The Lancet’s indefensible defense of antisemitic David Duke promoters

[DanTex]

135. You're ignoring the sentences that aren't bolded.

Although I'm glad you brought this excerpt up, because it once again disproves your repeated claims that Amnesty ignores evidence to try and paint Hamas in a good light.

Let's check out the non-bolded sentences:

However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment.

This is obviously true -- the intent of the calls matters. These events may have constituted intentional human shielding, or they may have been trying to minimize panic and displacement.

And now the more important sentence:

Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still APPLY.

This is also obviously true. Even if this were human shielding, it doesn't change Israel's obligations to protect civilians. This is the part you have a the biggest problem with, because your whole goal here is to absolve Israel of the responsibility for the civilians they kill. As Amnesty and others documented extensively, Israel has systematically committed war crimes, and the "human shield" question doesn't change that.

Also, your ideological counterparts on the anti-Israeli side would have the same problem with Amnesty's meticulous and fact-based approach to drawing conclusions. To them, it is "obvious" that Israel just wants to commit genocide. But Amnesty won't give them what they want either.

That's what makes groups like Amnesty so important. They ignore the screaming extremists on either side and focus on the facts.