Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-origin-of-hamas-s-human-shields-strategy-in-gaza-opinion/ar-BB1iVFt6?cvid=0139b248eaf64a43bde8b5a713eb0435&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=10

n November 2006, months after Hamas won parliamentary elections and after the group began entrenching its rule in Gaza, Nizar Rayan, a political leaders and liaison with Hamas' armed wing, introduced a novel strategy to protect the houses of Hamas militants from IDF bombardment. Rayan, a fiery religious clerk within Hamas and a rising militant star, marshaled hundreds of civilians into a house that had received IDF warnings of an impending strike. Instead of fleeing, Rayan called on people to swarm the house and cover its rooftop with as many civilians as possible to force the Israeli military into a choice: Either commit a massacre, or call off the airstrike.

Israel called off the strike, and the incident received widespread international attention. Though the tactic drew condemnation from Human Rights Watch, which criticized calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack as risky and dangerous, Hamas leaders like Ismail Haniyeh praised the tactic as a marvelous feat of perseverance and nonviolent resistance.
Nizar Rayan proclaimed victory and vowed to use the self-described "human shields on rooftops" strategy to prevent future destruction of Hamas members' houses and infrastructure. It would go on to be used dozens of times in the years leading up to the first major war between Israel and Hamas in 2008-2009.

Ironically, Rayan was killed in January 2009 at his family home along with all four of his wives and 12 of his children. Tragically for his children, Rayan was killed by the failure of his own human shields strategy, which did not protect him after he received a warning call from the Shin Bet that an attack on his house was imminent.

Nevertheless, the human shields strategy progressively grew as part of Hamas's defensive posture in which it counted on its activities and assets within urban and crowded areas being immune from Israeli attacks that could result in widespread and unspeakable civilian casualties.

Partly due to the urban nature of Gaza, and partly by embedding its activities and assets among the civilian population, Hamas's infrastructure grew increasingly intertwined with civilian infrastructure and populations. This despite numerous occasions in which people in Gaza would object to rocket launches firing near their homes, tunnels being dug underneath their properties, or hidden stockpiles being placed close to their businesses and houses. Hamas mostly used the stick approach to silence opposition to its militant encroachment upon civilian areas and neighborhoods.

Hamas believed that as a people's militia and a righteous religious resistance group against the Israeli occupation, it had a moral right to operate amongst the population from which it derived its strength, legitimacy, and fighters.

Unfortunately, and horrendously, this strategy ultimately failed and brought unspeakable death and suffering upon the people of Gaza. Over time, and in past and current wars, the IDF became less risk-averse and more willing to tolerate civilian casualties in pursuit of high-value targets and military infrastructure. Israeli airstrikes and bombardment would regularly hit and destroy entire neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, mosques and hospitals.

While it is true that Hamas would use these places for its activities, it unfortunately became exceptionally easy for the IDF to justify civilian casualties, wrongful deaths, and questionable actions by blaming Hamas for embedding itself amongst civilian populations and infrastructure.

Hamas's immoral decision to normalize the self-described "human shields" strategy has not only been incredibly destructive for Gaza's civilian population. It has also proved ineffective as the IDF loosened its rules of engagement to allow for more risky and deadly strikes on Hamas targets.

Multiple things are true simultaneously: The Israeli military kills civilians in its pursuit of militants and subsequently attempts to absolve itself of moral and operational responsibility by blaming Hamas's use of Gazans as human shields. And Hamas absolutely disregards the safety and well-being of Gazans by deliberately and nefariously placing its infrastructure and armaments among civilians and crowded neighborhoods and cities throughout the Gaza Strip. The group gives itself the right to be anywhere it deems necessary in Gaza because the interests of the "resistance" far outweigh any harm done to innocent civilians in pursuit of the supposed "greater good" and the "liberation of Palestine."

What began as Nizar Rayan's human shields strategy to protect militants' houses from Israeli bombing has sadly and ironically ended up with Hamas turning innocent and uninvolved Gaza civilians into its own "collateral damage."

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib is a U.S. citizen from Gaza and a Middle East political analyst who writes extensively on Gaza's political and strategic affairs.

[Valmy]

Is Kazakhstan no longer a country, or was Ukraine not the only nation to de-nuclearize?

Yes, Kazakhstan and Belarus were also part of the Budapest Memorandum. Fine. But, in my defense, it was at the same time under similar circumstances.

The point is though that Russia gave security promises to the three of them in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons. And they have basically made Belarus a puppet state and aggressively invaded Ukraine twice.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of de-nuclearization.

[Valmy]

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

Indeed.  In a hypothetical one-state solution, the country would not need nukes.  There would be no nations determined to destroy it.

It is the Middle East man. Somebody is always determined to destroy you.

[Josquius]

In today's world? That would make them a target instantly.

Like the other 180 nations without nuclear weapons?

Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?

Only a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.

I'm not seeing a Russia analogue in this scenario.

Its all purely theoretical with the point being it isn't going to happen despite Razs imagination.
 But these days the Palestinians are the main issue. It's in part precisely because Israel is normalising relations with the Arab nations that Hamas made such a nutty move.

[crazy canuck]

When Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.

[grumbler]

It is the Middle East man. Somebody is always determined to destroy you.

Nukes don't stop terrorists, man.

[Valmy]

When Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.

You guys joke but it was just a disaster that Ukraine got put in this position after giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees by Russia. Not to mention the fact that if Saddam Hussein had been successful getting nukes, Iraq doesn't get invaded in 2003.

I mean I am hopeful that countries will continue to disarm and not pursue nukes in the future, but there is that track record.

And, you know, I don't know if Canada is out of the woods yet considering how things are going down here 

[crazy canuck]

When Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.

You guys joke but it was just a disaster that Ukraine got put in this position after giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees by Russia. Not to mention the fact that if Saddam Hussein had been successful getting nukes, Iraq doesn't get invaded in 2003.

I mean I am hopeful that countries will continue to disarm and not pursue nukes in the future, but there is that track record.

And, you know, I don't know if Canada is out of the woods yet considering how things are going down here 

I think former Soviet Republics are a special case.

[grumbler]

Even if Ukraine had retained the nukes it inherited from the USSR, they would be defunct by now.  Ukraine could not afford to maintain them all those years nor replace them.

Further, even if the Ukrainians had nukes, I am not sure that this would have stopped the Russian invasion.  Putin is the type of gambler who might very well call that bluff.

[Josquius]

I would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.

[Tamas]

A convicted murderer (a Muslim) donated 17 dollars he worked a lot for in prison to a Gaza charity. Some director of some kind (a Muslim) shares the story,then some organisation called Gaza youth group declared that what's happening on Gaza and the US prison system is the same imperialstic project to press the downtrodden and the whole thing ultimately  ends up raising 100k in donations for the murderer.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/california-prisoner-donates-paycheck-to-gaza

[Barrister]

I would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.

What exactly would Russia have done that they haven't already done to try and ensure Ukraine stays in Russia's orbit?

[Valmy]

I would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.

How could they possibly have made even more sure they become like Belarus? It strikes me they did do that constantly.

[Josquius]

I would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.

What exactly would Russia have done that they haven't already done to try and ensure Ukraine stays in Russia's orbit?

Back in 2014 even while seizing territory they tip toed about a fair bit. Little green men and Russian soldiers going on holiday with all their equipment and all that.
There was also a lot of international pressure to get Russia to put on the breaks and stop it's advance just as Ukraine was on the point of breaking, giving us a semi frozen conflict in the donbass.
Just imagine there were nuclear weapons involved. Would the west be keen on allowing the "Donetsk People's Republic" to have nukes?

Of course I wouldn't see things even getting to that state. Intervention would come a lot harder and earlier to minimise democracy and keep a suitable puppet in power.
In history as we know it Ukraine had quite the reputation for corruption and illegal arms sales. Add nukes into that mix and the west would be only too keen to have a strong dictator in place.

[Tamas]

I think back then Russia tip-toed because they still saw a chance the West would oppose them. They saw all they got just a mild slap on the wrist so they drew their conclusions for the 2022 invasion.