The European Union on Sunday condemned Hamas for using "hospitals and civilians as human shields" in Gaza, while also urging Israel to show "maximum restraint" to protect civilians.
Are you accusing Human Rights Watch of lying? Because that’s who I quoted. Amnesty International also found no evidence to corroborate the accusations of “human shields.” In the paragraph below from this source.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International. And while we’re ignoring other evidence, should we consider Israel’s use of “human shields”.
I like this game. I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations. […]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
Now, while the above definition would include launching missiles near civilian infrastructure to dissuade retaliation, you are correct that the typical reference to the use of human shields is specifically around hostage taking - which is additionally defined as a war crime in its own right.
So if you want to claim that Hamas doesn’t take hostages or that they did but then didn’t colocate hostages near military operations, then potentially we could have a conversation about the degree to which they met the textbook definitions of human shields (as was discussed in Amnesty International’s piece calling for the hostages to be released and not located near military operations here).
But the topic in the original article relating to the EU condemnation and much of the current conversation of Hamas using schools or hospitals as “human shields” relates to their colocation of military operations including rockets near civilian infrastructure.
So we’re really splitting hairs here with the semantics relative to the OP article.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International.
I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
The fact that you think there’s a “winning side” to which group in a conflict in the Middle East is or isn’t performing war crimes pretty clearly tells me you aren’t particularly concerned with the topic of truth at all actually.
But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.”
It’s in the Amnesty International’s pdf, and the image I commented. According to Amnesty International, there is no evidence other than Israeli accusations, that Hamas uses human shields.
The fact that you think there’s a “winning side” to which group in a conflict in the Middle East is or isn’t performing war crimes pretty clearly tells me you aren’t particularly concerned with the topic of truth at all actually.
Well, that’s just your opinion. The fact that I have given you a source for the truth, yet you still refuse to recognize that there is no evidence of Hamas using human shields, shows me you aren’t actually interested in the truth, but fulfilling a confirmation bias you’ve developed.
These included
basing fighters within residential areas; urging civilians not to leave their homes after warnings from Israel; using civilian structures for military activity; storing rockets and other weapons in civilian structures and within populated areas; firing rockets from within or in close proximity to civilian buildings; taking cover in civilian buildings after firing; and building tunnels within civilian areas or under civilian structures.
Several of these actions which have been discussed above, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks from the vicinity of civilian buildings, violate the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attacks. But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.” The practices most commonly condemned as such have involved actually moving civilians to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”
So they quote from the same guidelines I just cited, pretty much word for word, and were saying that some of the allegations would not have qualified as using human shields based on the ICRC guidelines, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks in the vicinity of civilian buildings.
Because the important part of what’s determined as using human shields is the intentional co-location of the actual humans, not simply the incidental vicinity of civilians.
This does not mean, as you are implying, that launching missiles from within or directly next to an inhabited hospital somehow isn’t considered using human shields by Amnesty International. As the language you left out of “several of these actions” not qualifying as the use of human shields indicates, several of the other actions are considered to be the use of human shields.
And the key guidelines to determine the difference per Amnesty International are the exact same guidelines I previously linked to and quoted.
You’ve clearly crossed the line well into the territory of what’s intentionally a bad faith argument here.
Some nerve to talk about a confirmation bias.
Edit: And again some nerve to talk about there being “no evidence” when the report is littered with things like:
Nevertheless, Amnesty International believes that the report is credible and the claim should be independently investigated, together with other reports and claims that Hamas leaders and security forces used facilities within the hospital for military purposes and interrogations during the hostilities. Amnesty International spoke to a
Palestinian journalist who was interrogated by officers from Hamas’ Internal Security in an abandoned section of the hospital during the conflict. Hamas’ Internal Security officials also prevented a fieldworker contracted by Amnesty International from photographing damage to the hospital’s outpatients’ clinic on 28 July, when the fieldworker arrived at the hospital shortly after an explosion which damaged the clinic just before 5pm.
Or
There are credible reports that, in certain cases, Palestinian armed groups launched rockets or mortars from within civilian facilities or compounds, including schools, at least one hospital and a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City. In at least two cases, accounts indicate that attacks were launched in spite of the fact that displaced Gazan civilians were sheltering in the compounds or in neighbouring buildings.
But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.”
If it met the criteria for a “human shield,” that would have been stated. This has nothing to do with bad faith. Hamas does not use human shields, according to Amnesty International. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with them. Are they operating in bad faith? Barring an independent investigation to prove otherwise, this is what their investigation found.
What’s misleading is that they are only referring to some of the alleged behavior not qualifying, not all of the alleged behavior.
Using an inhabited hospital as a military HQ where you are conducting interrogations and launching missiles from absolutely meets “using the presence of civilians or protected persons to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”
Firing rockets a block away from an apartment building or storing munitions in an abandoned school doesn’t. And those are the kind of allegations that the report explicitly called out before the part you are quoting (storing munitions in civilian buildings or firing from the vicinity of).
Hamas does not use human shields, according to Amnesty International.
Hahaha, that’s not at all what the report says anywhere. It’s only saying that some of the behavior that was alleged as using human shields doesn’t qualify as that designation.
Literally taking hostages and having them nearby military operations is the textbook definition as I mentioned previously. Are you saying Hamas didn’t do that recently?
This is circular. That’s not what their investigation found. Am I to take the opinion of kromem on Lemmy, or Amnesty International? Sorry, I’m gonna take the opinion of Amnesty every time.
I did read the whole thing. I agree Hamas has committed multiple war crimes,
But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.”
Just because you don’t like their findings doesn’t make their findings mistaken. You lost, you’ll get over it.
Your selective quoting is the issue. Are you saying you’ve just been responding out of spite instead of actually reading the comments you’ve been replying to? Nevermind don’t bother answering that.
Overall, we rate B’Tselem Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them as mostly factual in reporting due to not always sourcing information.
Israel’s regime of apartheid and occupation is inextricably bound up in human rights violations. B’Tselem strives to end this regime, as that is the only way forward to a future in which human rights, democracy, liberty and equality are ensured to all people, both Palestinian and Israeli, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
We reviewed the article “Parched: Israel’s Policy of water deprivation in the West Bank.” It discusses the significant water usage disparity between Israelis and Palestinians, attributing it to Israel’s discriminatory policy. The body and the headline use strong, emotionally loaded language, indicating a clear bias against the Israeli government’s policies. The headline suggests that Israel’s water deprivation in the West Bank is deliberate, setting a critical tone towards these policies.
Right from your own link. Just a biased source aimed at hate speech against Israel. Your quote only enforces that.
So high and mighty behind your keyboard defending terrorists. One can only imagine how you’d cry at the first sign of incoming rockets on your home. I wonder if you could even find a safe shelter in 60 seconds. Most likely yes, you’re in your mom’s basement after all. What if you set foot outside and it happened, think you can get back into your basement that quickly?
Are you accusing Human Rights Watch of lying? Because that’s who I quoted. Amnesty International also found no evidence to corroborate the accusations of “human shields.” In the paragraph below from this source.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International. And while we’re ignoring other evidence, should we consider Israel’s use of “human shields”.
I like this game. I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
Now, while the above definition would include launching missiles near civilian infrastructure to dissuade retaliation, you are correct that the typical reference to the use of human shields is specifically around hostage taking - which is additionally defined as a war crime in its own right.
So if you want to claim that Hamas doesn’t take hostages or that they did but then didn’t colocate hostages near military operations, then potentially we could have a conversation about the degree to which they met the textbook definitions of human shields (as was discussed in Amnesty International’s piece calling for the hostages to be released and not located near military operations here).
But the topic in the original article relating to the EU condemnation and much of the current conversation of Hamas using schools or hospitals as “human shields” relates to their colocation of military operations including rockets near civilian infrastructure.
So we’re really splitting hairs here with the semantics relative to the OP article.
Have a source for this specific claim? Because they certainly seem to take a critical stance on the practice.
The fact that you think there’s a “winning side” to which group in a conflict in the Middle East is or isn’t performing war crimes pretty clearly tells me you aren’t particularly concerned with the topic of truth at all actually.
It’s in the Amnesty International’s pdf, and the image I commented. According to Amnesty International, there is no evidence other than Israeli accusations, that Hamas uses human shields.
Well, that’s just your opinion. The fact that I have given you a source for the truth, yet you still refuse to recognize that there is no evidence of Hamas using human shields, shows me you aren’t actually interested in the truth, but fulfilling a confirmation bias you’ve developed.
Again, you are citing only partial and misleading context.
Here’s the full passage from the report:
So they quote from the same guidelines I just cited, pretty much word for word, and were saying that some of the allegations would not have qualified as using human shields based on the ICRC guidelines, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks in the vicinity of civilian buildings.
Because the important part of what’s determined as using human shields is the intentional co-location of the actual humans, not simply the incidental vicinity of civilians.
This does not mean, as you are implying, that launching missiles from within or directly next to an inhabited hospital somehow isn’t considered using human shields by Amnesty International. As the language you left out of “several of these actions” not qualifying as the use of human shields indicates, several of the other actions are considered to be the use of human shields.
And the key guidelines to determine the difference per Amnesty International are the exact same guidelines I previously linked to and quoted.
You’ve clearly crossed the line well into the territory of what’s intentionally a bad faith argument here.
Some nerve to talk about a confirmation bias.
Edit: And again some nerve to talk about there being “no evidence” when the report is littered with things like:
Or
What is misleading? It clearly states:
If it met the criteria for a “human shield,” that would have been stated. This has nothing to do with bad faith. Hamas does not use human shields, according to Amnesty International. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with them. Are they operating in bad faith? Barring an independent investigation to prove otherwise, this is what their investigation found.
What’s misleading is that they are only referring to some of the alleged behavior not qualifying, not all of the alleged behavior.
Using an inhabited hospital as a military HQ where you are conducting interrogations and launching missiles from absolutely meets “using the presence of civilians or protected persons to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”
Firing rockets a block away from an apartment building or storing munitions in an abandoned school doesn’t. And those are the kind of allegations that the report explicitly called out before the part you are quoting (storing munitions in civilian buildings or firing from the vicinity of).
Hahaha, that’s not at all what the report says anywhere. It’s only saying that some of the behavior that was alleged as using human shields doesn’t qualify as that designation.
Literally taking hostages and having them nearby military operations is the textbook definition as I mentioned previously. Are you saying Hamas didn’t do that recently?
This is circular. That’s not what their investigation found. Am I to take the opinion of kromem on Lemmy, or Amnesty International? Sorry, I’m gonna take the opinion of Amnesty every time.
Then you might want to actually read the whole thing and not only the parts you mistakenly think agree with you.
I did read the whole thing. I agree Hamas has committed multiple war crimes,
Just because you don’t like their findings doesn’t make their findings mistaken. You lost, you’ll get over it.
We get it, you love selective quoting. Give it a rest already.
Should I just make shit up like everyone else?
You could. It’s not any different than the shit you posted. You can even make a video injured and dead civilians like the Hamas production crew.
My shit is sourced, what’s your excuse?
Your selective quoting is the issue. Are you saying you’ve just been responding out of spite instead of actually reading the comments you’ve been replying to? Nevermind don’t bother answering that.
Looks like you’ve quoted a biased source making your evidence null. Your accusation is now baseless. Thanks for playing by your own rules.
Read ‘em and weep. Thanks for playing.
Oh goody, thanks for providing a source proving my point. I guess you didn’t actually read it yourself.
Failed Fact Check
Glad to know where you stand.
Right from your own link. Just a biased source aimed at hate speech against Israel. Your quote only enforces that.
Boom 💥 you got me. Feels good don’t it. Now get some rest so you can defend the killing of premature babies tomorrow. You’re gonna need it.
So high and mighty behind your keyboard defending terrorists. One can only imagine how you’d cry at the first sign of incoming rockets on your home. I wonder if you could even find a safe shelter in 60 seconds. Most likely yes, you’re in your mom’s basement after all. What if you set foot outside and it happened, think you can get back into your basement that quickly?
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.