• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you might want to actually read the whole thing and not only the parts you mistakenly think agree with you.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • kromem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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 [email protected]

                • kromem@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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?