Even if one takes Israel’s allegations at face value — which I absolutely do not, given Israel’s track record — and entertains the idea that in 2013, at the age of 17, al-Sharif joined Hamas in some form, what are we to make of that choice? Hamas has been the governing authority of Gaza since 2006.
So… maybe he was Hamas, what’s the big deal?
Yeah if the guy was Hamas, he’s a valid target.
So there was a lot of outrage over his death by news organizations around the world last week. Israel presented their evidence, and then… silence. That indicates news organizations consider Israel’s evidence to be at least credible.
And then this opinion column comes out and this guy is saying “He’s not Hamas… and even if he was, it’s ok for him to be Hamas.” It smacks of the Trumpian “I didn’t do that, and if I did, it’s perfectly fine” style of logic.
The silence of news organizations (other than Al Jazeera and alt media trash) on this and then this opinion piece making excuses about why it’s perfectly fine for Anas al-Sharif to be a member of Hamas… it kinda seems like he actually was a member of Hamas.
And here you are wrong. There is a difference between Hamas armed wing and government workers. For Israel they are the same. According to international law they are not.
For Israel every male in Gaza is a Hamas fighter which is so inherently wrong. They simply kill those males with utter impunity.
And if we have a bit more critical thinking, even if he was a legitimate fighter, why didn’t they kill him when he was alone. Why did they kill him when he was with his colleagues. Because they never said anything about the other victims. It is almost like there is a clear trend of killing local journalists and not allowing international ones, so that they can control the narrative.
No, according to the Geneva Conventions only armed combatants are legitimate targets.
A militant Hamas member who is injured and in hospital is not a legitimate target.
A journalist, even if he was a Hamas member, is not a legitimate target.
A doctor, even if he worked for the Hamas run health ministry is not a legitimate target.
So… maybe he was Hamas, what’s the big deal?
Yeah if the guy was Hamas, he’s a valid target.
So there was a lot of outrage over his death by news organizations around the world last week. Israel presented their evidence, and then… silence. That indicates news organizations consider Israel’s evidence to be at least credible.
And then this opinion column comes out and this guy is saying “He’s not Hamas… and even if he was, it’s ok for him to be Hamas.” It smacks of the Trumpian “I didn’t do that, and if I did, it’s perfectly fine” style of logic.
The silence of news organizations (other than Al Jazeera and alt media trash) on this and then this opinion piece making excuses about why it’s perfectly fine for Anas al-Sharif to be a member of Hamas… it kinda seems like he actually was a member of Hamas.
And here you are wrong. There is a difference between Hamas armed wing and government workers. For Israel they are the same. According to international law they are not.
For Israel every male in Gaza is a Hamas fighter which is so inherently wrong. They simply kill those males with utter impunity.
And if we have a bit more critical thinking, even if he was a legitimate fighter, why didn’t they kill him when he was alone. Why did they kill him when he was with his colleagues. Because they never said anything about the other victims. It is almost like there is a clear trend of killing local journalists and not allowing international ones, so that they can control the narrative.
No, according to the Geneva Conventions only armed combatants are legitimate targets. A militant Hamas member who is injured and in hospital is not a legitimate target.
A journalist, even if he was a Hamas member, is not a legitimate target.
A doctor, even if he worked for the Hamas run health ministry is not a legitimate target.
Does hamas follow the Geneva conventions?