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.
Nice selective context there, removing the first part of the sentence:
In the killings documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the victims were used by Palestinian fighters as human shields or were shot in the crossfire between opposing forces.
So according to the HRW investigation of 11 killings in 2008-2009 the killings weren’t justified by the claims of human shields.
And yet you have things like the UN in 2014 condemning the placement of rockets on site in one of its schools in the region for the second time:
So maybe you mischaracterizing the HRW conclusion and actively ignoring other evidence in the process is the real lying here?
Edit: Also, just for source consistency, we have this 2012 report from HRW:
Human Rights Watch research in Gaza found that armed groups repeatedly fired rockets from densely populated areas, near homes, businesses, and a hotel, unnecessarily placing civilians in the vicinity at grave risk from Israeli counter-fire.
Are you accusing Human Rights Watch of lying? Because that’s who I quoted. Amnesty International also found no evidence to corroborate the accusations of “human shields.” In the paragraph below from this source.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International. And while we’re ignoring other evidence, should we consider Israel’s use of “human shields”.
I like this game. I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
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. […]
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.
Now, while the above definition would include launching missiles near civilian infrastructure to dissuade retaliation, you are correct that the typical reference to the use of human shields is specifically around hostage taking - which is additionally defined as a war crime in its own right.
So if you want to claim that Hamas doesn’t take hostages or that they did but then didn’t colocate hostages near military operations, then potentially we could have a conversation about the degree to which they met the textbook definitions of human shields (as was discussed in Amnesty International’s piece calling for the hostages to be released and not located near military operations here).
But the topic in the original article relating to the EU condemnation and much of the current conversation of Hamas using schools or hospitals as “human shields” relates to their colocation of military operations including rockets near civilian infrastructure.
So we’re really splitting hairs here with the semantics relative to the OP article.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International.
I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
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.
Overall, we rate B’Tselem Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them as mostly factual in reporting due to not always sourcing information.
Israel’s regime of apartheid and occupation is inextricably bound up in human rights violations. B’Tselem strives to end this regime, as that is the only way forward to a future in which human rights, democracy, liberty and equality are ensured to all people, both Palestinian and Israeli, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
We reviewed the article “Parched: Israel’s Policy of water deprivation in the West Bank.” It discusses the significant water usage disparity between Israelis and Palestinians, attributing it to Israel’s discriminatory policy. The body and the headline use strong, emotionally loaded language, indicating a clear bias against the Israeli government’s policies. The headline suggests that Israel’s water deprivation in the West Bank is deliberate, setting a critical tone towards these policies.
Right from your own link. Just a biased source aimed at hate speech against Israel. Your quote only enforces that.
Nice selective context there, removing the first part of the sentence:
So according to the HRW investigation of 11 killings in 2008-2009 the killings weren’t justified by the claims of human shields.
And yet you have things like the UN in 2014 condemning the placement of rockets on site in one of its schools in the region for the second time:
https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools
So maybe you mischaracterizing the HRW conclusion and actively ignoring other evidence in the process is the real lying here?
Edit: Also, just for source consistency, we have this 2012 report from HRW:
Are you accusing Human Rights Watch of lying? Because that’s who I quoted. Amnesty International also found no evidence to corroborate the accusations of “human shields.” In the paragraph below from this source.
Placement of rockets does not qualify as a human shield, per Amnesty International. And while we’re ignoring other evidence, should we consider Israel’s use of “human shields”.
I like this game. I have the truth on my side, so I will always win.
Now, while the above definition would include launching missiles near civilian infrastructure to dissuade retaliation, you are correct that the typical reference to the use of human shields is specifically around hostage taking - which is additionally defined as a war crime in its own right.
So if you want to claim that Hamas doesn’t take hostages or that they did but then didn’t colocate hostages near military operations, then potentially we could have a conversation about the degree to which they met the textbook definitions of human shields (as was discussed in Amnesty International’s piece calling for the hostages to be released and not located near military operations here).
But the topic in the original article relating to the EU condemnation and much of the current conversation of Hamas using schools or hospitals as “human shields” relates to their colocation of military operations including rockets near civilian infrastructure.
So we’re really splitting hairs here with the semantics relative to the OP article.
Have a source for this specific claim? Because they certainly seem to take a critical stance on the practice.
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.
We get it, you love selective quoting. Give it a rest already.
Looks like you’ve quoted a biased source making your evidence null. Your accusation is now baseless. Thanks for playing by your own rules.
Read ‘em and weep. Thanks for playing.
Oh goody, thanks for providing a source proving my point. I guess you didn’t actually read it yourself.
Failed Fact Check
Glad to know where you stand.
Right from your own link. Just a biased source aimed at hate speech against Israel. Your quote only enforces that.
Boom 💥 you got me. Feels good don’t it. Now get some rest so you can defend the killing of premature babies tomorrow. You’re gonna need it.