The Middle East

[badman999]

Originally Posted by Priapus

You're right I am an American, I stated I was earlier. You're right I've never lived in a country the size of Israel and was subjected to bombardment, but I have lived in small camps and been subjected to bombardment. I didn't go outside the wire and start killing civilians because of it, though.

Bombarding a serving soldier who volunteered to be subject to military discipline and its rules of engagement is different than bombardment of civilians in your own country. It just is. I'm not making light of your service - and I'm still American enough to be incredibly grateful for it. But you are comparing apples and oranges - it isn't the same.

Originally Posted by Priapus

I guess I know which camp you're in. I am not defending Hamas, nor do I suggest that we deploy forces to protect them. Honestly, I don't care about the combatants, I care about the civilians. That's what soldiers do. They fight for those who can't fight for themselves.

I'll say it again - I'm incredibly saddened by the death of civilians in such large numbers. Whatever the real numbers are, they are massive. I just totally disagree that any army must refrain from pursuing the aims of a legitimate war, against and aggressor, because the cowardly little c*nts hide behind civilians.

I wonder if this is worth considering. US Rules of Engagement are formulated to preserve the possibility of winning hearts and minds amd to avoid bleating in the streets of sections of the country. Israel's is formulated to focus on nuetralising the terrorists and minimising damage to THEIR civilians, while still taking reasonable steps to minimise civilian deaths if possible.

Those differences drive different behaviours and different attitudes.

[Devius]

Originally Posted by Devius

UNRWA report says Israel coerced some agency employees to falsely admit Hamas links
Reuters
March 8, 2024 10:59 PM GMT

Full article:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ks-2024-03-08/

Related...



Palestinian UN agency must improve neutrality - report

A UN report into the Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA has concluded it must do more to improve its neutrality, staff vetting and transparency.

But the independent review also said that Israel had failed to back up a claim that many of the agency's staff belonged to terror groups.

Some of UNRWA's staff were accused by Israel of involvement in the 7 October attacks and of being Hamas members.

This led several countries to halt funding to the humanitarian agency.

The new report says Israel has not yet provided "supporting evidence" for its allegations.

However it adds that the agency's monitoring processes need to improve, and that neutrality-related issues persist despite the fact that the organisation has a "robust framework".

The Israeli authorities have rejected the findings, claiming the report ignores the severity of the problem. They say the problem with the agency is not "that of a few bad apples: it is a rotten and poisonous tree whose roots are Hamas".

Israel initially alleged that 12 UNRWA staff took part in the Hamas attacks on southern Israel, which saw 1,200 people killed and about 250 taken hostage.

UNRWA fired the 10 of those employees who were still alive and a separate investigation by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight into those allegations is ongoing.

Monday's report looks at the other Israeli claim that large numbers of UNRWA staff are members of terror groups or have family members who are.

Israel has said more than 2,135 employees of the agency - of a total of 13,000 in Gaza - are members of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, proscribed as terrorist organisations by Israel, the UK, US and others. It has also suggested a fifth of UNRWA school administrators are Hamas members.

UNRWA insists it carries out detailed reference checks on all staff, and shares staff lists with all host states including Israel. This new report says Israel is yet to provide supporting evidence for its claims.

But it is not a glowing endorsement of the agency.

Led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, and supported by three European research institutes, it finds that UNRWA could do better upholding the obligatory humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality.

It points to staff vetting systems that could be improved - but adds that for this to happen, there needs to be better cooperation with and from Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Israel already receives lists of UNRWA staff for its own vetting purposes on a regular basis.

The report also highlights how challenging - even dangerous - UNRWA's working environment is.

Violence is common, opinions are polarised, and although UNRWA's systems are described as more rigorous than many other agencies, the report suggests they are often hampered by low staffing and security concerns.

The UN chief and head of UNRWA have accepted the report's findings in full, and pledged to implement all its recommendations.

Although several donors including Japan, Sweden, Finland, Canada and the EU have resumed funding to UNRWA, the US and UK have not.

The UN will be hoping this report will encourage them to restore their financial support.

But some donors may want to wait for the other UN investigation that specifically looks at allegations that 12 UNRWA staff actually took part in the 7 October attack, before restoring cash to an organisation today's report described, despite its need for improvement, as "irreplaceable and indispensable to Palestinians' human and economic development".

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68875863

[Rogerbh]

It's the Middle East, people have been killing people - in and out of uniform - for centuries.

As for the Jewish lobby in the US, not even counting their Hollywood power, I'd agree with those who say they have the most powerful lobby in the US. The US is Israel's ally, and I don't see that changing.

Pretty much, the US will supply Israel with all the bombs they want or need.

Does anyone really think that will change?

Allowing those who chant "Death to America" to live in America - seems rather stupid to me. Having the odd angry Muslim shooting up America seems to be the end result of that. They'd probably still hate the US even if the US wasn't such a strong ally to Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_S...nardino_attack

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/bo...ect/index.html

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/05/wh...blic-shooters/

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/0...ference-update

etc., etc., etc.

[Priapus]

Originally Posted by badman999

Bombarding a serving soldier who volunteered to be subject to military discipline and its rules of engagement is different than bombardment of civilians in your own country...

You probably paid US taxes then, so I should be thanking you. Something I glibly say to people when they find out I served and thank me, is "No, thank you, for my service." I don't think such glibness is appropriate in this case, but I am immensely thankful for the opportunity to have done so, both in uniform and out of uniform.


To your point about being a serving soldier after your country has been attacked. That's what I was. That's the reason why you send professionals, and you don't parachute a bunch of civilians to go "get it out of their system" on some dirt patch in the middle of nowhere. Can I defend everything the US did? No, but we made serious efforts not to kill innocent people. Did it cost US service member's their lives? Absolutely. We didn't get it all right. There were instances where US servicemen committed war crimes, and we prosecuted them - and we probably didn't get them all. However, we held ourselves to a standard. We tried.


We didn't bar the press from what we were doing, we facilitated it. Heck, the international press beat Delta Force to the battle of Tora Bora. They literally had to push past the press to go fight a battle, in the mountains of Afghanistan. How'd the press beat them there? I am not saying we were completely transparent, but we weren't hiding from our actions either.



We didn't starve people. We fed people. Our men didn't shoot women trying to pick up the food we provided them, film it, and post it on the internet. We didn't blow up half a hospital, dig shallow graves, then hold a press conference calling it the "gold standard" of special operations. No, we treated everyone, even the wounded who were trying to kill us moments before they were wounded. Doctors from many different nations didn't find multiple children with bullet holes through their sternums. You know why? Because even if we shot a kid, it would have been on accident, and we would have tried to have save their life. When we did mess up, we would own up to it. We would pay people's families and we would send people to apologize to their families in person. Our men would run into crossfire to shield women and children from it, not to shoot them - and there's pictures of it to prove it because we didn't hide from reporters, we took them with us.



Right about now, you might be screaming in your head, but why aren't you holding Hamas to the same standard. Totally reasonable point. Here's my counterpoint, if I wake up in the morning and find a turd in my toilet bowl I am not going to freak out. If I find a turd on my kitchen table, I am going to be somewhat alarmed. So, yes, this is one of those rare cases where a double standard is completely appropriate.



To put that last point in perspective, the US and NATO allies occupied Afghanistan for 20 years, total civilian casualties: 46,319. Probably a few hundred of those were foreign fighters who opposed the NATO forces, but it's not really a fair comparison because of the population density, etc. Iraq, more dense population, better comparable from 2003 to 2011 the US "unofficial" civilian casualties were something like 87,000 (this is from memory, but fairly certain) add in the sectarian violence, foreign fighters, and other things that were totally unpredictable from us dethroning a strong man there, let's call it 125,000. Are you starting to see the problem? I don't even have to take Hamas at their word. I've seen the pictures.


To your point about how or why US commanders set rules of engagement (ROE). To address that, first let me say, the US respects and follows all international agreements and laws... Ok, I can't even type that without laughing. No, I said it before, I'll say it again. The only real war crime is to lose. The primary reason there are ROE is to maintain military discipline. The most important factor in determining the outcome of an engagement is the willingness to combat - and that can't be trained. The second most important factor is discipline. These are clearly qualitative factors, and thusly, hard to measure. You can train and enforce discipline. There are ancillary benefits to ROE that are appropriate, because though it might not be immediately apparent, people who visit savagery upon their enemies often visit it upon their own people. Then, if you kill those people, the people who were under their rule look at you slightly more favorably. Also when a military force shows their innate humanity and bravery in the most difficult of circumstance, noncombatants will start to look at you in a different light. People see you act in an humane and selfless fashion and it triggers a similar emotion in them that they can't help but to transpose onto to you.



You sound like a proud American. I am as well. I might not be especially proud of all the outcomes we achieved, or even why we achieved them, but I am proud of how we did it. I used to go with my grandfather to his WW2 reunions. There will be no reunions for my generation. There will be no celebrations for the liberation of Kabul or Baghdad in 75 years from now. And, you know what? I am going to sleep well tonight knowing that. That's because I didn't fight to kill a people, I fought to kill bad people. Be proud of that. I am.

[foxbat1]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk7IKvIROXk&

Hamas Fighting in Civilian Clothes | Compilation

If Hamas fights in civilian clothes and runs and hides among civilians, do you really think that Israel shouldn't shoot at them?

It's a shame that Israel doesn't allow them to import military uniforms.

[foxbat1]

Originally Posted by badman999

Your breakdown of 7 October deaths is misleading. In a country with universal conscription, a high proportion of young people at a music festival were armed forces, but only incidentally.

But under IDF rules, all males are enemy combatants. They could potentially be conscripted or pick up a gun, so are fair targets.

As Scoundrel would say, Israel brought this on themselves when they set the rules of engagement. They decided that everyone, men, women, and children, are legitimate targets, and are in no position to complain when the same rules are applied to them.

[foxbat1]

410 bodies recovered from mass graves at the Shifa Hospital so far. This is one of the worst single atrocities of the conflict. Patients and medical staff, adults and children, all murdered to deny Palestinians healthcare.

There were two bothers on BBC News the other day, one little more than a toddler and the other looked about 8-9. Parents both murdered, both injured. The younger one with a disease but no medicine to treat it, the older one with suspected cancer but no doctors to investigate. The suffering it almost unimaginable.

[badman999]

Originally Posted by foxbat1

But under IDF rules, all males are enemy combatants. They could potentially be conscripted or pick up a gun, so are fair targets.

As Scoundrel would say, Israel brought this on themselves when they set the rules of engagement. They decided that everyone, men, women, and children, are legitimate targets, and are in no position to complain when the same rules are applied to them.

And according to the Foxbat rules of modern warfare, if there is any chance that a civilian can be slightly wounded, the soldier may not fire.

Somewhere between the two is the truth. Neither your rules and what you claim to be the Israeli RoA's are viable or correct.

[badman999]

Originally Posted by foxbat1

410 bodies recovered from mass graves at the Shifa Hospital so far. This is one of the worst single atrocities of the conflict. Patients and medical staff, adults and children, all murdered to deny Palestinians healthcare.

There were two bothers on BBC News the other day, one little more than a toddler and the other looked about 8-9. Parents both murdered, both injured. The younger one with a disease but no medicine to treat it, the older one with suspected cancer but no doctors to investigate. The suffering it almost unimaginable.

Are you claiming that, during pitched battle on enemy soil, the Israeli army created a mass grave in one of the busiest, most photographed areas of Gaza, and secretly buried 410 bodies, only to have the heroic Gazans uncover them? Rather than, say, Hamas (the government of Gaza) created a mass grave for casualties, and Hamas is digging it up for extra sympathy?


Are you an idiot? Do you know how stupid that sounds? Hamas deliberately endanger their civilians. They would desecrate their graves with equal cynicism.