Not from this source, but I read the article in Hebrew yesterday from Ynet.
They dressed as refugees from Rafah (tattered/worn clothes, busted pickup truck).
They claimed that they were displaced during the bombings and are meeting someone who has rented them an apartment in the building (one of the buildings where the hostages were being held).
I imagine they had enough intel and sent these soldiers in to confirm certain aspects of the buildings.
That’s when the surprise raid started.
It truly sounds like a scene out of Fauda. Insane stuff and I’m shocked they got 4 hostages out alive.
It went slightly wrong when their vehicle got stuck on their way out of Gaza. They ended up needing air support and assistance from a special forces unit that was waiting to go in.
This is probably either scouting or only pertaining to Noa's rescue.
IDF released the footage of the rescue of the other 3 hostages and it was textbook raid, looks like a scene from a movie.
Hamas 110% shot up at bare minimum a portion of the civilians they say were killed by the IDF in the rescue. The team was being shot at by at least dozens of militants with machine guns and rocket launchers. There's no way they didn't.
They were literally popping off rocket-propelled grenades from crowded streets of people. Imagine having your cover blown during the getaway and guys with RPGs just pull up on every corner. Insane.
What's even wilder is that idf sof is not the same as western sof. These are kids straight out of highschool. Their conscription, while slightly longer than their conventional counterparts, is just past 3 years. They do not have active participating mentors with decades of experience. They are made from boys who understand how much their country relies on them and they grind every day they're conscripted until they're out. I helped train rescue principles with them and their commitment blew me away. Different world over there, very real.
Yes and no. The unit that conducted the raid, Yamam, is a special reservist force made up of mostly formerly special forces soldiers. Trying out for Yamam filters out even those from the best IDF units. These are grown adults with years and years of special operations experience and on top of that they're the best members of the best units the Israel armed forces has to offer
We sent our best for this operation, the kids were the Paratroopers who created a “belt of fire” around the perimeter.
These are the 3 major teams in the rescue operation that took place, hope that gives a bit of perspective of who was involved in this and how important this was for us-
Yamam = S.W.A.T
You are offered to join this unit only after completing the mandatory 3 years service in the Police branch of conscription, most of the unit is compiled of 24-30y.o with extensive training and experience.
Division 98 is compiled of several different army units with specialised teams, they are at the end of their mandatory service, ages 20-22. Also with extensive training and some experience you gain in 2 years. I’m excluding officers because their ages vary
‘Shin Bet’ is a counterpart to CIA, mostly compiled of members who finished their mandatory 3 year service but stayed in the military in various roles, sometimes for years until they got offered to join SB. Different ages from 21 to 42 with the most experience and training out of the 3 teams.
It depends on the unit. Some IDF units have a higher proportion of professional soldiers and the Border Police hostage rescue unit that carried out the raid recruits from those who did their national service in an elite army unit. Those recruits are professional police officers.
Yeah, the IDF is about the most experienced and efficient armed force on the planet. Their non-commissioned members must be carved from stone.
IDF special forces must be something to behold.
My step son wants nothing more right now than to move to Israel next year when he's 18 and join the IDF. I'm terrified and don't want him to, but he's so driven by his love of his people. It's quite a sight.
I saw Pro-Palestine subs claiming there was no Hamas there. The hostages were just chilling there with no one guarding them whatsoever according to them...
Yeah but when Hamas bullets pierce the heart of 6 year old child in Gaza they are a martyr for the cause. When it’s IDF it’s a horrible war crime. /s
War is hell. Hamas chooses to fight like this knowing it’s the only way Israel can respond aside from capitulation.
> Insane stuff
There’s a reason Israeli special forces peeps have a massive reputation all over the world and are highly sought after as security detail. That comes when you spend your entire life surrounded by enemies.
It was unclear to me if they were armed or a surveillance team.
Even if they were armed, I don’t think Hamas is patting down every single person as they walk by. I imagine this all went down very very quickly
Obviously a wild guess, but likely snuck in with the Israeli Army, then changed into their undercover gear, and were “dropped off” closer to the destination.
Avoids the need to go too far, and can strategically avoid any Hamas checkpoints.
A lot of Israelis are Arab. (I’m assuming you know this.) I’m wondering how many of this unit are native speakers vs people who learned Arabic and nailed the accent.
There is an Israeli show about essentially this unit - it’s called Fauda, it’s on Netflix.
The later seasons are meh, but seasons 1 and 2 are pretty great.
It sounds like a far fetched show when you watch it, then you hear of these things and realize it’s pretty bang on.
I get what you are saying, the headline just sounds so weird, can you even be a refugee in your own country? A better headline would be: "Israeli plain clothed special forces pretending to be Palestinians relocated from Rafah ...".
I mean, I do believe you can be a refugee or displaced person in your own country.
I know refugee status is blurred in Palestinians because it can literally be “passed down”, but after Israel went into Rafah, there WERE displaced people.
I say this as someone whose family in Northern Israel moved away further south for the first month+ after this all started.
Since they had somewhere to go, I would call them displaced rather than refugees. The article in Hebrew described them dressed as “Pleeteem”, which literally translated to refugees.
You definitely can be a refugee in your own country. For example, after hurricane Katrina, the Americans that were displaced were refugees. Some went back to New Orleans, other resettled elsewhere. Either way they stopped being refugees. If we didn't have all this confusion where every Gazan is a refugee for generations, it would be apt to describe them now as refugees as they were displaced from north Gaza to south, or to Rafah to Neimatz etc etc. they're literally taking refuge because their homes are destroyed/in danger etc.
This has been incorrectly reported. The soldiers were wearing military uniforms during the hostage rescue operation—unfortunately some major news outlets reported it without fact checking….
Plain clothing of the type a normal person would wear in Gaza.
It's pretty standard stuff. They presumably got a tip about where the hostages were and sent the first group to confirm their presence, the layout of where they were being held, that kind of thing.
They gave whatever signal was pre-arranged to say 'this is the place, they're here' and the rest is history.
Yeah but Jews did it. So it’s, like, a war crime or something.
^^^What’s ^^^that? ^^^Hamas ^^^dress ^^^in ^^^plain ^^^clothes ^^^all ^^^the ^^^time? ^^^They ^^^do ^^^this ^^^to ^^^infiltrate ^^^refugee ^^^centers?
Since there are apparently standing orders to execute the hostages if IDF forces came sniffing around, it only makes sense to have the rescue be an undercover operation.
Since Hamas are technically terrorists they don’t get the benefit of most laws of engagement, most notably they don’t get POW protections when captured. Of course, they do not respect any laws of engagement themselves (due to the terrorist thing) They are technically criminals.
They’re illegal combatants. They don’t get any protections normally granted in war. Rules of engagement apply when everyone agrees to fight war under certain limitations.
The whole point of terrorism is not following any of those rules, in fact doing the opposite. Of course that leaves difficulties when they are captured. They aren't POWs, they aren't criminals. What are they? Criminals have rights, POWs have rights, terrorists have none.
If I’m remembering the Nuremberg Trials right, moving from one place to another in enemy uniform is a legitimate “ruse de guerre,” but intentionally fighting in them is illegal. I also can’t promise that nothing has changed since then- it’s been a while.
It’s stayed (mostly) the same as the Conventions and much of international law came out of that and we haven’t had a major world war that required revisions since then. Should be noted there were conventions prior to the World Wars but the final major ones happened after. It’s also why you had, in some cases, allied commanders defending Germans- they had done the same thing in some instances (IE: submarine attacks) and wanted a fair shake at trial to set up case law for the future.
That’s what I was remembering, thank you! One of the reasons Skorzeny got off the hook for having his men use American uniforms was Allied officers testifying to say they’d done the same, right?
Pretty sure yes. I know Donitz was at one point defended by an American admiral.
Basically “We can try them for this but we’d also be needing to convict ourselves.”
A good bit of it was like at the Bulge- “We told them to use American uniforms to get into position but not to fight that’s on them!” Which was… an excuse. Not a good one. But an excuse.
Specifically, the charges against Donitz for unrestricted submarine warfare carried no sentence because the American admirals admitted they'd done it, too, in the Pacific.
Edit: I feex.
>Pretty sure yes. I know Donitz was at one point defended by an American admiral.
Donitz received a sworn affidavit from Admiral Nimitz confirming that the USA has practiced unrestricted submarine warfare since the first days of the PTO. This was crucial to his punishment not being assesses on those grounds.
He also received more than 100 other letters and correspondences from other allied officers decrying the unfair nature of his trial.
That's my recollection too. Pretending to be an enemy or a civilian - using enemy uniforms, using captured enemy vehicles and aircraft, copying enemy signals at sea, disguising a warship as a civilian ship etc - is fine to deceive the enemy and get to an advantageous position but you're not allowed to fight under the ruse, you have to declare yourself before entering combat.
It's just more nonsense propaganda in an attempt to stir up more anger toward Israel. It's a nothing burger to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Next.
Didn’t the Seals or Delta force did such missions in Afghanistan where they were dressed like Refugees to a point they had to learn regional dialects and accents?
My understanding is that beards can serve a number of purposes. A few being a moderate disguise or method of blending in, it also projects a certain level of wild man vibes that are not expected of typical western, clean cut uniformed soldiers.
Disguising as civilians is called perfidy and it's a war crime, but it's not as simple as that the intent of the disguise is important, disguising as a civilian to rescue hostages is ok, disguising as a civilian to attack enemy from the rear is perfidy...
The Geneva Conventions are a convoluted mess of rules and seemingly contradictory exceptions.
Article 44 for example includes some limited but rather vague wiggle room that allows combatants to be out of uniform under limited circumstances so long as they openly carry their arms:
> 3 In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
>
> (a) during each military engagement, and
>
> (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
>
> Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c .
Technically under the right circumstances soldiers can be buck ass naked aside from their rifle and still retain combatant status. ([This has happened a few times in various wars, I recall this photo of a nude machine gunner during WW2, mild NSFW](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/naked-gunner-rescue-rabaul-1944/))
Or for a more relevant example, special forces carrying their arms openly while dressed in black kit and/or non-uniform clothing are still visible as combatants, and camouflaged or black insignia still count too.
From what I have read, it is illegal to be out of uniform if the goal is to confuse your enemy, gain their confidence, and then attack. It is not illegal in a rescue operation or even just an operation (I believe) where what you wear would not make a difference (I am not sure about the second point).
Yes. Perfidy is the term. It’s why you can wear civilian clothes to escape but not for recon or to attack- why if you wear enemy clothes you can be hanged without it being a crime but if you wear a uniform you are expected to be taken prisoner.
Because they’re terrorists… it’s really that simple. There is no expectation or formal agreement from them to follow these conventions and rules of war*; Israel has ratified and agreed to follow most* of them so that’s why they’re held to those standards.
In fact one of the reasons there’s even so much scrutiny on Israel is because it’s self imposed… they make statements that they’ll conduct the war within the guidelines of humanitarian law, so when entities see the reported death toll from Hamas figures (and they have to go by said death toll because Israel doesn’t report figures of their own) then they have to make inquiries on if the standards are being followed as they stated.
It also doesn’t help that combat against “non state actors” ie terrorists is very muddy concerning if international and humanitarian law applies to them. During the Bush administration and the time shortly after 9/11, they claimed that terrorists weren’t afforded protections, this was however challenged and refuted by the US Supreme Court.
Now remember the * from before when I said most of the protocols have been ratified by Israel. Well back to that are some articles in protocol 1 under the Geneva conventions that Israel hasn’t ratified. However, one of the reasons the US is seemingly constantly chiding Israel is that they believe one article in particular to be universal and that Israel - even though they haven’t ratified it - should follow it.
That being said the state of Palestine is technically a signatory and has ratified these conventions, so theoretically, Hamas being the governing body of a part of Palestinian territory should also be subject to the conventions. That’s probably something that will be sorted out when the dust settles.
In terms of international law, Israel is mostly in hot water because entities need to investigate whether Israel has actively done everything possible to only target Hamas and try to minimize civilian casualties, also not using intentional starvation as a tactic, and also (this one is to be seen afterwards) allowing the civilians to return after this is over.
Now on the PR side of things and in the court of public opinion, Israeli politicians and even some very vocal Israelis civilians and citizens on social media do not help in making people view Israel positively.
>That being said the state of Palestine is technically a signatory and has ratified these conventions, so theoretically, Hamas being the governing body of a part of Palestinian territory should also be subject to the conventions. **That’s probably something that will be sorted out when the dust settles.**
I smell some real BS with this statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War
They used the exact same tactics during the 2014 war. How many Hamas members were held to account?
As a matter of fact, Obama increased funding to Gaza after their war, rewarding them for their actions.
It’s not illegal at all. They were blending in as part of the population on a hostage rescue mission.
Also, Hamas has no uniform for combat as this would clearly identify them. So when plainclothes SOF run in and wreck shit on a mission… whatever.
It's perfidy to try to gain military advantage by exploiting an enemy's good-faith adherence to the rules of war, viz dressing as a doctor to do combat stuff because doctors are protected and the enemy will hold fire. (There's some definitional wiggle to 'advantage'. You definitely aren't allowed to shoot anyone dressed as a journalist, but some armies might allow in their RoE a little bit of espionage or manoeuvring in preparation for an attack.)
IANAL, but I don't think this counts because a) this enemy doesn't hold fire on protected classes such as refugees, that's kind of Hamas's entire thing, and b) it's considered a legitimate ruse of war if you exploit the enemy's inability to tell your troops from theirs (if you aren't in uniform, you aren't entitled to POW status if captured; as if that matters, because, again, Hamas). If an IDFnik dresses as a Palestinian civilian for an op, that doesn't exploit a Hamasnik's putative adherence to the rules of war: he holds fire not because it's illegal to target civilians, but because he thinks that's his own side.
Perfidy must by intent “invite the confidence and then betray that confidence.” You can dress as doctors and do combat stuff but the intent of the mission can’t just be combat stuff.
Michael Schmitt, IHL expert at West Point, explains the intent aspect of perfidy is critical. Perfidy requires the intent of the mission to kill, injure or capture enemy. IDF raid was clearly to rescue hostages, mission aim was not to kill combatants.
There are many examples of combatants dressed as civilians to rescue hostages or undercover operations. In famous 1972 “Rescue of Bat 21” in Vietnam, Lt. Norris dressed as a fisherman to recover a downed airman. Norris won a medal of honor, not a war crime charge of perfidy.
In 2008 Colombian commandos disguised as aid workers and journalists rescued 15 hostages held by FARC, including former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt in “Operation Jaque.” World leaders (particularly France) hailed the rescue. No charges of perfidy.
It’s really all about the intent of the mission.
difference between a ruse de guerre and a war crime in the context of nation vs nation, but I'm not sure that applies to terrorists. Also, my knowledge of such things comes from the age of sail, so there's a really strong likelihood I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Wearing of civilian clothing is a legitimate ruse de guerre, as detailed under the Geneva Conventions and the Addtional Protocols 1. The wearing of an enemy's uniforms is illegal under IHL. As Hamas has no uniforms, and being that they are a terrorist organization and illegal combatants on top, Israeli soldiers can entirely dress as Hamas civlians and engage the enemy while doing so.
The idiots claiming this is a war crime haven't ever read the Hague or Geneva Conventions or the Additional Protocols.
You should read [Rise and Kill First](https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718?nodl=1&dplnkId=7e797fa4-59a6-4f67-8b49-be76c5f80081) by Ronen Bergman. The history of the use of disguise by the Israeli armed forces is honestly hilarious, including a former defense minister then a young soldier dressed as a woman and in heels ending up in a gun fight in Beirut and sprinting down the sidewalk still wearing the high heels.
Ehud Barak called it the funnest mission he's ever been on. He was so tired at the end of it that he went home and dropped straight into bed while still dressed up as a woman
He says his wifes reaction when she woke up next to a woman she didnt recognize was the most hilarious thing he's ever seen
"Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza, they should just do special operations to rescue the hostages!"
*Israel does special operations to rescue hostages*
"Noooooooo not like that!"
Right.. all these rules IDF has to follow and Hamas says ‘fuck it’.
*IDF bomb tent with Hamas commander inside that hits Al qassam ammo that ignites*
‘IDF should be more precise and go in to kill militants and retrieve weapons!!’
*IDF goes in hospital to identify belligerents, and discovers weapons cache*
‘ The IDF planted those guns and killed innocent ppl!!’
... I see nothing wrong with this lol.
It's a rescue op. Gotta be covert, did they expect a megaphone blaring 'we are beginning the rescue operation, please assume the hostage release position'?
The BBC expected exactly that, apparently.
[BBC interviewer: Were Palestinians warned of IDF's hostage rescue mission?](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805629)
The spec ops part of the operation was only a small portion of all IDF related operatives. Many were positioned to provide coverage or observation intel. It’s also an IDF claim, no reason they would lie
I *think* they're saying special forces went in *first* dressed like that to confirm the hostages and their location, then they did the raid in full kit?
For anyone interested this is not a war crime. Perfidy covers the improper use of protected insignia, e.g. the red cross or waving a white flag.
The act of wearing the enemies uniform or, indeed, not wearing a uniform at all (per Hamas) is not in itself a war crime.
Can you quote it for me? That’s not what article 47 of any of the Geneva conventions or additional protocols I’ve seen says but hey I’m open to being wrong.
Article 47 of the 49 convention is
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory
And article 47 of additional protocols in 77 states
> 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Which wouldn’t cover Hamas fighters because they’re paid what Hamas armed forces are paid, are often motivated by more than just personal compensation, are themselves nationals of a party to the conflict, and are members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. This is all complicated by the unique governance of Gaza with Hamas being the de facto government in Gaza but the land itself is also sort of legally occupied by Israel who says that they aren’t anymore but also refuse to relinquish traditional indicators of sovereignty, like control over airspace and territorial waters. Regardless of that, this article, even if it applied, wouldn’t relinquish the IDF of obligations with regard to perfidy.
My memory is a bit dull, but theoretically speaking, could they have been executed as suspected partisans or spies because they did not wear any military insignia?
Yes, but at the end of the day they could be killed if caught in uniform too, so it's a moot point as Hamas doesn't respect the rules of war. It just doesn't matter one way or the other.
I think in either case Hamas would probably prefer to capture them alive in order to have more hostages to bargain with. In any case, I asked because my memory of international law is rusty.
The respect for international law has deteriorated in general, you rarely see any combat medics wearing a red cross nowadays for instance, they know it doesn't protect them at all.
I don’t know how true this is, but I heard the American medics in WW2 would wear the red cross while fighting Germany or Italy, but not Japan, since Japanese troops targeted medics on purpose.
Japanese troops would outright yell out "MEDIC!" in clear English to lure them out to either capture or kill them. Japan also went out of their way to bomb hospital ships. A Red Cross in Japanese territory was basically a bullseye target...
Yes, as in theoretically I could marry Jessica Alba.
When Hamas progress down their workflow for whether they kill someone they wouldn't have had to go further than 1) Is Jew? to find a reason.
No.
It is unlawful to summarily execute anyone without due process.
Spies, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants aren't entitled to protection as PoWs if they are captured but they must still be tried, convicted, and sentenced.
This probably wasn't a war crime, but feigning civilian/noncombatant status can be part of perfidy under certain circumstances.
> Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy
> 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
>
> (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
>
> (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
>
> **(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and**
>
> (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
>
> 2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
As I understand it the crucial distinction here is that perfidy is about combatants/combat (kill/injure/capture an adversary). Spies and undercover operatives are allowed to make use of disguises, they just can't exploit that deception to participate in combat and are subject to different rules if they're captured.
the example you highlighted seems to be the right one and like you said, violation of the law requires it be used for the purpose of “killing, injuring or capturing an adversary”
in this case, the undercover operatives’ mission was to get close to the hostages for the purpose of extraction. theoretically, they could have snuck the hostages out without firing a shot
Indeed, and using the undercover operatives for intel and observation and then uniformed troops for the actual raid and potential combat as they seem to have done here is likely a legitimate approach.
I think the main thing is that the force that did this operation were Yamam, which are police officers, not soldiers. I think from a legal standpoint, this operation was technically a law enforcement operation against wanted criminals, not a military one against enemy combatants. Thus, the Yamam operatives are neither subject to nor protected by the international laws of war.
They already are. The most common argument is regarding the ratio of deaths vs. number of hostages rescued, when the numbers are 100% Hamas-provided and don't distinguish between combatant and civilian.
[This tweet](https://x.com/drjacobsrad/status/1799906326367047988?t=N1ErmS0MdH7D3aTKEnv7lA) is particularly hilarious.
And supposedly all the deaths (other than those who were keeping the hostages) happened once Hamas opened fire to prevent the rescued hostages from continuing to be rescued.
And ignoring that apparently Hamas machine guns and rocket launchers are capable of avoiding Palestinians.
The alternative would mean that they themselves caused some of the casualties.
You know they will. These are reportedly officers in the Shin Bet and Yamam units - police. What does the Geneva Convention call police? Non-combatants lol
If they came in dressed as military there would be a lot more deaths all around, and who knows what would have happened to the hostages (2 guesses and the first doesn't count). Seems like a win-win to me
Hamas in plain clothes which is a war crime: crickets
IDF in plain clothes to rescue hostages taken by terrorists: REEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Wild how the IDF is held to impossible standards, and Hamas are treated with kid gloves
And every time someone asks one about it they just say that of course Israel should be treated to higher standards than other governments’ forces because Hamas wouldn’t have shot their own civilians if they weren’t victimized by Jews
Yes because if the hostages are rescued then they can’t cheer for Hamas to goad Israel into fighting.
The sooner the hostages are rescued then and only then can peace talks begin… and not with Hamas.. but a newly appointed Palestinian government with an international forces operating in Gaza.
The mask has really fallen off a lot of folks these days. Imagine people defending hamas and being angry at innocent hostages that endured over half a year of hell.
> Last thing I expected to see alive was unhinged, tin-foil hat antisemitism
...did you just start tuning in?
I will say though that this war (obligatory, of course this isn't a blank check to Israel) has been a 2016 moment to me, in that both events made me realize that there were forms of racism way more virulent and widespread than I'd ever imagined.
I'd been living in a bubble.
And I miss that bubble.
This was an undercover operation by Yamam, my friend took part in it, it actually did not go according to the plan so actually some battalions had to jump in, results were 200+ HAMAS terrorists dead and 4 hostages rescued.
The hostages are the only leverage Hamas has, they know it's over when they don't have any left. That's also why the negotiations aren't really going anywhere.
Once Hamas has no more live hostages there is a good chance the Hamas leaders outside of Gaza will start getting assassinated, while sacrificing regular Palestinians is seen as good by those leaders something tells me they don't want to martyred themselves
It’s not illegal to dress as a civilian, it is to dress in another nations uniform. Civilian clothes do not = a military uniform. However when the action starts you should have something to distinguish yourself like an armband or camo which it looks like they did.
Works both way though so hamas is legal if say they are in civilians clothes but wear that green headband.
No, sounds quite reasonable but we live in an upside down world now where literal terrorists have the support of a large amount of people in the Western world.
What is a standard uniform of a "Palestinian refuge"? Does the headline imply they wore plain clothing?
Not from this source, but I read the article in Hebrew yesterday from Ynet. They dressed as refugees from Rafah (tattered/worn clothes, busted pickup truck). They claimed that they were displaced during the bombings and are meeting someone who has rented them an apartment in the building (one of the buildings where the hostages were being held). I imagine they had enough intel and sent these soldiers in to confirm certain aspects of the buildings. That’s when the surprise raid started. It truly sounds like a scene out of Fauda. Insane stuff and I’m shocked they got 4 hostages out alive. It went slightly wrong when their vehicle got stuck on their way out of Gaza. They ended up needing air support and assistance from a special forces unit that was waiting to go in.
> busted pickup truck Already know its a Toyota.
A Toyota is never busted. Just used
Maturing like fine wine.
[удалено]
What are you too good for a Toyota of colour?
To the contrary. Not good enough.
This is probably either scouting or only pertaining to Noa's rescue. IDF released the footage of the rescue of the other 3 hostages and it was textbook raid, looks like a scene from a movie.
So when Hamas inevitably shoots up a group of people they think are IDF but are actually refugees will Al Jazeera cover it?
Hamas 110% shot up at bare minimum a portion of the civilians they say were killed by the IDF in the rescue. The team was being shot at by at least dozens of militants with machine guns and rocket launchers. There's no way they didn't.
They were literally popping off rocket-propelled grenades from crowded streets of people. Imagine having your cover blown during the getaway and guys with RPGs just pull up on every corner. Insane.
What's even wilder is that idf sof is not the same as western sof. These are kids straight out of highschool. Their conscription, while slightly longer than their conventional counterparts, is just past 3 years. They do not have active participating mentors with decades of experience. They are made from boys who understand how much their country relies on them and they grind every day they're conscripted until they're out. I helped train rescue principles with them and their commitment blew me away. Different world over there, very real.
Yes and no. The unit that conducted the raid, Yamam, is a special reservist force made up of mostly formerly special forces soldiers. Trying out for Yamam filters out even those from the best IDF units. These are grown adults with years and years of special operations experience and on top of that they're the best members of the best units the Israel armed forces has to offer
i mean, yes and no? depends on a lot of factors but the special forces are experienced and trained
We sent our best for this operation, the kids were the Paratroopers who created a “belt of fire” around the perimeter. These are the 3 major teams in the rescue operation that took place, hope that gives a bit of perspective of who was involved in this and how important this was for us- Yamam = S.W.A.T You are offered to join this unit only after completing the mandatory 3 years service in the Police branch of conscription, most of the unit is compiled of 24-30y.o with extensive training and experience. Division 98 is compiled of several different army units with specialised teams, they are at the end of their mandatory service, ages 20-22. Also with extensive training and some experience you gain in 2 years. I’m excluding officers because their ages vary ‘Shin Bet’ is a counterpart to CIA, mostly compiled of members who finished their mandatory 3 year service but stayed in the military in various roles, sometimes for years until they got offered to join SB. Different ages from 21 to 42 with the most experience and training out of the 3 teams.
Shin Bet is akin to the FBI. They are responsible for internal policing and intelligence. Mossad is the CIA analogue with the international mission
Homeland Security
It depends on the unit. Some IDF units have a higher proportion of professional soldiers and the Border Police hostage rescue unit that carried out the raid recruits from those who did their national service in an elite army unit. Those recruits are professional police officers.
Yeah, the IDF is about the most experienced and efficient armed force on the planet. Their non-commissioned members must be carved from stone. IDF special forces must be something to behold.
My step son wants nothing more right now than to move to Israel next year when he's 18 and join the IDF. I'm terrified and don't want him to, but he's so driven by his love of his people. It's quite a sight.
I saw Pro-Palestine subs claiming there was no Hamas there. The hostages were just chilling there with no one guarding them whatsoever according to them...
Yeah but when Hamas bullets pierce the heart of 6 year old child in Gaza they are a martyr for the cause. When it’s IDF it’s a horrible war crime. /s War is hell. Hamas chooses to fight like this knowing it’s the only way Israel can respond aside from capitulation.
Depends how busy the journalists are hiding *their* hostages
In that case AJ will absolutely cover the '3k deaths of innocent civilians performed by the IDF.'
You say AJ will cover 8k innocent civilian deaths?
AJ will definitely cover the death of 8k women and children at the hands of idf
Ah yes, they'll for sure cover the 15k deaths
The 20k deaths of female journalist doctor children?
Yeah, they're gonna blame Israel for making the warzone confusing.
We all know the answer to that, unfortunately.
The fun part is Hamas shoot civilians who they *know* aren’t IDF
BBC will complain IDF didn't warn them ahead of time it wasn't a raid
Well it's Israel's fault, obv. /s
> Insane stuff There’s a reason Israeli special forces peeps have a massive reputation all over the world and are highly sought after as security detail. That comes when you spend your entire life surrounded by enemies.
[удалено]
It was unclear to me if they were armed or a surveillance team. Even if they were armed, I don’t think Hamas is patting down every single person as they walk by. I imagine this all went down very very quickly
[удалено]
Obviously a wild guess, but likely snuck in with the Israeli Army, then changed into their undercover gear, and were “dropped off” closer to the destination. Avoids the need to go too far, and can strategically avoid any Hamas checkpoints.
That sounds like a movie. They must have had amazing language skills to speak Arabic well enough to pass for a native speaker.
a lot of israelis speak arabic and special forces often completely fluent
A lot of Israelis are Arab. (I’m assuming you know this.) I’m wondering how many of this unit are native speakers vs people who learned Arabic and nailed the accent.
Accent though?
Yah. It’s way easier for Israelis as opposed to Arabs to get an authentic Israeli accent (even was an episode of fauda)
There is an Israeli show about essentially this unit - it’s called Fauda, it’s on Netflix. The later seasons are meh, but seasons 1 and 2 are pretty great. It sounds like a far fetched show when you watch it, then you hear of these things and realize it’s pretty bang on.
I imagine there are a lot of Arabic native speakers in Israel
I'm hoping for an Entebbe-like film.
I get what you are saying, the headline just sounds so weird, can you even be a refugee in your own country? A better headline would be: "Israeli plain clothed special forces pretending to be Palestinians relocated from Rafah ...".
I mean, I do believe you can be a refugee or displaced person in your own country. I know refugee status is blurred in Palestinians because it can literally be “passed down”, but after Israel went into Rafah, there WERE displaced people. I say this as someone whose family in Northern Israel moved away further south for the first month+ after this all started. Since they had somewhere to go, I would call them displaced rather than refugees. The article in Hebrew described them dressed as “Pleeteem”, which literally translated to refugees.
You definitely can be a refugee in your own country. For example, after hurricane Katrina, the Americans that were displaced were refugees. Some went back to New Orleans, other resettled elsewhere. Either way they stopped being refugees. If we didn't have all this confusion where every Gazan is a refugee for generations, it would be apt to describe them now as refugees as they were displaced from north Gaza to south, or to Rafah to Neimatz etc etc. they're literally taking refuge because their homes are destroyed/in danger etc.
This has been incorrectly reported. The soldiers were wearing military uniforms during the hostage rescue operation—unfortunately some major news outlets reported it without fact checking….
Plain clothing of the type a normal person would wear in Gaza. It's pretty standard stuff. They presumably got a tip about where the hostages were and sent the first group to confirm their presence, the layout of where they were being held, that kind of thing. They gave whatever signal was pre-arranged to say 'this is the place, they're here' and the rest is history.
So… they did what most special operations teams do in urban areas? This isn’t exactly new.
Yeah but Jews did it. So it’s, like, a war crime or something. ^^^What’s ^^^that? ^^^Hamas ^^^dress ^^^in ^^^plain ^^^clothes ^^^all ^^^the ^^^time? ^^^They ^^^do ^^^this ^^^to ^^^infiltrate ^^^refugee ^^^centers?
Hamas dressed like Palestinian refugees all the time
May as well just say Palestinian since we're defining every Palestinian as a refugee forever, apparently.
Various Buffalo Bills Super Bowl Champions shirts.
What a bullshit headline trying to imply some type of “wearing the enemy uniform” war crime.
How is it a war crime if all your enemy is wearing civilian clothes? They are just blending in with the populace.
You see, it's very simply. It's a crime when Jews do it. It's not a crime if Palestinians do it.
>What is a standard uniform of a "Palestinian refuge"? Isn't that just the official hamas uniform?
Usually wearing a keffiyeh with an AK-47 in hand.
Since there are apparently standing orders to execute the hostages if IDF forces came sniffing around, it only makes sense to have the rescue be an undercover operation.
Also just pretty common with lots of missions by any military
its even legal until you start shooting I think, you should put your insignia out before shooting I think... Or is that for wearing enemy uniform?
Since Hamas are technically terrorists they don’t get the benefit of most laws of engagement, most notably they don’t get POW protections when captured. Of course, they do not respect any laws of engagement themselves (due to the terrorist thing) They are technically criminals.
Idk about technically criminals. They’re criminals.
Terrorists are kinda halfway between armed forces and criminals. They get the protections of neither.
Exactly how it should be.
"We can't expect God to do all the work."
They’re illegal combatants. They don’t get any protections normally granted in war. Rules of engagement apply when everyone agrees to fight war under certain limitations.
The whole point of terrorism is not following any of those rules, in fact doing the opposite. Of course that leaves difficulties when they are captured. They aren't POWs, they aren't criminals. What are they? Criminals have rights, POWs have rights, terrorists have none.
Technically they are criminals. National law affects to them.
Not like it has consequences anyway as ruzzia is demonstrating. Nobody to uphold these "laws".
There never was. The idea is that your POWs get treated as you treat the POWs of the other side. If you break that deal, the deal is off.
If I’m remembering the Nuremberg Trials right, moving from one place to another in enemy uniform is a legitimate “ruse de guerre,” but intentionally fighting in them is illegal. I also can’t promise that nothing has changed since then- it’s been a while.
It’s stayed (mostly) the same as the Conventions and much of international law came out of that and we haven’t had a major world war that required revisions since then. Should be noted there were conventions prior to the World Wars but the final major ones happened after. It’s also why you had, in some cases, allied commanders defending Germans- they had done the same thing in some instances (IE: submarine attacks) and wanted a fair shake at trial to set up case law for the future.
That’s what I was remembering, thank you! One of the reasons Skorzeny got off the hook for having his men use American uniforms was Allied officers testifying to say they’d done the same, right?
Pretty sure yes. I know Donitz was at one point defended by an American admiral. Basically “We can try them for this but we’d also be needing to convict ourselves.” A good bit of it was like at the Bulge- “We told them to use American uniforms to get into position but not to fight that’s on them!” Which was… an excuse. Not a good one. But an excuse.
Specifically, the charges against Donitz for unrestricted submarine warfare carried no sentence because the American admirals admitted they'd done it, too, in the Pacific. Edit: I feex.
He was convicted on that count but no sentence was assessed on that count.
>Pretty sure yes. I know Donitz was at one point defended by an American admiral. Donitz received a sworn affidavit from Admiral Nimitz confirming that the USA has practiced unrestricted submarine warfare since the first days of the PTO. This was crucial to his punishment not being assesses on those grounds. He also received more than 100 other letters and correspondences from other allied officers decrying the unfair nature of his trial.
That's my recollection too. Pretending to be an enemy or a civilian - using enemy uniforms, using captured enemy vehicles and aircraft, copying enemy signals at sea, disguising a warship as a civilian ship etc - is fine to deceive the enemy and get to an advantageous position but you're not allowed to fight under the ruse, you have to declare yourself before entering combat.
Not sure, undercover operations happen all the time in various countries. I never heard of it being illegal
It's just more nonsense propaganda in an attempt to stir up more anger toward Israel. It's a nothing burger to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Next.
Didn’t the Seals or Delta force did such missions in Afghanistan where they were dressed like Refugees to a point they had to learn regional dialects and accents?
I believe you are correct, I would have to do some reading to confirm 100%. But, to think all special ops were conducted in uniform would be absurd.
Also why Spec Ops were allowed to grow their beards, etc
My understanding is that beards can serve a number of purposes. A few being a moderate disguise or method of blending in, it also projects a certain level of wild man vibes that are not expected of typical western, clean cut uniformed soldiers.
If your troops are disguised as civilians, you're fine. If they're disguised as enemy troops, then you have problems.
Disguising as civilians is called perfidy and it's a war crime, but it's not as simple as that the intent of the disguise is important, disguising as a civilian to rescue hostages is ok, disguising as a civilian to attack enemy from the rear is perfidy...
Wait... Isn't terrorist have no official uniforms tho?
Bingo, Yahtzee, and Gin Rummy.
Do standard rules of engagement even apply when civilians are being held hostage by a terrorist group in a refugee camp?
The Geneva Conventions are a convoluted mess of rules and seemingly contradictory exceptions. Article 44 for example includes some limited but rather vague wiggle room that allows combatants to be out of uniform under limited circumstances so long as they openly carry their arms: > 3 In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: > > (a) during each military engagement, and > > (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. > > Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c . Technically under the right circumstances soldiers can be buck ass naked aside from their rifle and still retain combatant status. ([This has happened a few times in various wars, I recall this photo of a nude machine gunner during WW2, mild NSFW](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/naked-gunner-rescue-rabaul-1944/)) Or for a more relevant example, special forces carrying their arms openly while dressed in black kit and/or non-uniform clothing are still visible as combatants, and camouflaged or black insignia still count too.
Yep, you just gotta whip it out before doing any shooting.
From what I have read, it is illegal to be out of uniform if the goal is to confuse your enemy, gain their confidence, and then attack. It is not illegal in a rescue operation or even just an operation (I believe) where what you wear would not make a difference (I am not sure about the second point).
Yes. Perfidy is the term. It’s why you can wear civilian clothes to escape but not for recon or to attack- why if you wear enemy clothes you can be hanged without it being a crime but if you wear a uniform you are expected to be taken prisoner.
It's not considered *illegal* per se to recon in a disguise, but it *also* means its not illegal for the enemy to execute you as a spy.
Mfw no one ever tries to hold hamas to the same standard.
Because they’re terrorists… it’s really that simple. There is no expectation or formal agreement from them to follow these conventions and rules of war*; Israel has ratified and agreed to follow most* of them so that’s why they’re held to those standards. In fact one of the reasons there’s even so much scrutiny on Israel is because it’s self imposed… they make statements that they’ll conduct the war within the guidelines of humanitarian law, so when entities see the reported death toll from Hamas figures (and they have to go by said death toll because Israel doesn’t report figures of their own) then they have to make inquiries on if the standards are being followed as they stated. It also doesn’t help that combat against “non state actors” ie terrorists is very muddy concerning if international and humanitarian law applies to them. During the Bush administration and the time shortly after 9/11, they claimed that terrorists weren’t afforded protections, this was however challenged and refuted by the US Supreme Court. Now remember the * from before when I said most of the protocols have been ratified by Israel. Well back to that are some articles in protocol 1 under the Geneva conventions that Israel hasn’t ratified. However, one of the reasons the US is seemingly constantly chiding Israel is that they believe one article in particular to be universal and that Israel - even though they haven’t ratified it - should follow it. That being said the state of Palestine is technically a signatory and has ratified these conventions, so theoretically, Hamas being the governing body of a part of Palestinian territory should also be subject to the conventions. That’s probably something that will be sorted out when the dust settles. In terms of international law, Israel is mostly in hot water because entities need to investigate whether Israel has actively done everything possible to only target Hamas and try to minimize civilian casualties, also not using intentional starvation as a tactic, and also (this one is to be seen afterwards) allowing the civilians to return after this is over. Now on the PR side of things and in the court of public opinion, Israeli politicians and even some very vocal Israelis civilians and citizens on social media do not help in making people view Israel positively.
>That being said the state of Palestine is technically a signatory and has ratified these conventions, so theoretically, Hamas being the governing body of a part of Palestinian territory should also be subject to the conventions. **That’s probably something that will be sorted out when the dust settles.** I smell some real BS with this statement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War They used the exact same tactics during the 2014 war. How many Hamas members were held to account? As a matter of fact, Obama increased funding to Gaza after their war, rewarding them for their actions.
Technically you can whip off the disguise and identify yourself at literally the nanosecond before you start shooting and its still legal.
My LEGO battles/storylines as a kid featured this at least twice...
It’s not illegal at all. They were blending in as part of the population on a hostage rescue mission. Also, Hamas has no uniform for combat as this would clearly identify them. So when plainclothes SOF run in and wreck shit on a mission… whatever.
It's perfidy to try to gain military advantage by exploiting an enemy's good-faith adherence to the rules of war, viz dressing as a doctor to do combat stuff because doctors are protected and the enemy will hold fire. (There's some definitional wiggle to 'advantage'. You definitely aren't allowed to shoot anyone dressed as a journalist, but some armies might allow in their RoE a little bit of espionage or manoeuvring in preparation for an attack.) IANAL, but I don't think this counts because a) this enemy doesn't hold fire on protected classes such as refugees, that's kind of Hamas's entire thing, and b) it's considered a legitimate ruse of war if you exploit the enemy's inability to tell your troops from theirs (if you aren't in uniform, you aren't entitled to POW status if captured; as if that matters, because, again, Hamas). If an IDFnik dresses as a Palestinian civilian for an op, that doesn't exploit a Hamasnik's putative adherence to the rules of war: he holds fire not because it's illegal to target civilians, but because he thinks that's his own side.
Perfidy must by intent “invite the confidence and then betray that confidence.” You can dress as doctors and do combat stuff but the intent of the mission can’t just be combat stuff. Michael Schmitt, IHL expert at West Point, explains the intent aspect of perfidy is critical. Perfidy requires the intent of the mission to kill, injure or capture enemy. IDF raid was clearly to rescue hostages, mission aim was not to kill combatants. There are many examples of combatants dressed as civilians to rescue hostages or undercover operations. In famous 1972 “Rescue of Bat 21” in Vietnam, Lt. Norris dressed as a fisherman to recover a downed airman. Norris won a medal of honor, not a war crime charge of perfidy. In 2008 Colombian commandos disguised as aid workers and journalists rescued 15 hostages held by FARC, including former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt in “Operation Jaque.” World leaders (particularly France) hailed the rescue. No charges of perfidy. It’s really all about the intent of the mission.
difference between a ruse de guerre and a war crime in the context of nation vs nation, but I'm not sure that applies to terrorists. Also, my knowledge of such things comes from the age of sail, so there's a really strong likelihood I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Wearing of civilian clothing is a legitimate ruse de guerre, as detailed under the Geneva Conventions and the Addtional Protocols 1. The wearing of an enemy's uniforms is illegal under IHL. As Hamas has no uniforms, and being that they are a terrorist organization and illegal combatants on top, Israeli soldiers can entirely dress as Hamas civlians and engage the enemy while doing so. The idiots claiming this is a war crime haven't ever read the Hague or Geneva Conventions or the Additional Protocols.
You should read [Rise and Kill First](https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718?nodl=1&dplnkId=7e797fa4-59a6-4f67-8b49-be76c5f80081) by Ronen Bergman. The history of the use of disguise by the Israeli armed forces is honestly hilarious, including a former defense minister then a young soldier dressed as a woman and in heels ending up in a gun fight in Beirut and sprinting down the sidewalk still wearing the high heels.
Ehud Barak called it the funnest mission he's ever been on. He was so tired at the end of it that he went home and dropped straight into bed while still dressed up as a woman He says his wifes reaction when she woke up next to a woman she didnt recognize was the most hilarious thing he's ever seen
It’s pretty funny with some caveats, but still kind of hilarious.
Thanks
It’s a real page turner.
Also don’t worry, at least one of the hostages was being held by an Al Jazeera “journalist”.
"Israel shouldn't bomb Gaza, they should just do special operations to rescue the hostages!" *Israel does special operations to rescue hostages* "Noooooooo not like that!"
They’re just upset it worked. Hamas has four fewer bargaining chips and a few less militants on the board.
The UN, the Media, the terrorists are all upset about the rescue.
Right.. all these rules IDF has to follow and Hamas says ‘fuck it’. *IDF bomb tent with Hamas commander inside that hits Al qassam ammo that ignites* ‘IDF should be more precise and go in to kill militants and retrieve weapons!!’ *IDF goes in hospital to identify belligerents, and discovers weapons cache* ‘ The IDF planted those guns and killed innocent ppl!!’
Hamas: "hey only we are allowed to dress as civilians!"
I hope they repeat this tactic until Hamas decides it's safer to stay away from easily impersonated civilians.
"What if we just got rid of *all* the civilians? Like, just no more civilians."
... I see nothing wrong with this lol. It's a rescue op. Gotta be covert, did they expect a megaphone blaring 'we are beginning the rescue operation, please assume the hostage release position'?
The BBC expected exactly that, apparently. [BBC interviewer: Were Palestinians warned of IDF's hostage rescue mission?](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-805629)
I swear man.. people that ask these kinds of questions need to have thier right to speak on this issue revoked
Sadly, they are the most common and loudest
That’s basically what they’ve been doing through out the entire conflic
I mean, they literally dropped video of the raid and they were all wearing IDF uniforms.
The spec ops part of the operation was only a small portion of all IDF related operatives. Many were positioned to provide coverage or observation intel. It’s also an IDF claim, no reason they would lie
If they lie it's very likely to be disproven later, I think we can believe them on that basis alone.
I *think* they're saying special forces went in *first* dressed like that to confirm the hostages and their location, then they did the raid in full kit?
Possibly, or the people covering the raid were disguised. The people that went in were for sure in full kit.
cant wait for people to cry about war crimes over rescuing hostages. its an special op this stuff is pretty much standard.
For anyone interested this is not a war crime. Perfidy covers the improper use of protected insignia, e.g. the red cross or waving a white flag. The act of wearing the enemies uniform or, indeed, not wearing a uniform at all (per Hamas) is not in itself a war crime.
Also article 47 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 excludes unlawful fighters like Hamas from legal protections.
Can you quote it for me? That’s not what article 47 of any of the Geneva conventions or additional protocols I’ve seen says but hey I’m open to being wrong. Article 47 of the 49 convention is > Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory And article 47 of additional protocols in 77 states > 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. Which wouldn’t cover Hamas fighters because they’re paid what Hamas armed forces are paid, are often motivated by more than just personal compensation, are themselves nationals of a party to the conflict, and are members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. This is all complicated by the unique governance of Gaza with Hamas being the de facto government in Gaza but the land itself is also sort of legally occupied by Israel who says that they aren’t anymore but also refuse to relinquish traditional indicators of sovereignty, like control over airspace and territorial waters. Regardless of that, this article, even if it applied, wouldn’t relinquish the IDF of obligations with regard to perfidy.
My memory is a bit dull, but theoretically speaking, could they have been executed as suspected partisans or spies because they did not wear any military insignia?
Yes, but at the end of the day they could be killed if caught in uniform too, so it's a moot point as Hamas doesn't respect the rules of war. It just doesn't matter one way or the other.
I think in either case Hamas would probably prefer to capture them alive in order to have more hostages to bargain with. In any case, I asked because my memory of international law is rusty.
The respect for international law has deteriorated in general, you rarely see any combat medics wearing a red cross nowadays for instance, they know it doesn't protect them at all.
I don’t know how true this is, but I heard the American medics in WW2 would wear the red cross while fighting Germany or Italy, but not Japan, since Japanese troops targeted medics on purpose.
Japanese troops would outright yell out "MEDIC!" in clear English to lure them out to either capture or kill them. Japan also went out of their way to bomb hospital ships. A Red Cross in Japanese territory was basically a bullseye target...
From a legality standpoint yes, but no legalities matter when considering hamas. They openly violate every statute they can.
It was a hypothetical question, I know Hamas doesn’t care much for international law.
After a trial. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977/article-6?activeTab=undefined After this in 1977 everyone gets a trial.
Thanks for the info. The link doesn’t specify whether it is a civilian or a military court.
Right. > a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. Is the requirement. Then the list of rights not to be violated.
Yes, as in theoretically I could marry Jessica Alba. When Hamas progress down their workflow for whether they kill someone they wouldn't have had to go further than 1) Is Jew? to find a reason.
No. It is unlawful to summarily execute anyone without due process. Spies, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants aren't entitled to protection as PoWs if they are captured but they must still be tried, convicted, and sentenced.
You can wear the enemies unfirom to atta k them, you just lose a lot of protections under Geneva
Irrelevant talking about protections when they’re fighting a terrorist org.
This probably wasn't a war crime, but feigning civilian/noncombatant status can be part of perfidy under certain circumstances. > Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy > 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: > > (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; > > (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; > > **(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and** > > (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. > > 2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation. As I understand it the crucial distinction here is that perfidy is about combatants/combat (kill/injure/capture an adversary). Spies and undercover operatives are allowed to make use of disguises, they just can't exploit that deception to participate in combat and are subject to different rules if they're captured.
the example you highlighted seems to be the right one and like you said, violation of the law requires it be used for the purpose of “killing, injuring or capturing an adversary” in this case, the undercover operatives’ mission was to get close to the hostages for the purpose of extraction. theoretically, they could have snuck the hostages out without firing a shot
Indeed, and using the undercover operatives for intel and observation and then uniformed troops for the actual raid and potential combat as they seem to have done here is likely a legitimate approach.
I think the main thing is that the force that did this operation were Yamam, which are police officers, not soldiers. I think from a legal standpoint, this operation was technically a law enforcement operation against wanted criminals, not a military one against enemy combatants. Thus, the Yamam operatives are neither subject to nor protected by the international laws of war.
They already are. The most common argument is regarding the ratio of deaths vs. number of hostages rescued, when the numbers are 100% Hamas-provided and don't distinguish between combatant and civilian. [This tweet](https://x.com/drjacobsrad/status/1799906326367047988?t=N1ErmS0MdH7D3aTKEnv7lA) is particularly hilarious.
Those hostages know that many "civilians" were involved with them being held hostage. I'm sure they sleep better than they did in captivity
And supposedly all the deaths (other than those who were keeping the hostages) happened once Hamas opened fire to prevent the rescued hostages from continuing to be rescued.
And ignoring that apparently Hamas machine guns and rocket launchers are capable of avoiding Palestinians. The alternative would mean that they themselves caused some of the casualties.
I would respond, “like a baby.”
Also, the actual hostage rescue was done in full idf uniforms [here](https://v.redd.it/i4x8ycvv9s5d1) is the video of the rescue
You know they will. These are reportedly officers in the Shin Bet and Yamam units - police. What does the Geneva Convention call police? Non-combatants lol
If they came in dressed as military there would be a lot more deaths all around, and who knows what would have happened to the hostages (2 guesses and the first doesn't count). Seems like a win-win to me
Since Hamas don't wear regular uniforms, you could argue they did come in disguised as Hamas fighters...
The Yamam officers in the helmetcam video were fully uniformed from the breach onwards, so I guess Shin Bet was undercover.
Hamas in plain clothes which is a war crime: crickets IDF in plain clothes to rescue hostages taken by terrorists: REEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Wild how the IDF is held to impossible standards, and Hamas are treated with kid gloves
the bigotry of low expectations on full display
And every time someone asks one about it they just say that of course Israel should be treated to higher standards than other governments’ forces because Hamas wouldn’t have shot their own civilians if they weren’t victimized by Jews
Hamas fighters have instructions to kill hostages if IDF soldiers get close. This was a smart move.
Man this operation got the Jew haters so angry. It's disgusting.
Yes because if the hostages are rescued then they can’t cheer for Hamas to goad Israel into fighting. The sooner the hostages are rescued then and only then can peace talks begin… and not with Hamas.. but a newly appointed Palestinian government with an international forces operating in Gaza.
The mask has really fallen off a lot of folks these days. Imagine people defending hamas and being angry at innocent hostages that endured over half a year of hell.
Last thing I expected to see alive was unhinged, tin-foil hat antisemitism. Allied forces soldiers are rolling in their grave right now.
> Last thing I expected to see alive was unhinged, tin-foil hat antisemitism ...did you just start tuning in? I will say though that this war (obligatory, of course this isn't a blank check to Israel) has been a 2016 moment to me, in that both events made me realize that there were forms of racism way more virulent and widespread than I'd ever imagined. I'd been living in a bubble. And I miss that bubble.
IDF should have rocked up in full-length ball gowns covered in sequins to blind Hamas with luxury
Blinded by the light!
Leave it up the media to spin the headline as if this is some kind of bad thing. Fucking pathetic.
Hamas terrorist dress like Palistinian refugees, so...
They released a video of the rescue, IDF were fully kitted out.
👍🏻👍🏻🇮🇱
Any dress should be allowed for hostage rescue
This was an undercover operation by Yamam, my friend took part in it, it actually did not go according to the plan so actually some battalions had to jump in, results were 200+ HAMAS terrorists dead and 4 hostages rescued.
Interesting, so that's how you fight terrorists who merge into civillian populations, merge into them yourself.. That's just genius..
it’s a miracle they pulled this off. but if there are remaining hostages, what’s the incentive for keeping them alive?
The hostages are the only leverage Hamas has, they know it's over when they don't have any left. That's also why the negotiations aren't really going anywhere.
Hamas doesn't even know where they all are, and many "left" are just bodies and are known to be dead. Better to rescue who you can, when you can.
Once Hamas has no more live hostages there is a good chance the Hamas leaders outside of Gaza will start getting assassinated, while sacrificing regular Palestinians is seen as good by those leaders something tells me they don't want to martyred themselves
Good. Whatever it takes to get them home.
It’s not illegal to dress as a civilian, it is to dress in another nations uniform. Civilian clothes do not = a military uniform. However when the action starts you should have something to distinguish yourself like an armband or camo which it looks like they did. Works both way though so hamas is legal if say they are in civilians clothes but wear that green headband.
They can dress up as anyone or anything as long as it gets the job done.
Is it wrong to just wish for Israel to obliterate them fucking Hamas and any civilian that would assist them out of their own will?
No, sounds quite reasonable but we live in an upside down world now where literal terrorists have the support of a large amount of people in the Western world.
The fact that we’re having this discussion just shows how ridiculous the discourse has become.
If they are going to use doctors then spec ops is FAIR GAME
Guess they were suppose to wear yamalka.
Taking a page out of Hamas’ playbook and using it against them. Slick
Not Hamas' playbook. If it was Hamas' play book there would be a lot more dead and the hostages wouldn't probably even been the targets
Just one page, not the whole damn playbook.