Are you claiming there is a Haaretz article that states that Hamas was willing to unconditionally give up the civilian hostages after the Oct 7th attacks? I would like to see which article you are referring to as I have been unable to find any with a claim remotely along those lines.
> Sacrifice and kill your own people just so you can kill even more Palestinians.
Israel does not use their own civilians as human shields, they use their military to protect their civilians. You're probably thinking of Hamas here since they use their civilians to protect their military.
> Israel does not use their own civilians as human shields, they use their military to protect their civilians. You're probably thinking of Hamas here since they use their civilians to protect their military.
The article confirms what I suspected which is that Hamas did not unconditionally offer to give back the civilian hostages. The attached conditions would almost certainly have prevented Israel from dealing with the Hamas threat.
No one claimed “unconditional” hostage return. Of course there are conditions, Hamas is fighting 80+ years of Zionist ethnic cleansing, that’s the whole point. Israel decided committing genocide was more important than retrieving their settlers. That’s on them.
> I don't see how this is at all related to your claim that Israel uses human shields at all.
This is Israel’s policy of killing their own settlers. Human shields would be how the IDF is located in nearly every building in Israel.
> No one claimed “unconditional” hostage return. Of course there are conditions
You responded with that article in response to this question of mine "Are you claiming there is a Haaretz article that states that Hamas was willing to unconditionally give up the civilian hostages after the Oct 7th attacks? I would like to see which article you are referring to as I have been unable to find any with a claim remotely along those lines.".
As expected the article fully confirmed my understanding in regards to what Hamas offered. This was not a real offer to return the hostages but rather a demand for Israel to effectively surrender and leave Hamas in place to carry out future attacks.
> Hamas is fighting 80+ years of Zionist ethnic cleansing, that’s the whole point.
Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews in 2005.
> Israel decided committing genocide was more important than retrieving their settlers. That’s on them.
There were no settlers in Gaza on October 7th when Hamas launched their attack.
> This is Israel’s policy of killing their own settlers. Human shields would be how the IDF is located in nearly every building in Israel.
This is wrong for multiple reasons, first of all Hamas doesn't care if Israeli civilians get killed so such a tactic would be entirely ineffective, second of all Israel puts their military defenses in front of their civilians, not the other way around. Israeli soldiers simply aren't hiding behind Israeli civilians.
> Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews in 2005.
Please, there’s no use continuing this conversation since you’re not arguing in good faith. This is just open, gratuitous Israeli propaganda. That said, no one is buying it at this point.
I don't think you read that article you linked to. The Hannibal Directive is a policy about using extreme force to prevent soldiers being taken hostages. Soldiers are by definition not civilians.
Are you claiming there is a Haaretz article that states that Hamas was willing to unconditionally give up the civilian hostages after the Oct 7th attacks? I would like to see which article you are referring to as I have been unable to find any with a claim remotely along those lines.
> Sacrifice and kill your own people just so you can kill even more Palestinians.
Israel does not use their own civilians as human shields, they use their military to protect their civilians. You're probably thinking of Hamas here since they use their civilians to protect their military.