HOSPITAL COVER..
Monday, January 12, 2009 at 09:03AM Some of the most senior vermin that make up Hamas are believed to be hiding in the basements of the Shifa Hospital complex in Gaza City, which was refurbished during Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli civil administration in the territories constructed the hospital complex's Building Number 2, which has a large cement basement that housed the hospital's laundry and various administrative services. During a cabinet meeting a week ago, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said senior Hamas officials found refuge in the hospital basement because they know Israel would not target it, due to the patients in the upper floors. Yes, that's right - Hamas use a hospital for cover and yet the UN, the MSM, the EU and all the usual other suspects remain mute. Clearly it's not enough that they use women and children to give them cover, they now use the sick to shelter behind. What a revolting organisation but how much more revolting are those who in full knowledge of Hamas practises, still cheer them on!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (52)
David, you are probably right, but in a world where HAMAS is considere by many to be the hero, how can we prove it?
Even if we did, there will be those who would then claim that Hamas had no option but to take shelter where they could find it.
Obviously they should report to an open field somewhere so the IDF can get a clean shot.
Mind you it's reassuring that the IDF can tell exactly who is in what building at any given time. No more excuses for civilian deaths then.
Peter T,
Point proven.
Obviously they should report to an open field somewhere so the IDF can get a clean shot.
Well yes, that is an honourable option and the rules of war dictate it. Common sense dictates that if you can't win a fair fight, don't start a fight.
Still, at least you admit to few qualms over civilian human shields.
In this circumstance the responsibility lies with those who shelter behind civilians, as per the Geneva Convention, which is 100% clear on this. Shame the media isn't.
I suspect Hamas would be quite happy with a fair fight. Is someone suggesting this?
Belfast "Peace Protestors".
>>as per the Geneva Convention, which is 100% clear on this.<<
The Geneva Convention is also 100% clear on the illegality of creating settlements in an occupied territory with a view to establishing a claim to the place.
Noel is right about the Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. The settlements practice is a violation, and a true friend of Israel would try to disuade them from this practice.
And of course so is the Hamas practice (policy) of sheltering behind civilians.
A few facts if I may (I know it's generally frowned on here). The restriction to which you allude prevents parties from directing civilians into the line of fire. It does not prevent them seeking cover or going home or any of the other things to which exception appears to be taken. It may also interest some of the legal scholars here to learn that even this prohibition is not part of the conventions themselves but an additional protocol which Israel, unlike the Palestinian Authority, has consistently refused to sign.
Apart from that, spot on as ever.
It is noted that Jimmy Sands is not disputing the contention that Hamas gunmen are hiding in a hospital.
And in his last statement he is basically saying "yes they're doing it, so what "
Keep that in mind the next time you hear of an " IDF Atrocity "
Hamas tactics guarantee civilian deaths. It's part of their plan. Its how they fight.
Well, at least Jimmy Sands isn't denying the use of human shields by Hamas.
Then again excusing it stinks even more. I suppose in denying it you'd imply that you know it's wrong.
There is no "occupied" territory folks so ergo facto nothing to debate. Next?
Hamas and their supporters regard civilians as completely expendable pawns. Both their own people and the Israelis.
But that won't stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the IDF inadvertently kills a civilian. The same people who send out a man or woman with a suicide belt will put on a grief show to beat the band when the Hebrews kill someone.
Moral depravity at its best.
Ever feel that you are wasting your time Jimmy;¬) It's not as if what you were saying wasn't as plain as day, doesn't stop the straw grasping though.
"It is noted that Jimmy Sands is not disputing the contention that Hamas gunmen are hiding in a hospital."
I've no idea where they are, any more than you do. If I were them I'd avoid schools and hospitals because that seems to be the kind of target the IDF prefers.
This is a claim from the Israelis so is not without bias - we need a bit more evidence to believe it.
Any use of civilians like this should be condemend, although you get the feeling some on here wouldnt be happy unless Hamas were slowly advancing across open country to a slow drum beat, Culloden style. Eg, Israel gets a pass on killing civilians even when they are bombing individual's houses and private cars.
I was also interested to read that the video feed you put up the other day was from 2007 - not from the recent Gaza attacks which I had presumed it to be (apologies if you pointed it out).
I should point out, again, that the continual bombing of civilian areas by Hamas needs to be condemned - in most of those cases they arent even looking for a military target.
By the way, why would the Palis continue a strategy of "hiding behind civilians" - it clearly doesnt put the Israelis off.
Andy, it does however feed their propaganda.
Oh.
They shouldn't mention that Hamas hides behind civilians. If they do mention this fact, it's "propaganda"
Phantom,
Was that in response to me? I was answering Andy's question as to why they would do it if the Israelis attack them there anyway - I meant that it would still be useful to them (Hamas) as propaganda.
The usual cant here about "human shields".
For what it's worth, I assume Hamas uses them, the IDF probably uses them too. Hamas would no doubt use them less if they had a fraction of the mega-tons of armour the IDF moves around in and shoots from.
It only makes sense. Both sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland used human shields.
The British commenters here will no doubt be most concerned about this use by their own army. Well, it was standard practice when a squaddie was questioning people that he squat down low against a wall while getting the civilian being questioned to stand in front of him and cover him.
In S. Armagh, where the British Army lived in fear of IRA mortars, they also set up temporary bases, observation posts, etc. close to or even in schools - this was while clases were in progress and in rural areas where there was no shortage of open land all around.
What's that? Do I hear an "And bloody well right they were, too!" ?
If Israel was as bloodthirsty as its opponents claim, and some of its less wholesome supporters desire, Gaza would be a parking lot at the moment.
Modern warfare (like ancient warfare) is not a pretty sight. In fact it is quite heartbreaking. Civilians in a war zone have almost always suffered horribly.
I would prefer a peaceful resolution rather than continued hostilities, but is patently untrue to claim Israel prefers schools and hospitals as targets.
= classes
Mahons - very fair comment.
>>but is patently untrue to claim Israel prefers schools and hospitals as targets.<<
I agree. It has to be said that Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties if it can, whether for humanitarian or propaganda reasons.
However, it is equally obvious that any such military action in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to very many deaths of innocent civilians, no matter where your opponent decides to hide.
Israel knew this quite well before it started its bombing and ground offensive, but it carried on regardless because it also knew the victims would not be Jews.
If some band of Hamas fanatics had holed themselves up in a hospital or whatever in Israel and started shooting from there at the police/army, the IDF would never have used bombs, artillery or anything that would put the lives of the civilians there at risk to dislodge them.
Frank
I misread who you were speaking about.
Frank - maybe so. There seems to be some undisputed evidence of it. However they need to maintain some local support (guerilla being the fish that swims in the "sea" of the people etc) so I'm not sure how often they would do it.
By the way - this is a bit concerning:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html
In fact it compromises a lot of the Israeli= defending democracy crowd's arguments.
I think Mahons and Noels'slast comments are pretty spot on. Although coming from slightly different angles, they're not mutually inconsistent.
Sky television has been showing clips of Israeli missles being diverted when Hamas targets have taken refuge amongst civilians. The evidence of Hamas hiding amongst the civilians and using them as shields can be found and one television channel, at least, is prepared to show it. Well done Sky.
Andy -
Two things:
I was also interested to read that the video feed you put up the other day was from 2007 - not from the recent Gaza attacks which I had presumed it to be ...,
What video was that?
By the way, why would the Palis continue a strategy of "hiding behind civilians" - it clearly doesnt put the Israelis off.
But it does. Three examples are here (windows media player):
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=3276848&ak=null
of IAF pilots diverting missiles away from Hamas targets because they went too close to civilians. In the final example you see the terrorist running only to stop when he reaches civilians. He knew he was targeted and deliberately took cover among civilians.
--I'm not sure how often they would do it--
Presumably a lot of the civilians are OK with it--they're helping the cause so to speak
It is completely illogical to the outsider, but I think many of the locals would not blame Hamas for firing rockets and otherwise operating in every part of the society, while condemning Israel as " war criminals " for attacking Hamas from where they operate.
>>Three examples are here (windows media player):<<
Pete, I thought you always scorned monopolists!
David....Please a Plea to you....Refrain from posting the truth about the Hamas Terrorists in Gaza and their use of their 'kinsfolk' as Human shields.
You only bring out the worst in the lily-livered Liberals, Republicans, Anti-semetics and assorted other Jew haters from wherever they reside.
This thread is by no means the most objectionable....to find really objectionable bloggers, you have to go to Fealty's site....I won't give it any oxygen of publicity by naming it.
I am off to Australia.....to view this island that is offering a few months free lodgings....maybe the Israelis will have finished off Hamas before I'm back and the Obamamessiah will have cured the World's ills.
Bye 4 now
Neither Hamas nor the IDF are to be trusted, the UN, Red Crescent and other aid agencies are.
Israel's response is completely dispraportionate and bears the mark of Saddam's Iraq, not a westerm democracy.
I am not trying to play games here....
but why should it be proportionate? Their response should be disproportionate as can be.
The intention is to destroy the enemy, so that he either cannot or chooses not to lob any number of rockets into Israeli civilian areas.
If Hamas stops the rockets, the Israelis will soon go.
The worse possible outcomme will be to have Israel withdraw and then to return to an "acceptable" number of rockets coming out of Gaza every day.
GUBA - The UN is to be trusted?
>>The worse possible outcomme will be to have Israel withdraw and then to return to an "acceptable" number of rockets coming out of Gaza every day.<<
Phantom, which people suffered most over the past year: the people of Gaza overall from the effects of the blockade, or the people of Israel overall from the effects of the rockets?
The people of Gaza most likely
But there would not have been any blockade had there not been the rockets
You'd be insane not to have a blockade with the rockets coming in
Mahons: Compared to the US Governmet, Israel, Hamas, the UN certainly should be trusted. Their track-record is somewhat better.
Phanthom: There is more than one way to 'destroy' an enemy. You could, of course, nuke Gaza and helpfully drop iodine tablets out of planes to protect innocents from the radiation.
You could also use tactical low-scale strategies to combat a threat. Its advantage being less collateral damage. Israels choice of response is the problem here, not their right to respond.
'But there would not have been any blockade had there not been the rockets'
Really? Forgive me my cynicism, but i doubt that. Have the palestinians been compensated for being removed from their land yet?
Guba
I do not favor nukes and I don't favor hide and go seek pussyfooting around either.
Hamas needs to be destroyed along with its ability to menace with rockets. As effectively as possible.
Then and only then can other matters be discussed.
Hamas is the single greatest impediment to any peace in that region.
>>But there would not have been any blockade had there not been the rockets<<
That isn't true, Phantom,
Israel imposed the blockade in response to Hamas winning the election. It had nothing to do with rockets. It was an attempt to make Hamas unpopular with the people, as Israel wished to continue negotiating with the PA.
Directly after Hamas controlled the Strip, Israel sealed border crossings and stopped all exports, and allowed only enough goods in to prevent a humanitarian disaster.
It was an extraordinarily inept and ill-advised policy, and had the opposite effect to that intended. As of course did the rockets fired at Israel later.
Both were also morally despicable acts.
The rockets had preceded the Hamas win, and with Hamas in charge, there was every prospect that the rockets would increase ( which is exactly what happened )
An Extermination-based party in control was a ratcheting up of the conflict and the closing of the border was a natural reaction.
GUBA- The facts and I don't share your view of the United Nations.
'The facts and I don't share your view of the United Nations.'
The US Government lied about the Iraqi invasion, a war that has killed hundreads of thousands. Hamas and the IDF have, in my opinion, been very untruthful. Has Israel admitted about having nukes yet?
The UN, on the other hand, were truthful in relation to the buildup to the Iraq war, for example.
Mahons, you should leave the facts speak for themselves.
Phanthom:
Hamas needs to be destroyed along with its ability to menace with rockets. As effectively as possible.
Ya, but Israel cannot blow up schools and civilians occupied houses or shot at ambulances. There is a proper way to deal with this situation and a million wrong ways. Israel, as a western democracy, should be expected to deal with it appropriately. It, unfortunately, is not.
It is dealing with it in a very wrong way and probably is commiting war-crimes. A Un investigation should occur in due course.
Yeah, a UN Investigation with Libya and Iran on the Kangaroo Court would be fine
Lets just proclaim them guilty right now and save the expense
Noel Cunningham -
The rocket attacks started eight years ago. They were fired before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, during the withdrawal and within hours of the withdrawal.
Those are the rockets. Mortar fire has been a constant also. It's estimated that up to a third of the residents of Sderot suffer some kind of post traumatic stress.
Eight years.
Guba -
The US Government lied about the Iraqi invasion ... The UN, on the other hand, were truthful in relation to the buildup to the Iraq war, for example.
Don't assume we're all as casual with the truth as you.
Between the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, Iran etc etc etc there was disagreement only over how Iraq should be dealt with. They all agreed that Iraq had WMD programmes; some nations thought that war was the answer to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq's WMD programme, others (plus the Annan family) preferred to keep the Baathist regime in place and trade its oil for kickbacks.
GUBA- please recount for me UN truth in the buildup to the Iraq war.