If all there are in Gaza are a couple dozen men the war should go quickly.
I don’t understand why you think this is inhumane treatment. It’s the first step in processing them.
I would expect POW’s to get prison clothes like any other prisoner. And that’s after they’re transported to a prison camp washed and deloused.
After they get to prison, sure, assuming you have the resources. But until then, give them the clothes that are convenient. It’s stupid and cruel to transport them nude.
(And they were apparently wearing underwear. I bet that was their own underwear, and not some special underwear for prisoners that the soldiers had lying around.)
OK. But since they weren’t transported nude it wasn’t cruel.
There are modesty rules for Muslim men just as there are for Muslim women. Public nudity is definitely in violation of those rules and would be humiliating for them. If you can’t understand why transporting just anyone in a state of needless nudity might be problematic then perhaps “it violates their religious standards” might carry more weight for you.
When I look at images of the beaches of Gaza I see men in swim trunks with no shirts.
This isn’t even a tempest in a teapot.
And there doesn’'t seem to be any rules for Hamas. Modesty or otherwise.
“Hamas is evil” does not give Israel a pass to also be evil. I can’t believe i have to say that.
Attempt at hostage rescue failed with 2 IDF soldiers seriously wounded. Hamas claims a hostage died. That needs verification.
Gathering reliable hostage intel and avoiding elaborate traps has to be difficult.
I can’t believe prisoners being processed is an issue. They’re in their underwear at the start of it. Big effing deal. Seriously, I’ve posted pictures of Palestinian men on the beaches with nothing but swim trunks. this is a non-issue and as far from evil as you can get.
That is, in fact, a requirement under the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War on taking prisoners into captivity - specifically Article 18 (my emphasis):
All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.
The whole thing isn’t great from an Article 14 or Article 3.1c perspective, either…
Because it very much is forbidden by the modern rules of war.
And it’s a cruelty/humiliation that has zero military purpose. It’s just cruel for the sake of cruelty.
That’s why it was forbidden by those rules. The rules aren’t arbitrary, they are based on principles.
Interesting propaganda in the Times link cited above. The IDF forces are referred to as soldiers or troops while the enemy is identified as terrorists, gunmen, fighters or operatives.
Israel is fighting Hamas and they’re directly responsible for almost unimaginable atrocities. Raping men and women. Women mutilated in their private areas. Hostages raped. Murdering children and babies.
Calling them terrorists and gunman is aiming a bit high. The sickest thing of all is hiding and fighting from within the Palestinian population. Making them pawns and targets.
Interesting perspective. Of course, refusing to refer to Hamas as a terrorist group is its own form of political statement.
The fact is, it is impossible to be completely impartial in reporting the news. Even the act of choosing which stories are worth reporting is a political act. [If I was a YouTuber this is where I would reveal that this post was sponsored by Ground News and offer you a referral code…]
But that’s probably another thread.
The takeaway is, understand the perspective the article is written from and take it for what it is worth - but recognize that every article has a perspective, no matter how impartial it tries to be.
…
…
…But the difference between an army and a terrorist group shouldn’t be very difficult to grasp regardless.
Actually I noticed similar distinctions in Al Jazeera. But, terrorist is incorrect. Terrorists attack for political impact and do not hold territory. That might apply to Oct 7 but not Gaza. The folks in Gaza are defending home ground.
The other term that is odd is operative. I suspect operative is anybody who was standing around and got shot.
Being processed for incarceration is not forbidden by rules of war. This discussion is about a picture which is 1/100th of a second of time. If there clothes are returned to them at some point or burned to circumvent disease is not recorded in that event.
They’re terrorist hiding among civilians. they’re defending themselves.
I’ve cited exactly which rules forbids this form of “processing”. It definitely is forbidden.
Several pictures, at different locations, and some short video clips. The CNN link isn’t the only coverage of this.
They are clearly being transported in trucks without them, they are shown in a second deserted location with no clothes in sight.
Sure, they could have been given them back some time later. That’s already too late, they should never have had their effects taken in the first place. Or been publicly humiliated. All of that is against the Geneva conventions.
Bullshit. It says nothing about processing. It says they are entitled to their clothes. There’s no mention of processing.
And at the end of the day, you’re pissing in the wind on this. It is such a trivial matter considering they’re terrorists. They could and should be classified as criminals and not soldiers.
What, exactly, is the title of the relevant section? Why, I do believe it’s " Section I: Beginning of captivity"
It very much is talking about processing. “Bullshit” right back at you.
Sure, that’s why you’re getting worked up into a froth about it…
There’s that much-vaunted assumption of innocence…
Like I already said:
And you think Israeli processing of ordinary criminals allows for this kind of treatment? I think better of their ordinary justice system than you do, apparently.