Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I’ve seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back… and we know how that went.
Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack… regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.
Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We’ve all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.
Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of “we don’t have a choice” because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn’t just apply when you are winning and its a “fair” fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don’t justify Israeli breaches.
Regardless of this claim, the point still stands. No Palestinian I’ve ever met accused Hamas of jeopardising the Palestinian people’s safety. Only Israel does, for obvious reasons.
This is like the police cornering a wanted criminal into a crowded bus and shooting everyone indiscriminately whilst blaming it on them.
I’ve also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn’t proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say “oh, your point doesn’t matter” and dismiss it out if hand.
Good question, should clarify.
Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I’ve seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back… and we know how that went.
Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack… regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.
Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We’ve all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.
Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of “we don’t have a choice” because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn’t just apply when you are winning and its a “fair” fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don’t justify Israeli breaches.
Regardless of this claim, the point still stands. No Palestinian I’ve ever met accused Hamas of jeopardising the Palestinian people’s safety. Only Israel does, for obvious reasons.
This is like the police cornering a wanted criminal into a crowded bus and shooting everyone indiscriminately whilst blaming it on them.
I’ve also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn’t proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say “oh, your point doesn’t matter” and dismiss it out if hand.