Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumRights group accuses Israel of war crimes over Gaza school raids
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said it investigated strikes at three separate locations in the besieged enclave, noting that at least 45 people were killed in the raids on the schools.
Based on field research and interviews with witnesses, the New York-based group concluded that no military targets were apparent in the immediate location, and it described assaults in Gaza as indiscriminate.
"The Israeli military carried out attacks on or near three well-marked schools where it knew hundreds of people were taking shelter, killing and wounding scores of civilians," Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "Israel has offered no convincing explanation for these attacks on schools where people had gone for protection and the resulting carnage."
The HRW report comes a day after the Israeli military announced it had launched its own probe into cases involving Palestinian civilian casualties during the war, including the shelling of a U.N. school. The move was taken by some to be an attempt to deflect international scrutiny over its conduct during the offensive in Gaza.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/11/hrw-israel-war-crimes.html
45 innocent civilians were killed in these three war crimes, including 17 children. Which means that these three incidents alone are a far more severe crime than all of the Hamas rockets, which killed a total of 5 civilians. And this is far from the only war crime committed in Gaza.
Human rights groups will continue to investigate. Every individual who was killed illegally in Gaza needs to be accounted for.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Israel 'oppresses Palestinians and Palestinian children in all impunity' despite Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Zeina Azzam Last updated: 13 Sep 2014 07:52
Farah Baker's posts on Twitter made the 16-year-old a social media sensation during the Gaza war [Reuters]
Before Israel's invasion of Gaza last July, Farah Baker was an ordinary Palestinian teenager growing up in the besieged strip of land by the Mediterranean Sea. But a compelling Twitter feed catapulted her to international fame.
"I'm the modern Anne Frank Gaza-Palestine, 16 years old," is the description of Baker's Twitter account. The teen has garnered 209,000 followers, and has more than 8,200 tweets to her name.
On August 23, she tweeted, "How is it like to live freely and peacefully without occupation? I never experienced that! Is it so beautiful?" More than 1,000 people re-tweeted her message. Each day she tweets multiple times, articulating her worries and dreams, especially during the war. Her home, situated near Gaza's al-Shifa Hospital, provides extraordinary insight - beyond her years - into life during war.
This is perhaps Farah's attempt to cope with the bombardment and destruction in Gaza, explains Michael Wessells, a professor at Columbia University's Program on Forced Migration and Health who studies the effects of war on children.
"Through tweeting," he told Al Jazeera, "she connects with large numbers of people, ending the feelings of being alone and isolation that are often part of the psychosocial burden of children living in active war zones. Also, tweeting is active and affords self-efficacy, which is key for psychosocial wellbeing. It gives her a sense of actively doing something - educating others about the situation of children - rather than being passive or lapsing into feelings of helplessness."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/09/where-accountability-gaza-children-20149973438619725.html
shira
(30,109 posts)HRW going out of its way to defend Hamas war crimes like human shielding:
“#Hamas is putting civilians at risk but “no evidence” it forces them to stay–definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM.”
Roth chooses to refer to a New York Times article in order to defend Hamas.
What exactly did The New York Times write that Ken Roth finds so wonderful as to defend Hamas?
cont'd...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/25/human-rights-watchs-ken-roth-goes-to-bat-for-hamas-war-crimes/
HRW is not a credible source when it comes to investigating Israeli actions in Gaza. This is the same HRW blasted by its founder in a 2009 NYT article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=0
The same HRW which employed an obsessed NAZI memorabilia collector to investigate Israeli "war crimes"...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/HRW-expert-collects-Nazi-memorabilia
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Part of the bizarre web of delusions required to maintain your worldview is that all of the worlds leading human rights groups are somehow "biased" against Israel, whereas the word of the IDF should never be doubted.
shira
(30,109 posts)You should want the same thing. In fact, I don't see why anyone on a liberal board would take HRW seriously given that they actually support Hamas war crimes.
Here's another example:
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) August 19, 2014
Hostage taking is against IHL, whether the hostage is civilian or military:
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule96
HRW is a fraudulent human rights group that goes to bat for Hamas, explaining away or denying their war crimes altogether.
Go ahead, try defending HRW. Try arguing they're credible when it comes to Israel.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We all know how this works. Anyone who criticizes Israel for any reason is biased and anti-semitic.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're comfortable with HRW's defense of Hamas war crimes?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Your passion for Israel is admirable, in a way, but you really need to be careful that it doesn't get in the way of your ability to reason.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge?
This is basic human rights 101.
======
If you want to pretend HRW is a credible organization despite being apologists for a fascist terror regime in Gaza, go right ahead. But you cannot expect reasonable people to accept at face value what HRW is accusing Israel of doing in light of what they do with Hamas. Find a credible rights group that calls things for what they are WRT Hamas and then we'll see what they have to say about Israel. Is that too much to ask for? 
Consider how ridiculous your cries for "justice" are WRT Israel and Gaza when you're here pimping what apologists for Hamas are accusing the Jewish state of doing. And you guys wonder why there are no Democrats in Congress or the Senate who stand with Hamas? 
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In the same way that just because some things IDF does are war crimes doesn't mean all of them are.
That's why it's necessary to have impartial groups that are well-versed in international law -- groups like HRW and Amnesty, etc -- to do thorough investigations to determine what is a war crime and what isn't.
We all get that your opinion is that every thing anyone who has every been associated with Hamas has done is a war crime. That's what makes your opinion both predictable and useless.
shira
(30,109 posts)Look at those posts again and you'll find Ken Roth defending Hamas taking hostages as well as defending human shields war crimes. I'll understand if you don't wish to defend HRW's defense of Hamas b/c it's indefensible. But let's not pretend there's no problem here with HRW.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not everything Hamas does is a war crime. There are specific laws of war, you know. The Geneva convention doesn't just say "Hamas is bad!!!!"
Both IDF and Hamas have committed war crimes. But not everything that either party does is a war crime. That's why we need groups like HRW and Amnesty to sort out what is what.
There is a distinction to be made between forcing civilians to partake in war (which I'll add, is something that IDF does). There is also a distinction between attacking military and attacking civilians. You want to ignore the details and just yell Hamas at the top of your lungs. It doesn't work that way. Try using your mind instead of your emotions.
shira
(30,109 posts)And Hamas encouraging human shielding or firing rockets within dense civilian populations (without forcing people to be there) is legal as well.
Pretty sick.
If that's what human rights and justice means to you, you'll have to excuse reasonable people (and all elected Democrats) for strongly disagreeing with you. You simply can't expect reasonable people to take you seriously.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here, for example, is what Amnesty concluded from an investigation in 2009. The war crimes committed in the latest Gaza massacre haven't been fully investigated yet, so we'll have to work with past aggressions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5721253/Amnesty-accuses-Israeli-forces-of-war-crimes.html
First, here's the Israeli version of using human shields. Pretty straightforward: grab innocent civilians, and force them to take part in combat operations to protect military personnel:
"Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective, often referred to as using 'human shields' is a war crime," Amnesty said.
One Palestinian was quoted as saying Israeli troops forced him to go into a house to check whether gunmen holed up inside were still alive. They were, and threatened to kill him if he returned. The soldiers later forced him to check on the fighters two more times.
Open-and-shut case. Use of human shields by IDF. Are you going to condemn this? I won't hold my breath.
In contrast, here's what the investigation found about Palestinians:
Get it? No evidence that Palestinian fighters did the same thing as IDF.
Does this mean that Amnesty is ignoring war crimes on one side? Not at all.
Amnesty also accused Hamas of endangering Palestinian civilians by firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons and ammunition there.
You see, this is what happens when you actually investigate in detail the events on the ground, instead of just yelling "Hamas!" at the top of your lungs over and over again.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jul 24 #Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau
Roth claims people need to be coerced or forced to become human shields. But interestingly enough, in an HRW article about human shields there's nothing there about coercion or force:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas
Purpose intent to set up shop within civilian populations or purpose intent to fire from those locations is the definition according to human rights. Nothing about force or coercion.
There's also nothing from customary IHL stating that the crime of human shielding requires coercion or force.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
The question is why Roth felt compelled to lie and thus cover for Hamas' war crimes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's wikipedia's definition of "human shield".
Note the term "deliberate placement". That's what IDF does: they deliberately use Palestinian civilians to protect their soldiers.
Also, notice that Roth also points out clearly that unnecessarily endangering civilians is a war crime. It's just that it's not necessarily use of "human shields". He also states, and I quote "Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas". I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you are so blinded by partisanship that you haven't even read the quotes you linked to.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's customary IHL:
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.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically SECURING or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
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.
Coercion or force is not a requirement in the definition. You're wrong and Ken Roth of HRW lied in an attempt to cover for Hamas.
Actually, I have condemned Israel's use of human shields. Israel did the right thing by banning the practice and making it illegal for IDF troops to continue. But here's the thing: Israel has its own human rights groups to keep the IDF in line. It was B'tselem that first reported this. Meanwhile there's NO ONE in Gaza or elsewhere holding Hamas to account, not even HRW. Of course HRW is even worse b/c it's their JOB to condemn Hamas for human shields.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The claim that IDF has banned the process is of course ludicrous. It's been extensively documented that the process has continued after the "official ban", and in the very few cases where Israel has taken legal action, the individuals involved got a slap on the wrist. In practice, this, along with a host of other illegal practices, have continued unabated.
Also, as usual, your emotional and zealous defense of Israel has caused you to fail to read my post. I'll say it again. Roth agrees that failing to separate military operations from the civilian population is illegal. So it is utterly false to say that he is covering up for Hamas war crimes. All this is is a dispute over what the name of the crime should be.
To add to the absurdity of your attack against HRW, the Geneva convention does not actually use the words "human shield". Here's the full text, see for yourself.
http://www.spj.org/gc-text4.asp
Furthermore, the document that you cite makes it clear that Roth is absolutely right when he says that human shields "generally require coercion". Let's go through the examples.
Yup, coercion.
Gee, coercion again.
Coercion. Three for three.
Coercion. 4 for 4. A pattern is starting to develop.
Whaddayaknow! Coercion. 5 for 5!
So once again. Carrying out military operations within an urban area and failing to adequately separate from civilian populations is in fact illegal. We all agree upon that. But without coercion and intent, this generally isn't enough to apply the term "human shield".
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Just curious.
Certainly the US military has carried out operations in urban areas that has directly led to the killing of many more civilians than died in Gaza.
NATO forces as well.
The US military and NATO are also war criminals, yes?
Can you give an example of a military conflict that did not involve war crimes?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Torture is also a war crime, and we know that the US has tortured people. Right now we're talking about the crime of using human shields. I don't know of any allegations of IDF-style usage of human shields by US forces, but if there are any, then obviously I would consider those to be war crimes as well.
Reasonable points.
shira
(30,109 posts)Those examples prove that the definition is NOT dependent on coercion or force, so it's CLEAR Ken Roth lied recently when he tweeted several times that human shielding required force or coercion. These examples in Yemen and Sri Lanka also prove that HRW and Amnesty International have been lying about human shields WRT both Hezbollah and Hamas for years.
You claim with glee the IDF are war criminals but do you do the same with the USA, UK, and France? Or are you just unaware of what they've done in their wars the past couple decades?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Especially the Sri Lanka article, which was specifically talking about civilians that are forced to stay in combat areas.
Since you keep ignoring this, I'll point it out again. Ken Roth agrees that putting civilians at risk is illegal, so there's no conceivable way he's covering up for Hamas crimes. The only possible accusation you have is that he is labeling the crime incorrectly, but as I've pointed out, you're wrong there too.
You also ignored the fact that "human shield" does not appear in the Geneva protocols, and (hilariously) the very excerpt you quote points out that term human shield generally implies coercion which is exactly what Ken Roth says. And, yes, you are correct that HRW, Amnesty, the UN, other groups and journalists have investigated the Israel "human shields" mantra and found that there is very little evidence to back it up. Obviously, you eagerly swallow every piece of IDF propaganda like it was chocolate cake, but the facts on the ground are simply not on your side.
I don't claim with "glee" that IDF are war criminals. It's simply a fact. Israel routinely commits war crimes against the Palestinians. Has the US committed war crimes? Torture, for example, yes. Also, the Iraq invasion was illegal. And, by providing Israel with weapons with which to massacre innocent Palestinians, the US is also complicit in Israel's war crimes. I don't know where you get the idea that I think the US is innocent in all this. The US is an enabler of Israeli atrocities.
shira
(30,109 posts)Their mere presence among civilians was reckoned as human shielding:
The same applies to the Yemen example from Feb. 2014:
Do you require more examples since this doesn't suffice? How much more evidence do you need?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So, again, there is no plausible case that HRW is covering up for war crimes. I can keep repeating this over and over if you want to ignore it. The only dispute here is what the name of the war crime should be.
Again, as I said, HRW is absolutely correct that human shields "generally require coercion". This is demonstrated by your link, as well as by the Wiki definition I gave. As I also said, the term "human shield" doesn't appear in the Geneva protocols.
Is it possible to use a human shield without coercion? Sure. For example, if a civilian is already immobilized, and I run up behind them and use them as a shield in a gunfight, then I would be using a human shield. But the possibility of exceptions doesn't change the fact that "human shields generally require coercion" is a good 140 character summation of what it means to use a human shield. If you want to go beyond 140 characters, I suggest you read any of the many human rights investigations of the use of human shields by Hamas (as well as many independent journalists -- Chris Hedges has called the "human shields" talking point the "big lie"
which have found that the practice is nearly as widespread as Israeli propaganda would have you believe. Focus more on the actual facts rather than on these silly games.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's what Ken Roth of HRW tweeted:
Jul 24 #Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau
He lied.
Force or coercion is not required.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He tweeted that human shields "generally" require coercion. Tweets are 140 characters, you know, not enough room to explain all the intricacies of international law. I gave an example of where coercion would not be required -- if a civilian was immobilized, and couldn't leave even if they wanted to. I'm sure Ken Roth would agree with me there. You're playing a very silly game here. Like I said, take a look at any of the many human rights investigations by HRW, Amnesty, the UN, etc. if you want a more detailed explanation. Oh yeah, I forgot, in your bubble-world these are all "biased" against Israel because they don't take IDF's word as gospel.
Also, for what must be the 20th time: Ken Roth agrees that unnecessarily endangering civilians is a crime. There's no plausible argument that he's covering up for war crimes. He makes this very clear in his tweets, and even more clear if you read any of the investigations.
But I bet you ignore that last part for the 20th time. That's OK, then I'll repeat it again. And you'll ignore it again. And you'll look even more silly.
shira
(30,109 posts)It "generally" does, but not always. And while your example of an immobilized civilian is w/o question human shielding, so too is this example from an HRW article which you're so desperately trying to ignore:
No immobilized people there in Yemen. Which brings us back to his tweets:
First sentence is accurate. Second sentence can easily apply to the Yemen example from the HRW article. In the Yemen example, no one was being forced or coerced. No one was immobilized either. Roth is attempting to make a distinction (excuse for Hamas) where none exists.
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau
These are outright lies. We can both assume Ken Roth knows that human shields do not require force or coercion, but this is exactly what he's stating. And you're defending his defense of Hamas.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)OK, here we go, for the 21st time. There is no plausible way that you can accuse Ken Roth of covering up war crimes, because he explicitly states that endangering civilians is a war crime. At worst, this is all about terminology.
Anyway, obviously you don't know what the word "generally" means, or you would like to pretend that Ken Roth didn't actually say it. Like I said (again), determining if something is actually a "human shield" requires more than 140 characters, which is why again I will refer you to any of the many investigations by HRW, Amnesty, the UN, etc., which go into more detail on the subject. Ken Roth is right, generally human shields require coercion. And once you look past the IDF talking points, many independent groups have found that actual evidence of human shield use by Hamas falls far short of what Israel claims.
Those are the facts. You don't like the facts. I get it. You want to play silly games instead. Whatever it takes to ignore human rights investigations that don't come out the way Israel wants them to, I guess.
shira
(30,109 posts)Had AQAP members deliberately joined the wedding procession to avoid attack they would have been committing the laws-of-war violation of using “human shields.”
http://www.hrw.org/node/123244/section/3
Do you agree that example constitutes a human shielding war crime?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is getting silly. If you're just going to ignore everything I posted, this isn't much of conversation, is it?
shira
(30,109 posts)That Yemen example in the HRW report is exactly what Israel has been accusing Hamas (and Hezbollah) of doing for years. It's what HRW denies as human shielding. They cannot have one human-shielding standard for Israel and another for all other countries.
I understand you cannot defend the indefensible and this is why you're trying with all your might to deflect.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)war crimes since he explicitly says that endangering civilians is illegal.
As far as the so-called "double standard", as I've explained many times, "generally require coercion" is about as good an explanation of Human Shields as you're going to get in 140 characters. That doesn't mean it's literally impossible to use human shields without coercion. What it does mean is that just the fact that military operations are conducted in such a way that civilians are endangered doesn't automatically mean that human shields are being employed.
For more details, look at any of the many human rights investigations into the use of human shields in Gaza. But I don't think you're going to like what you read, because the facts aren't on your side.
I'm betting you're going to ignore every single thing I said in this post. Let's see what happens.
shira
(30,109 posts)Of course what they do is illegal. It's worse when those illegal acts are war crime violations. Roth won't go there with Hamas, although HRW has no problem accusing terror forces in Yemen of the same exact crime. Roth lied when he tweeted:
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau
Those are lies, not merely 140 character twitter limitations.
I didn't ignore anything you wrote.
=============
Now riddle me this:
Are those 2 tweets above true or false? Are they misleading in any way?
Failure to answer just concedes the argument. You'll note I don't mind answering anything you ask.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Those tweets are accurate. They are not misleading, particularly in the context of the previous tweet where he qualifies and says that human shields "generally" require coercion. Like I said, 140 characters is not enough room to go into exact details about the definition of the human shield. Human shields generally require coercion, but obviously there are exceptions. For example, if a civilian is immobilized and I hide behind them during a gunfight, then even though I am not explicitly coercing anyone, I am obviously still using a human shield. Oh, and by the way, that Yemen example was also hypothetical.
To claim that Roth is ruling out cases like this is absurd. Obviously, Roth would agree with me that this is an example of a human shield. The problem here is that he is assuming the people reading the tweets are adults with function brains. That was a big oversight on his part.
As I said, for more details, take a look at any of the many human rights groups investigations
I'm really getting sick of repeating all this stuff over and over again.
shira
(30,109 posts)HRW has a problem accusing Hamas of war crimes, aside from the rockets they shoot at civilians. When it comes to Israel, they have no problem with the war-crime accusations.
There is no context of the previous tweet. That first tweet was made a week before the other 2 tweets. They stand alone, and they're obviously misleading. If I were to ask you straight up - whether human shields requires force or coercion, your honest answer would be "NO". Roth was lying.
The 140 character excuse is even more lame. Roth could easily make himself clear in 2-3 continuous tweets. It's not like it costs $10 per tweet.
There is no civilian immobilized in the Yemen example. And although hypothetical, it's still an example of human shielding. Do you agree that although it's hypothetical, what HRW described in that report WRT Yemen was an example of human shielding w/o coercion or force? Yes or No?
There's also another reason you're wrong and HRW lied. This is from HRW, describing human shields:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas
That description by HRW - and it's accurate btw - explains how the Yemen hypothetical is an example of human shields. No coercion, no force, no immobilized civilians.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)with respect to conduct during war. I.e. war crimes. What other laws could he possibly be talking about?
And, yes, firing rockets at civilians is another example of Amnesty, HRW, and everyone else holding Hamas accountable for war crimes. Yet another example that disproves your ludicrous claim that they are covering up for Hamas.
Your claim that Roth should have made himself clearer is preposterous, given that what he is saying is already perfectly clear. I understand exactly what he's saying, and it is accurate and makes perfect sense. Like I said, his only mistake is assuming that the audience consisted of honest adults. HRW has, in fact, written about the Hamas human shield question in more detail -- I would again refer you to the actual reports of the investigations they did, as opposed to a sequence of 140 character tweets.
As far as the rest, yes I think that, under certain conditions, hiding within a wedding party would constitute using human shields. But, as I explained, the fact that one can use human shields in certain uncommon cases without explicit coercion (note again that the Yemen example, like mine, is hypothetical), provided that there are other circumstances that effectively create the same result as coercion (this is something totally obvious). You know how Charles Manson was convicted of murder even though he didn't actually kill anyone personally? Do you think that would make someone who tweets "if you don't kill anyone you didn't commit murder" a liar?
But, as everyone including the other source you cite recognizes, Roth is absolutely correct in that human shields generally require coercion. The fact that you choose to ignore the word "generally" in his tweet is a very obvious attempt on your part to deliberately misunderstand what he is saying.
My turn to ask questions.
1) If you think Roth isn't talking about the laws of war, what laws would he be talking about when he says "illegal"?
2) Do you think it's possible for a group to take military action in such a way that civilians are potentially endangered without it being human shields? Or do you think that civilian endangerment and human shields are synonymous?
3) Do you honestly think that when he tweeted that coercion is necessary for human shields, that he was intentionally ruling out my example of hiding behind an immobilized civilian? Or do you think he assumed people would understand that exceptional situations like this exist and he didn't need to explain it because it was so obvious?
shira
(30,109 posts)....be able to do so. HRW reserves war crime charges as much as possible for Israel, not Hamas. HRW has to call the rockets a war crime b/c they're so obvious but there are other war crimes and illegal acts HRW and Amnesty won't touch, like:
- Using ambulances for military purposes
- Recruitment of child soldiers
- Booby trapping homes, other public buildings
- Killing > 160 children digging tunnels at slave wages
- Hostage taking
- Unlawful execution of "collaborators"
- Targeting Israel's nuclear plant
- Hamas HQ in the basement of a hospital
- Rockets falling short within Gaza
- Hamas stealing humanitarian aid
Roth made those tweets a week apart. They're not within "context" and standing alone with about 100 tweets on other topics in-between "the context", they are utterly false. If I were to state this right now, it would be a lie:
Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shield. Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas but no human shield unless coerced to stay.
Those are false statements, you know it, and you lose every shred of credibility when you deny it.
You make my point when you admit Hamas mixing in with civilians intentionally to avoid being targeted is human-shielding. Hamas does this all the time but HRW and Amnesty never call it human shielding b/c it's not forced or coerced.
Generally, not always. His tweets suggest force or coercion is required. He could've made himself clear in more than 140 characters by posting 2-3 tweets together. Lamest excuse ever and you're still going with it. Are you proud of yourself for being being a blind defender of war crimes?
1) If you think Roth isn't talking about the laws of war, what laws would he be talking about when he says "illegal"?
I made myself clear above. Roth and HRW never accuse Hamas of war crimes when they purposely mix with civilians, plant booby-traps within civilian homes, use ambulances for military purposes, etc. In fact, HRW and Amnesty don't even acknowledge those crimes at all. They cannot w/o accusing Hamas of human shielding, which they won't do (for Israel). Their goal is pretend Hamas is not using human shields and that casualties in the war are a direct result of Israel deliberately firing upon civilians with no Hamas in site. That's their game and sadly for them there's more evidence than ever Hamas is using human shields. The gig is up.
I suppose it's possible when you can find examples of Hamas doing its best to get civilians out of the way. Good luck with that one. Hamas has made it clear by public statements that they purposely use civilians as human shields. It's their entire strategy. They've said it over and over. The funny thing is that their western apologists ignore it in order to defend war crimes:
If he was talking about an immobilized civilian, he would've mentioned it. He could've mentioned other exceptional situations. Tweets cost nothing and he tweets all day long. He lied in his tweets b/c he knows he can get away with it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Let's try this again.
Illegal means in violation of the law. If he's not talking about the laws of war (i.e. war crimes), then he's talking about some other set of laws. Which set of laws do you think it would be and why?
Notice that the word "Hamas" does not appear in this question. This is a question about your understanding of the term "human shield".
If he was talking about an immobilized civilian, he would've mentioned it. He could've mentioned other exceptional situations. Tweets cost nothing and he tweets all day long. He lied in his tweets b/c he knows he can get away with it.
OK, this one you almost answered, but not quite. I didn't say that he was talking about an immobilized civilian. I was asking whether you think that he needed to explicitly mention every possible counterexample to the general requirement of coercion, particularly since he used the word "generally" in the tweet. It seems obvious to me that twitter is not the forum for extensive legal analysis, and any reasonable person would have understood what Roth meant. You are intentionally misunderstanding in order to label him a liar. At worst, he is guilty of not making himself clear enough, leaving himself open to people like you that purposefully misunderstand him. But any thinking person understands what he is saying here.
shira
(30,109 posts)Illegal means in violation of the law. If he's not talking about the laws of war (i.e. war crimes), then he's talking about some other set of laws. Which set of laws do you think it would be and why?
Illegal means illegal, not necessarily war crime. For example, Hamas illegally killed protesters and "collaborators". These are not war crimes, but they are highly illegal. How much clearer can I get?
Notice that the word "Hamas" does not appear in this question. This is a question about your understanding of the term "human shield"
The answer is Yes, if the intent is not to purposely use civilians as shields. Intent is everything. Intentionally using civilians for military purposes (mixing in with them, firing weapons from or storing weapons in those areas) is absolutely human-shielding.
If he was talking about an immobilized civilian, he would've mentioned it. He could've mentioned other exceptional situations. Tweets cost nothing and he tweets all day long. He lied in his tweets b/c he knows he can get away with it.
OK, this one you almost answered, but not quite. I didn't say that he was talking about an immobilized civilian. I was asking whether you think that he needed to explicitly mention every possible counterexample to the general requirement of coercion, particularly since he used the word "generally" in the tweet. It seems obvious to me that twitter is not the forum for extensive legal analysis, and any reasonable person would have understood what Roth meant. You are intentionally misunderstanding in order to label him a liar. At worst, he is guilty of not making himself clear enough, leaving himself open to people like you that purposefully misunderstand him. But any thinking person understands what he is saying here.
Thing is, he didn't mention even one counter-example. And no, he doesn't need to mention every possible counter-example.
It's not possible for someone to read Roth's tweets from the 24th and 25th and not be misled about what human shielding entails. Not everyone will go searching for his tweet from the 19th to "contextualize" the tweets from the 24-25th. Those tweets on their own are absolute lies and I'm certain you know this. He didn't have to mention there was no force/coercion for war crimes to "generally" happen. That's absurd. He was denying human-shielding in those tweets from the 24-25th even though THAT is what HRW labeled as human-shielding in Yemen. The force/coercion was merely his excuse for denying human-shielding.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So which set of laws do you think Roth is talking about, if not the laws of war?
Thank you! The answer is yes! Simply the proximity of civilians to military operations is not sufficient. Glad to see that you and Roth are in agreement. By the way, this implies that the headline of the OP you posted is a flat-out lie:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113481359
You see, Hamas admitted that some of its military operations were conducted too close to civilians, which we both agree is not equivalent to using human shields. Not surprising, since the Daily Mail is yet another one of the many right-wing sources that you continually post here. Still, since you knew the headline was a lie, why would you quote it? You knowingly posted a right-wing lie on DU.
As far as the rest, like I said, any reasonably person understood exactly what he meant, particularly since he used the word "generally". For details, I once again refer you to the actual investigations by HRW, Amnesty and others. You've already made up your mind that HRW are a bunch of liars, but you can't expect anyone else to believe you based on the fact that you misinterpret a couple 140 character tweets.
shira
(30,109 posts)So which set of laws do you think Roth is talking about, if not the laws of war?
I don't know. All I know is that he denies Hamas human shielding and has done so for years. He has never once to my knowledge ever accused Hamas of committing a war crime within the Gazan civilian population. He refuses to do so despite literally mountains of evidence.
Thank you! The answer is yes! Simply the proximity of civilians to military operations is not sufficient. Glad to see that you and Roth are in agreement. By the way, this implies that the headline of the OP you posted is a flat-out lie:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113481359
It's not a lie when Hamas has admitted many times before their intent to use civilians as shields. Hamas has a history of lying to western audiences.
Not so fast. I didn't agree Hamas military ops in close proximity to civilians was not human shielding.
Hamas has admitted many times on video their deliberate intent to use civilians as shields. They encourage this from civilians (which is a war crime as well). There's no lie here.
What you're doing is taking Hamas' word for it - for no apparent reason - in an attempt to help defend their war crimes.
We've been over this before, but using the word "generally" in one tweet doesn't let Roth off the hook for all other future tweets on the same topic.
My turn to ask you now...
Here are Gazan youths saying Hamas prevents them from evacuating to a safer place, thereby forcing them to be shields. There are many other reports of the same thing. HRW and Amnesty still maintain no human shielding. How do you respond to this?
#t=30
Eyewitness accounts:
“When people stopped listening to Hamas orders not to evacuate and began leaving their homes anyway, Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot without being asked any questions. That way Hamas made sure people had to stay in their homes even if they were about to get bombed. God will ask Hamas on judgment day for those killers’ blood.”
“The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. The Israelis either call or send a text message. Sometimes they call several times to make sure everyone has been evacuated. Hamas’s strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas’s official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed.”
“Hamas was. My father received a text-message from the Israeli army warning him that our area was going to be bombed, and Hamas prevented us from leaving. They said there was a curfew. A curfew, can you believe that? I swear to God, we will take revenge on Hamas.”
Again, this is not happening according to HRW and Amnesty.
Are these all zionist lies to you? What gives?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of war as laid out by the Geneva protocols, etc., since it couldn't possibly mean anything else. Which means that, yes, HRW does acknowledge that Hamas commits war crimes. And, as we've both acknowledged, this is not the only war crime that HRW holds them responsible for, there is also firing rockets at civilians. So this should finally put to rest the idea that HRW is trying to pretend that Hamas doesn't commit war crimes.
Of course it's a lie. The word "admit" has a very clear meaning, and in this instance they haven't admitted anything. The article isn't about some speech that some Hamas member made in the past. It's about the current incident. If you read the article, you will find that Hamas doesn't actually admit anything except for "mistakes". Could Hamas be lying? Sure. But "lying" and "admitting" are different things.
So, yes, you knowingly posted a headline that was a lie.
As for the rest, I'm satisfied that any reasonable person understands exactly what Roth meant. You are intent on deliberately misunderstanding, which is fine. I don't think there's any point in continuing to explain what the word "generally" means or the limitations of twitter as a forum for detailed legal analysis.
shira
(30,109 posts)...when they killed collaborators and protesters, these were illegal acts and not necessarily war crimes. Notice I'm using the word generally.
And I see you completely ignored all the HUMAN SHIELDING evidence pointing to Hamas enforcing a curfew and preventing civilians from leaving targeted areas (by shooting them). If that's not a human-shielding violation, nothing is.
And here you are very clearly denying and trying to explain away Hamas war crimes. You will blindly defend HRW in their continued defense of Hamas crimes against humanity. You lied to me when you assured me earlier that you are not an enabler or defender of Hamas war crimes.
I mean, how difficult is it for you to acknowledge that an internationally recognized terror group was enforcing a curfew and shooting their own people trying to evacuate targeted areas is human-shielding? Why can't you condemn it? Isn't that what any decent progressive would do? Rightwingers and fascists I understand wouldn't give a shit. So what gives?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think we've established beyond reasonable doubt that your charge that HRW is covering for Hamas is plainly false, which is what this discussion was about to begin with.
Again, both HRW and I agree that Hamas commits war crimes. I condemn Hamas war crimes as I've done many times before. I think all war crimes should be investigated, which is why it is so important that groups like HRW and Amnesty examine events in detail. The difference between you and I is that I hold both sides accountable for their war crimes, whereas you make excuses for Israeli war crimes.
Here's a long list of HRW reports holding Hamas responsible for war crimes:
http://www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/hamas
shira
(30,109 posts)Do you acknowledge or deny that Hamas forced Gazans to be human shields when they prevented them from evacuating targeted areas?
You say you condemn Hamas war crimes but you're now silent when given an example of human-shielding that HRW and Amnesty are ignoring.
Cat got your tongue?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)using human shields. Ken Roth would obviously agree.
When I follow your links I get one link to a right-wing think tank, and another to an one-sentence accusation by Fatah (a rival group of Hamas). In contrast, HRW and Amnesty and others have conducted extensive investigations. It's important to figure out what actually happened, and do so in a rigorous manner.
The investigations of the 2014 war haven't been concluded yet, so we don't know what they will say yet. It is noteworthy that Israel has tried to hamper the investigations by denying access to Gaza, but I am confident that these organizations are still going to be able to do an adequate job despite Israeli interference. If I had to guess, they are going to find many examples of war crimes on both sides. We'll have to wait and see.
Still, the main point, where this discussion started, is that your attacks on HRW for covering up Hamas war crimes are false. Here, again, is a long list of articles by HRW holding Hamas responsible for war crimes.
http://www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/hamas
shira
(30,109 posts)And if you start at 3:07, you'll find corroborating evidence from Gazan civilians that Hamas forced people to act as human shields:
There's also a lot more evidence in the following thread and it's not just "rightwing sources" or a 1-liner from Fatah/Abbas....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113481733
See posts # 1, 25, 26, 44, 45, 46. You cannot pretend this is not happening. Meanwhile, Amnesty and HRW haven't commented at all on this. It's not that they're busy investigating. At the very least they can acknowledge these accusations and reports and then state they're investigating the charges. They won't even do that b/c it would expose the lie they've been repeating for years - that there is no evidence of Hamas human shielding.
And you have the audacity to claim you're not defending these war crimes?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I condemn war crimes on both sides. Hamas has committed many war crimes, and I condemn them. IDF has committed many war crimes and I condemn them. And so does HRW, in both cases. If you followed the link I posted, you will find pages and pages of HRW condemning Hamas for war crimes.
Ken Roth's statement was accurate. And the only person who lied in this conversation was you, with your OP claiming Hamas "admitted" using human shields.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from the first time this video was posted since 7/22/13 the youtube channel - Lilly Green has literally flooded the channel with anti Palestinian stuff, but this one is truly classic btw Gaza's airport was bombed out of existence by IDF in 2001
shira
(30,109 posts)Had AQAP members deliberately joined the wedding procession to avoid attack they would have been committing the laws-of-war violation of using “human shields.”
http://www.hrw.org/node/123244/section/3
Oh gee, go figure.
When the AQAP joins a wedding procession to avoid attack, it's human shielding. When Hamas does it, Ken Roth of HRW goes out of his way to defend Hamas from war crime violations.
You give up yet?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The omitted sentence is underlined
Had AQAP members deliberately joined the wedding procession to avoid attack they would have been committing the laws-of-war violation of using “human shields.” AQAP shielding would not, however, justify an indiscriminate or disproportionate attack by US forces.
shira
(30,109 posts)...of human shielding as it pertains to the AQAP in Yemen?
Because if so, this applies to Hamas.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)was the military target significant enough to justify were the civilians lives lost and it went on to say the US should investigate the incident
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)civilian lives re: Sri Lanka and Yemen and btw HRW did not seem to feel it did in either case
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/04/sri-lanka-urgently-evacuate-civilians
Hamas ALWAYS does what the LTTE was accused of doing, but HRW refuses to call it human shielding.
Are we done yet?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The Sri Lankan armed forces have repeatedly and indiscriminately fired artillery at densely populated areas, including unilaterally declared "safe zones" and hospitals. Government statements have suggested that all ethnic Tamils who remain in LTTE-controlled areas are combatants, effectively giving a go-ahead for unlawful attacks.
hmmm what other government has recently used the possible presence of the enemy to justify massive attacks against civilian area's let me think.........
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Hebrew version-
למבצע היה "חותם בשתי ידיים" על המחירים עד כה. עוד הוא הוסיף: "לא היה מספיק קשב לאומי-צבאי לעניין המנהרות"
טל לב רם
גורם צבאי בכיר העריך הערב (חמישי בשיחה עם גלי צה"ל כי צה"ל יכול להשלים את המשימה של השמדת המנהרות תוך 48 שעות. הגורם הצבאי אמר כי "כל המנהרות כוונו לעבר מטרות צבאיות ולא לעבר יישובים בעוטף עזה", וכי "לא היה מספיק קשב לאומי-צבאי לעניין המנהרות".
לגבי מחירי המבצע עד כה, אמר אותו גורם צבאי בכיר כי היה "חותם על כך בשתי ידיים" טרם היציאה למבצע, זאת נוכח ההישגים. גורם אמר לגלי צה"ל כי היה נכון להגיע לפגיעה ביותר בכירי חמאס במבצע הנוכחי, וכי כ-90% מהמנהרות כבר סוכלו ברחבי הרצועה.
http://glz.co.il/1064-47425-he/Galatz.aspx
translated using Google Translate link included just in case
"Can complete the destruction of tunnels within 48 hours"
A senior military official told Army Radio this evening that "all the tunnels were aimed at military targets and not at the Gaza vicinity communities" and that the operation was not yet "signs with both hands" in prices to date. Etc. He added: "There was not enough national attention with regard to military tunnels "
Tal Lev Ram
A senior military official estimated that tonight (Thursday) in a conversation with Army Radio that the IDF can complete the task of destroying the tunnels within 48 hours. Military official said: "All the tunnels were aimed at military targets and not at the Gaza vicinity communities" and that "there was not enough international attention regarding the military-tunnel".
Prices for the operation so far, it said that the senior military official was "a mark on it with both hands" yet to the operation, in view of the achievements. Army Radio said the cause was right to reach the most senior Hamas harm to the current operation, and that about 90% of the tunnels in the Gaza Strip have been thwarted.
https://translate.google.com/
shira
(30,109 posts)It's clearly against IHL.
Roth defends Hamas war crimes. He still denies Hamas human shields as well.
A proud moment in history for Human Rights.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and the occupied territories?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Btselem. Peace now.
I realize both are Israeli, but I'm sure that non-Israeli ones exist. But HTW isn't one of them concerning this conflict.
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Egypt, and that's just the ME section we could go into the EU, Asia, and US sections too
http://www.hrw.org/news-all/11
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)It's against IHL to encourage civilians to put their lives in danger to protect a military target.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Hamas officials CANNOT by law encourage civilians to put their lives in danger.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If Hamas committed war crimes, will this exonerate Israel in your mind?
shira
(30,109 posts)Seems you're backing off your silly claim that Hamas needs to force civilians to act as shields in order to be guilty of war crime violations.
There's no "if". They did commit war crimes and terror washing political organizations masquerading as human rights advocates are covering for them.
I note that none of you here will even attempt to defend HRW for going out of their way to shield Hamas from war crimes.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)cover for Hamas. You've discounted B'Tselem and HRW so far as objective.
I see you don't want to answer the question about Israel, either.
Perhaps you missed my question earlier, where are the reports from your
human rights group...their reports on Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians
in Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
shira
(30,109 posts)In #4, I showed how IHL considers hostage taking unlawful and cited the evidence with a link. It doesn't matter whether the hostage is military or civilian.
In #2, Roth said civilians must be forced to stay as shields in order to be considered human shields. That's patently false, as you'll see nothing in the following about forcing anyone to do anything:
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
Why should good people take HRW seriously about its war crimes allegations when they go out of their way to protect Hamas from being accountable for its war crimes?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)numerous reports forth coming from other human rights groups. I imagine you'll have a reason to refute each and every one.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Definition of human shields
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.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
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.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is anonymous..from the Elder of Ziyon blog.
Your second link is from 2009, where the argument is that open societies should not be
examined by HRW..how convenient an opinion. This would remove Israel from their
repertoire.
Your third link is a controversy by right wing critics about Garlasco. He no longer works for HRW.
snip* Marc Garlasco (born September 4, 1970) is an American former Pentagon senior intelligence analyst, now senior civilian protection officer for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and senior military advisor for the Human Rights Council (HRC). Having served for seven years at the Pentagon, becoming chief of high-value targeting,[1]
Suspension over Nazi memorabilia
On September 14, 2009 Garlasco was suspended with pay after a controversy arose regarding an allegation that he collects Nazi memorabilia.[2][3] Criticism that had started to appear, posted by what the Guardian called Pro-Israeli bloggers, had questioned the appropriateness of Garlasco's hobby[28] while Garlasco said allegations of Nazi sympathies were "defamatory nonsense, spread maliciously by people with an interest in trying to undermine Human Rights Watch's reporting".[4] Garlasco has stated his hobby of collecting German and American World War memorabilia from the Second World War is because of his family history and his interest in military history. He also stated "I deeply regret causing pain and offense with a handful of juvenile and tasteless postings" on two websites.[4] HRW investigated the matter and indicated the suspension was "not a disciplinary measure. Human Rights Watch stands behind Garlasco's research and analysis".[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Garlasco
shira
(30,109 posts)You're still pimping a politically compromised organization that runs cover for Hamas war crimes.
Classy.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)likely will not be coming from an anonymous blog of Elders. I doubt Hamas will come away
unscathed, nor Israel.
Still waiting for your preferred human rights group reports on Palestinians in Israel
and the OT.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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. Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains. There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points. Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.
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.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule97
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)It actually never said anything remotely like that. Do you have any actual criticism.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just google "HRW Hamas." For example:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/20/gaza-hamas-should-end-killings-torture
They are not "defending Hamas" by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is, just because some actions by Hamas constitute war crimes, doesn't mean that everything they do is a war crime and Israel has free license to do whatever it wants. The same goes the other way, just because some actions by IDF constitute war crimes doesn't mean that everything they do is criminal and Hamas do anything it wants in return.
This is precisely why it is so important for human rights groups like HRW, Amnesty, etc. to investigate thoroughly and get the facts as to what actually happened or what didn't.
