1,000A human shield is a non-combatant (or a group of non-combatants) who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it.[1]
Probably this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield
It's not even really contested that Hamas embeds its military assets right next to and within civilian housing.
@SemioticRivalry I understand that completely. But what I want to know is, why is that an excuse that we accept from Israel when they have the this type of overwhelming advantage militarily, tactically, financially, politically, etc? If the IDF blows up a house with dozens of hostages in it is it truly reasonable to say it was Hamas that is responsible for that??? Like do you think that would fly as a valid excuse from the American president?? No fucking way. What is the reasoning for holding Israel to a lower standard than we would hold ourselves?? Like why are they in such a hurry to shoot first and ask questions later??? It makes very little sense.
@BTE The allied coalition against ISIS, which had 15 countries including the US, killed between 8,000 and 13,000 civilians in airstrikes.
@BTE The fact that people blame Israel for human shields dying, rather than Hamas, is in fact why Hamas uses human shields. What I'm trying to say is, beliefs like yours encourage the use of human shields and ultimately lead to the death of civilians.
@BTE Yes, Hamas would be responsible for that. Giving terrorists immunity is a terrible idea and only leads to what you want to pretend in the first place.
@LightLawliet Yeah. I always ask "How many civilians does a terrorist have to force on their rocket launch pad to gain immunity from retaliation?" when someone questions "how many civilians need to die before Israel stops going after Hamas". So far, no one has been able to engage with that question in good faith so I see no reason to engage with their question.