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.
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?
You still never countered the accusation that Israel used Palestinians as “human shields,” by B’Tselem. I wonder why?
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.
The ones they investigated.
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, further getting into the nuance of the legality of the issue as I’ve discussed extensively by now with you, and you’ve ignored.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
That’s what they investigated.
Red Herring.
The ones they investigated.
Perfectly comfortable. Never said all. I can only cite what they investigated.
Irrelevant.
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?
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.
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, further getting into the nuance of the legality of the issue as I’ve discussed extensively by now with you, and you’ve ignored.
In fact, they instead said:
True. I just find that interesting, since it pertains to the use of human shields.
Again, I can only cite the ones they investigated. The others are hearsay.
Then get in your “Teddy Bear” and investigate them.
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.
WTF?
The findings of the investigation are in the image. You are misrepresenting their findings.
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.
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.
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.