When Russia, Turkey, Hamas, and Iran condemn you, I find little reason to believe their collective arguments.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-turkey-hamas-and-others-blast-israels-killing-of-terror-chief-nasrallah/

Russia also criticized Israel for killing Nasrallah, with a statement from the country’s foreign ministry saying it “decisively condemn[s] the latest political murder carried out by Israel” and “once again insistently urge[s] Israel to immediately cease military action.”

Rich coming from the guy who failed to assassinate Zelensky. This really puts all this into perspective for me.

How insightful… I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity…

Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.

The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.

“We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.

Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn’t simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.

Additionally, I don’t recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics…

https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it’s head when confronted with:

https://www.justsecurity.org/27005/human-shields-weapon-strong/

During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.

There isn’t a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I’m somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you’re not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.

Edit: here’s a novel thought… Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user’s homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I’m not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.

Odd, I haven’t heard that, but regardless I’m not sure how it changes what was said in the article.

Well, the people receiving it may not see it that way. FTA:

For years, Iran’s leaders have declared the necessity of arming Palestinian fighters in the occupied West Bank. Iran has long supplied weapons for attacking Israel to militants elsewhere in the region, members of its so-called Axis of Resistance, including its two primary Palestinian allies in Gaza, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

…

Fatah, the Palestinian faction that controls the Palestinian Authority and with it much of the West Bank, accused Iran last week of trying to “exploit” Palestinians for its own means by spreading chaos in the territory. In a statement, Fatah said it would not allow “our sacred cause and the blood of our people to be exploited” by Iran.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/irans-order-chaos-suzanne-maloney

A key component of Iran’s strategy in its neighborhood has been the cultivation of an “axis of resistance,” a loose network of regional militias with discrete organizational structures, overlapping interests, and ties to Iran’s security and religious establishments. The Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, maintained that exporting the revolution was necessary for its survival, arguing that if the theocracy remained “in an enclosed environment” it would “definitely face defeat.” Determined to spark a wider wave of Islamist-led upheavals against secular monarchies and republics in the Middle East, Khomeini and his acolytes developed an infrastructure dedicated to toppling the status quo across the Muslim world.

…

With its cultivation of Hezbollah as a template, Iran then invested an enormous amount of effort and resources in cultivating militant groups across the Middle East. The support it has given to Palestinian militant groups, especially Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, paid tremendous dividends over subsequent decades, as did its aid to Shiite opponents of Saddam in Iraq. These relationships provided the springboard for Iranian influence at key turning points for regional stability. In the 1990s, PIJ terrorist attacks disrupted the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and nudged Israeli politics rightward. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Tehran’s patronage of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Dawa Party, both significant Shiite factions, positioned Iran as the most influential player in Iraq’s contentious postwar polity.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator