IDF says Hamas attacked troops as they opened Gaza evacuation corridor for civilians
timesofisrael.com
The Israel Defense Forces on Saturday accused the Hamas terror group of attacking Israeli troops working to open up a humanitarian corridor for Palestinians to evacuate from northern Gaza to its south.
The military has for weeks been urging northern Gaza residents to evacuate southward, warning them it will be focusing its military efforts on the Gaza City area, the heart of Hamas’s rule and its main base of operations in Gaza. At least 800,000 of some one million residents of the area have done so.
It takes an hell of an effort to believe anything from the IDF with amount of bullshit they told for decades.
And at the same time it’s totally plausible, that’s what makes it dangerous. No one knows who to believe and no UN forces want to get killed trying to keep things as fair as possible.
"No one knows who to believe" the statement there is for a reason. Killing Journalist and targeting their families, cutting communication is the reason.
Every time they mention people need to move south, they say it's being attacked less, but they don't say what percentage. Is it 95% shelling in the north?
Every single mention of attacks, includes and in the south. Is that just the editors trying to convey information they're not allowed to say?
With the release of the doctrinal document, indicating the depopulation plan of the Gaza strip, move the civilian south, keep the pressure up, then somehow move them into Egypt.
I think more people would actually go south, if they had a guarantee that they would be allowed to return to their homes...
From the reports I've seen which are far from comprehensive, it's closer to 99%.
Almost certainly - Israeli military censorship of the media is fairly comprehensive. They are famously overzealous to the point of refusing to release information even if it would be beneficial to Israel's image - just to protect opsec.
Yeah, that document is incredibly worrying. But it's not an official planning document, and the rest of the government seems against it at the moment. From what I can tell, it was authored in part by Kohelet, the same thinktank that put together the judicial reform plan that caused mass protests in Israel earlier this year.
Very good point. I doubt they trust the IDF much, but perhaps if it were backed up by the US/Egypt some might accept that.
I guess it was justified because the IDF was using civilians as human shields.
Just terrorists doing terrorist things...
I don't believe it's credible to say the IDF was using human shields.
You'd have a better argument if you said, they were resisting efforts to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, or at least the North part.
The IDF actually uses Palestinians as human shields. Not in this situation (debateably) but let's not pretend the IDF wouldn't hesitate much before tying a kid onto their a vehicle to be used as a human shield.
That's an extraordinary claim, can you cite neutral news sources demonstrating this?
I shockingly actually think I know what he's referring to. A newspaper clipout that had a picture of a Palestinian boy on the front of an armored truck with his arm tied to the casing that was protecting the front window. It did look pretty old, but it went the rounds on reddit a little while ago. I'd have to look it up again to find it to see what the source was.
Yes. This isn't new.
Here is one report: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620
The use of Palestinians as human shields ii legal under a technicality and human rights activists had to work hard to get it finally banned, except it's still in use..
Finally here is the story of the 13 year old tied to a jeep: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm
Yes, that's the picture!
Do you have anything from the last 10 years?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620
Article from 2013.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-idf-used-palestinians-as-human-shields-1200-occasions-in-last-five-years-say-israeli-defence-officials/30483468.html
Article from 2005 describing the policy change.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-use-human-shields-rising
Opinion article from 2022 that claims it's ongoing but cites pages and links describing how it stopped in 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm
Article from 2004.
EDIT: I missed a legitimate report from Article 3, covered in Haaretz
Article number 3 describes a case that happened in 2022. Maybe you totally skipped through the first paragraph that takes you here https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_use_palestinian_girl_as_a_human_shield_in_jenin?
It's not really an 'opinion' article but yeah whatever
Edit: maybe somehow you skipped some more paragraphs that list another case in 2022. Was it a mistake?
It's published in their opinion section by an author who has only published this one article on MEE, with this disclaimer:
Opinion articles tend to rely on sources that have not been formally verified in the journalistic sense. That's why they're disallowed by Rule 3 in the sidebar.
I did skip over the first paragraph - janky formatting on my phone.
Looking at the report linked in the first paragraph - it's published by DCI-P, a nonjournalistic organization. They've been accused of being connected to terrorist funding in the past (apparently with sufficient evidence to make their banks close their accounts), but I don't see them on the OFAC lists so it's not a smoking gun to not trust them. Haaretz covered it, and it does seem to be a legitimate account of using a human shield with no followup prosecution coverage of the forces involved.
The second link is a tweet by an Iranian news station. Iran is not an unbiased source for news about Israel/Palestine.
The embedded tweets (now that they actually load) are referring to the same incident in May 2022. Are you perhaps referring to the May 2002 incident mentioned a few paragraphs later?
Sure. B'Tselem had cases in 2014 that went nowhere because Palestinians basic human rights are compromised.
And no I was not referring to that.
From what I can dig up, the IDF did have a policy of using human shields before 2004. But the supreme Court ruled that illegal after 2005.
Namely the "early warning procedure".
I did see some articles referring to other policies, but I couldn't find a neutral source to support those.
https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_856_2.pdf
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule97?country=il
Check B'Tselem and other such organizations. They tend to document every single case they encounter.
I've done my research. The last incident I can find is from The early 2000s.
If you have evidence that their contemporary are ROE includes human shields I would love to see it.
The Israeli military are not the heroes here, I'm perfectly happy to admit that, but human shields are bad, we don't want people to be used to shields. As far as I can tell they modified their behavior in 2005 and have not been taking human shields, we should at least give them credit for that in the contemporary conflict, so they're not encouraged to take up human shields again.
With the ongoing genocide, and ethnic cleansing, there's enough criticism to make a damning case anyway.
Again I welcome evidence of human shields in the contemporary conflict
Here https://lemmy.world/comment/5086511
That's not contemporaneous. I believe that's 2004. Again, they used to, but are they doing it in the current conflict?
It happened in 2022.
That's not what the BBC says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm
2004
Thanks for the sources!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/israel
No, he can't. This is like when you tell someone a news story is actually fake news and they concede the point but then tell you it doesn't matter because it feels true
you spelled hamas wrong.
Yeah you are out of arguments
am I?
To use an old Reddit idiom, ESH. Except for the civilians in the crossfire, of course.
The leaders of Hamas and Israel are culpable and should be held fully responsible, but chances are slim to none