The Geneva Convention disagrees:
“Geneva Convention IV: Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: ‘The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.’”
“Additional Protocol I: Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations”
Which Israel doesn’t do either, not even close
That’s not true, obviously Israel is using the principal of proportionality or else they would have just leveled the entire place. Whether this constitutes a war crime would be if their level of response was appropriate enough, that’s why people say it “may” constitute a war crime. The truth is that this is a subjective argument that would need to be determined in an international court of law to be certain of.
Which we only have the word of a notoriously dishonest government that there always is
You mean like when Israel told Palestinians to go somewhere and then bombed them as they complied?
Maybe you should actually check the news, Hamas leadership has been telling it’s people to stay and, while you don’t believe the IDF, they have satellite and surveillance footage of vehicles and barricades to block travel in Gaza. Also, reporters inside of Gaza are reporting that Hamas is shooting evacuating people.
You can try all the whataboutism you’d like to excuse the atrocities of the apartheid regime but, apart from the fact that the atrocities of Hamas doesn’t justify any of those of Israel, most of the time the IDF have done the same thing (including for example using human shields) or something even worse.
I’ve not tried to excuse any atrocities, I’m clearly pointing out that the term “War Crime” has a specific meaning of which you have twice incorrectly used. Throughout our discussions I have used a number of reasonable sources and references. It funny you accuse me of an argument I haven’t made and for using whataboutisms, but the only whataboutisms have come from your own post. I don’t like what the IDF is doing either, but you can’t call things war crimes that would literally take a prolonged international league case to determine (principle of proportionality). Likewise when something is very clearly defined as a war crime, you can’t say that it isn’t (perfidy). Also, it’s a really poor argument to say that sources (albeit biased) are illegitimate because they came from Israel (I showed that an outside entity and the Palestinian Health Ministry backed up the IDFs claims a decade earlier).
Aaand we’ve reached the point where you repeat bullshit I’ve already refuted and insist that two war crimes would make a justified military action. We’re done here, genocide apologist.
The Geneva Convention disagrees: “Geneva Convention IV: Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: ‘The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.’”
“Additional Protocol I: Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations”
That’s not true, obviously Israel is using the principal of proportionality or else they would have just leveled the entire place. Whether this constitutes a war crime would be if their level of response was appropriate enough, that’s why people say it “may” constitute a war crime. The truth is that this is a subjective argument that would need to be determined in an international court of law to be certain of.
Amnesty International reported the same in 2014 (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) and the Palestinian Health Ministry in 2009 (www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3668018,00.html).
Maybe you should actually check the news, Hamas leadership has been telling it’s people to stay and, while you don’t believe the IDF, they have satellite and surveillance footage of vehicles and barricades to block travel in Gaza. Also, reporters inside of Gaza are reporting that Hamas is shooting evacuating people.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ryjyna7qa
I’ve not tried to excuse any atrocities, I’m clearly pointing out that the term “War Crime” has a specific meaning of which you have twice incorrectly used. Throughout our discussions I have used a number of reasonable sources and references. It funny you accuse me of an argument I haven’t made and for using whataboutisms, but the only whataboutisms have come from your own post. I don’t like what the IDF is doing either, but you can’t call things war crimes that would literally take a prolonged international league case to determine (principle of proportionality). Likewise when something is very clearly defined as a war crime, you can’t say that it isn’t (perfidy). Also, it’s a really poor argument to say that sources (albeit biased) are illegitimate because they came from Israel (I showed that an outside entity and the Palestinian Health Ministry backed up the IDFs claims a decade earlier).
Aaand we’ve reached the point where you repeat bullshit I’ve already refuted and insist that two war crimes would make a justified military action. We’re done here, genocide apologist.
1.) Presented with sources, definitions, and a fairly detailed description of war crimes.
2.) Presented with third party sources about claims.
3.) Clearly told that the person they are arguing with doesn’t support the IDF
4.) Uses strawman attacks on the person they are arguing with
5.) Provides no real source, argument, or rebutall
6.) Says they refuted my argument
7.) Puts words in my mouth
8.) Calls me a genocide apologist when I clearly am not
You’re clearly a troll and I’m done feeding you