EU condemns Hamas for using 'hospitals as human shields', urges Israeli restraint
EU condemns Hamas for using 'hospitals as human shields', urges Israeli restraint
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Have a source for this specific claim?
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.
Again, you are citing only partial and misleading context.
Here's the full passage from the report:
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.
What is misleading? It clearly states:
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.
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,
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.
using the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas immune from military operations
Exactly. Read it again.
Now tell me how using an inhabited hospital as a military base and to launch attacks from doesn't meet that criteria?
Or how taking hostages and co-locating them with military operations doesn't.
Ah, a fan of circular logic I see. Contact Amnesty International and tell them they’re wrong:
If you believe your human rights have been violated and you need referrals for assistance or want to share your story, contact our research team report@aiusa.org
Yet again you ignore that they were only talking about some of the allegations.
If Amnesty International published a report that said some of the world's population has XY chromosomes, would you think it appropriate to claim that they've said that all of the world's population has XY chromosomes?
Because you seem to keep not understanding that what you are referring to explicitly called out that only several of the allegations don't constitute the use of human shields and deferred to the cited litmus test to determine.
You seem to be very uncomfortable with answering how that cited litmus test doesn't apply to several of the allegations towards Hamas, instead pretending that Amnesty International claimed all of the alleged behavior in 2014 wouldn't constitute the use of human shields (and that this somehow carries forward to other behavior in the current conflict which definitely does meet the criteria).
In particular, they seem to be paraphrasing the legal findings section of the UN's Goldstone report (items 493-497) regarding the distinction, which further specified the aspect of intentionality:
As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required.
- HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (2009) p. 123
So as I said, the dismissal of incidental attacks from the vicinity of civilian infrastructure as using human shields is different from the intentional staging of attacks from a hospital to prevent retaliation.
Yet again you ignore that they were only talking about some of the allegations.
That’s what they investigated.
If Amnesty International published a report that said some of the world's population has XY chromosomes, would you think it appropriate to claim that they've said that all of the world's population has XY chromosomes?
Red Herring.
Because you seem to keep not understanding that what you are referring to explicitly called out that only several of the allegations don't constitute the use of human shields and deferred to the cited litmus test to determine.
The ones they investigated.
You seem to be very uncomfortable with answering how that cited litmus test doesn't apply to several of the allegations towards Hamas, instead pretending that Amnesty International claimed all of the alleged behavior in 2014 wouldn't constitute the use of human shields.
Perfectly comfortable. Never said all. I can only cite what they investigated.
In particular, they seem to be paraphrasing the legal findings section of the UN's Goldstone report (items 493-497) regarding the distinction, which further specified the aspect of intentionality:
Irrelevant.
As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required.
- HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (2009) p. 123
Still irrelevant. From their limited investigation, they determined that Hamas had not used human shields. You still never countered the accusation that Israel used Palestinians as “human shields,” by B’Tselem. I wonder why?