• @TokenBoomer
    link
    English
    08 months ago

    Because that wasn’t the thing being debated? That’s in keeping with most of the investigations into Israeli forces, including the previously cited UN report.

    What was being debated was whether Hamas had used or is using human shields.

    True. I just find that interesting, since it pertains to the use of human shields.

    You are continuing to misrepresent the Amnesty International report, which did not say that all of the allegations it investigated did not meet the Geneva convention definition of using human shields, but only specified that “Several of these actions which have been discussed above” (from a list of various IDF claims at the top of p.48) did not meet the criteria.

    Again, I can only cite the ones they investigated. The others are hearsay.

    In fact, they instead said:

    Specific assertions of the use of civilians as “human shields” by Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip should be independently investigated.

    Then get in your “Teddy Bear” and investigate them.

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      08 months ago

      Again, I can only cite the ones they investigated.

      And yet you are managing to not even do that, given the specific part of the report isn’t even talking about specific investigated incidents but more broadly discussing clarifications regarding human shield international law abstractly and focusing on the intent vs incidental aspects, as I’ve previously discussed over and over by now.

      Then get in your “Teddy Bear” and investigate them.

      WTF?

      • @TokenBoomer
        link
        English
        08 months ago

        And yet you are managing to not even do that, given the specific part of the report isn’t even talking about specific investigated incidents but more broadly discussing clarifications regarding human shield international law abstractly and focusing on the intent vs incidental aspects, as I’ve previously discussed over and over by now.

        The findings of the investigation are in the image. You are misrepresenting their findings.

        Then get in your “Teddy Bear” and investigate them.

        If you know, you know.

        Thanks for helping to clarify who the aggressors are in this conflict. You have helped serve the Palestinian cause well.

        • @kromem
          link
          English
          08 months ago

          The findings of the investigation are in the image.

          Wrong for the eighth time. That paragraph isn’t related to the findings of the report on the investigated incidents. It’s an abstract discussion about international law and the importance of intentionality to the legal interpretation of alleged abuses. That’s why I said to read the whole report, which given your continued coming back to the out of context image, you clearly didn’t do.

          You have helped serve the Palestinian cause well.

          Trolls gonna troll. You’ve shown your true colors several times in our exchange, but it never hurts to make it more explicitly clear I guess.

          • @TokenBoomer
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Wrong for the eighth time.

            Uh,no. The statement was included because they couldn’t verify the accusations of human shields. There’s a reason the investigators made this statement.

            I am pro-Palestine, not pro-Hamas, if I can make it clearer. But lies made by the Israeli government only serves to justify the ethnic cleansing that is happening. You can’t obfuscate the truth.

            For the record:

            Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. Source.