out for defending their land so far?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well it’s got the whole world to see what scum Israel is, so effective on that front. Probably the most effective thing in helping the Palestinian in decades as they were largely forgotten about globally and slowly dying under Israeli apartheid.

[–] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I just dont understand how hammas escaped the “scum” title and only israel got it from that oct 7 “incident”

But basically you are saying its good they killed so many people regardless of age, gender, nationality… because it showed the world that Israel of all of this is the scum. Yep… good logic.