Hamas Continues to Use Gaza's Residents as Human Shields

[donsutherland1]

In the continuing combat between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization, Hamas is continuing to use Gaza's civilian population as human shields. The January 6, 2009 edition of Haaretz revealed:

Hamas has thus far avoided direct clashes with Israel Defense Forces troops, preferring instead to take refuge in densely populated civilian neighborhoods, Palestinians sources said yesterday.

Hamas, they said, prefers to shoot from between houses, leaving local civilians to absorb the IDF's retaliatory strikes. Yesterday, two Palestinian families were killed by IDF fire...

The sources also said that senior Hamas officials have been spotted more than once wandering around the maternity ward of Gaza City's Shifa Hospital and even using the hospital to hold press conferences, on the theory that it offers a safe haven from Israeli fire. For the same reason, Hamas forces have taken refuge near buildings that serve as headquarters for various international organizations, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations.

Hamas' human shielding is a violation of international law. Under Article 51 of Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." By placing its facilities, weapons, and operatives in the midst of civilians, firing from densely-populated areas, and using hospitals as command and control centers, Hamas is violating international law. As a result, Hamas bears total responsibility for civilian casualties that result from its human shielding.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You know, even I find this disgusting.

 

[Jakers]

In the continuing combat between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization, Hamas is continuing to use Gaza's civilian population as human shields. The January 6, 2009 edition of Haaretz revealed:

Hamas has thus far avoided direct clashes with Israel Defense Forces troops, preferring instead to take refuge in densely populated civilian neighborhoods, Palestinians sources said yesterday.

Hamas, they said, prefers to shoot from between houses, leaving local civilians to absorb the IDF's retaliatory strikes. Yesterday, two Palestinian families were killed by IDF fire...

The sources also said that senior Hamas officials have been spotted more than once wandering around the maternity ward of Gaza City's Shifa Hospital and even using the hospital to hold press conferences, on the theory that it offers a safe haven from Israeli fire. For the same reason, Hamas forces have taken refuge near buildings that serve as headquarters for various international organizations, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations.

Hamas' human shielding is a violation of international law. Under Article 51 of Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." By placing its facilities, weapons, and operatives in the midst of civilians, firing from densely-populated areas, and using hospitals as command and control centers, Hamas is violating international law. As a result, Hamas bears total responsibility for civilian casualties that result from its human shielding.

I believe that protocol applies to formal warfare between organized, uniformed, professional armed forces. That is, soldiers--not part-time fighters who are also full-time civilians. By your reasoning, in the wars against the plains indians, the warriors were using their own wives, children, and grandparents as 'human shields' against the cavalry of Custer and his ilk. Therefore when Custer rode into a sleeping indian encampment and slaughtered everything that moved, the total reponsibility for the deaths of babies and blind old men and who knows who, was entirely the responsibility of those cowardly braves who had beehn "using them as human shields".


The only instances in which a civilian combatant can be said to use a civilian non-combatant as a "human shield" is when those non-combatants are forced, as hostages, to come between the combatants. This is the case where bank robbers take hostages as human shields, but it is not the case in native indian encampments, Vietnamese villages, or Palestinian towns.

Much as you'ld love to find a freash way of blaming the victim.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe that protocol applies to formal warfare between organized, uniformed, professional armed forces. That is, soldiers--not part-time fighters who are also full-time civilians.

Being amateur combatants does not excuse them from the shame of quartering themselves in hospitals.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

I believe that protocol applies to formal warfare between organized, uniformed, professional armed forces. That is, soldiers--not part-time fighters who are also full-time civilians. By your reasoning, in the wars against the plains indians, the warriors were using their own wives, children, and grandparents as 'human shields' against the cavalry of Custer and his ilk. Therefore when Custer rode into a sleeping indian encampment and slaughtered everything that moved, the total reponsibility for the deaths of babies and blind old men and who knows who, was entirely the responsibility of those cowardly braves who had beehn "using them as human shields".

They are not simply living their lives, and happen to be around civilians. Hamas specifically hides in civilian areas to make it difficult for Israel to strike them without collateral damage. It is an intentional tactic, and it is beyond despicable.

 

[donsutherland1]

I believe that protocol applies to formal warfare between organized, uniformed, professional armed forces. That is, soldiers--not part-time fighters who are also full-time civilians.

Although neither Hamas nor Israel are signatories of Protocol I, the fundamental principle that civilians enjoy protected status and that combatants are generally barred from being used as human shields is treated as a norm of international law with respect to combat. Not surprisingly, groups such as Amnesty International have criticized Hamas in the past for violating various provisions of international humanitarian law.

One has to bear in mind that the use of human shields does not render a target immune from attack unless the expected number of civilian casualties is excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage. Hence, if a senior Hamas official hides in his home and keeps his wife and children there, the home is properly a military objective. The responsibility for the harm rendered to his wife and children belongs to him. He had used them as human shields. That his terrorist entity is not a signatory to the various international instruments makes no difference when it comes to his responsibility.

By your reasoning, in the wars against the plains indians, the warriors were using their own wives, children, and grandparents as 'human shields' against the cavalry of Custer and his ilk. Therefore when Custer rode into a sleeping indian encampment and slaughtered everything that moved, the total reponsibility for the deaths of babies and blind old men and who knows who, was entirely the responsibility of those cowardly braves who had beehn "using them as human shields".

Israel is not slaughtering sleeping people. The analogy is irrelevant.

The only instances in which a civilian combatant can be said to use a civilian non-combatant as a "human shield" is when those non-combatants are forced, as hostages, to come between the combatants. This is the case where bank robbers take hostages as human shields, but it is not the case in native indian encampments, Vietnamese villages, or Palestinian towns.

That's incorrect. The language of Protocol I, which sets out the generally-accepted practice of what constitutes human shielding, is far broader.

Much as you'ld love to find a freash way of blaming the victim.

Hamas is not a victim. Ordinary Gazans who are dying in the combat are victims of Hamas' human shielding. Hamas is completely responsible for the harm they suffer.

If, for example, Israel conducts air strikes on the part of the Shifa Hospital used by Hamas (which I hope won't happen) or is forced to engage in room-to-room combat in a bid to apprehend the Hamas operatives in the hospital, Hamas would also bear responsibility for any civilian casualties. Why? Because civilian objectives lose their protected status when they are used for military advantage. With Hamas using the hospital's maternity ward for leadership activities, the hospital is being used for military purposes and has become a military objective. The same held true with respect to the mosques in which Hamas was storing weapons or conducting command-and-control operations. The only limitation would be whether the civilian casualties would be expected to be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage. That calculation would depend on the number of Hamas operatives present relative to civilians, the level of Hamas leadership using the hospital, etc.

 

[Billo_Really]

Although neither Hamas nor Israel are signatories of Protocol I, the fundamental principle that civilians enjoy protected status and that combatants are generally barred from being used as human shields is treated as a norm of international law with respect to combat. Not surprisingly, groups such as Amnesty International have criticized Hamas in the past for violating various provisions of international humanitarian law.

One has to bear in mind that the use of human shields does not render a target immune from attack unless the expected number of civilian casualties is excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage. Hence, if a senior Hamas official hides in his home and keeps his wife and children there, the home is properly a military objective. The responsibility for the harm rendered to his wife and children belongs to him. He had used them as human shields. That his terrorist entity is not a signatory to the various international instruments makes no difference when it comes to his responsibility.



Israel is not slaughtering sleeping people. The analogy is irrelevant.



That's incorrect. The language of Protocol I, which sets out the generally-accepted practice of what constitutes human shielding, is far broader.



Hamas is not a victim. Ordinary Gazans who are dying in the combat are victims of Hamas' human shielding. Hamas is completely responsible for the harm they suffer.

If, for example, Israel conducts air strikes on the part of the Shifa Hospital used by Hamas (which I hope won't happen) or is forced to engage in room-to-room combat in a bid to apprehend the Hamas operatives in the hospital, Hamas would also bear responsibility for any civilian casualties. Why? Because civilian objectives lose their protected status when they are used for military advantage. With Hamas using the hospital's maternity ward for leadership activities, the hospital is being used for military purposes and has become a military objective. The same held true with respect to the mosques in which Hamas was storing weapons or conducting command-and-control operations. The only limitation would be whether the civilian casualties would be expected to be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage. That calculation would depend on the number of Hamas operatives present relative to civilians, the level of Hamas leadership using the hospital, etc.

It is illegal to attack a hospital under any conditions. But that doesn't mean anything to a country that was born out of its own zionist terrorism.

the fact that militant Zionists employed terrorism as part of their campaign to establish Israel as a Jewish state. The terrorism included killings of British officials who were administering Palestine under an international mandate as well as Palestinians who were driven violently from their land so it could be claimed by Jewish settlers.

One of the most famous of those terrorist attacks was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where British officials were staying. The attack, which killed 91 people including local residents, was carried out by the Irgun, a terrorist group run by Menachem Begin who later founded the Likud Party and rose to be Israel’s prime minister.

Another veteran of the campaign of Zionist terrorism was Yitzhak Shamir, who also became a Likud leader and eventually prime minister.

You might stop the rockets, but until Israel stops enabling the hatred with its own brand of terrorism, the problem will not be solved.

 

[Vader]

It is illegal to attack a hospital under any conditions. <---- WRONG.

Hospitals are valid targets when they are militarized.

The term "zionist" is inappropriate because it is used by terrorists to describe non-muslims everywhere.

Israel is NOT using terrorism. It's incorrect "Carter-ite" thinking to say otherwise.

The hatred in that region has been going on for thousands of years. The fact that Hamas terrorists brainwash their children into martyrs for allah is disgusting.

Israel doesn't do this.

Morever, self-defence is NOT terrorism. You should learn the difference.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hospitals are valid targets when they are militarized.

The term "zionist" is inappropriate because it is used by terrorists to describe non-muslims everywhere.

I don't even know what a "zion" is.

As for the hospital claim, you need to provide proof before you bomb.

Incidently, name me one hospital that has been.

 

[Vader]

I don't even know what a "zion" is.

As for the hospital claim, you need to provide proof before you bomb.

If there was evidence of it, the hospital would be bombed out of existence.

 

[Vader]

I don't even know what a "zion" is.

As for the hospital claim, you need to provide proof before you bomb.

Incidently, name me one hospital that has been.

"Zion" is the Judeao-Christian vision of heavan.

Heavan's gate is often called "Zion's gate"

 

[Billo_Really]

If there was evidence of it, the hospital would be bombed out of existence.

And if there wasn't evidence of it...

 

[Billo_Really]

"Zion" is the Judeao-Christian vision of heavan.

Heavan's gate is often called "Zion's gate"

What about that movie, "The Zion King?"

 

[donsutherland1]

It is illegal to attack a hospital under any conditions.

Incorrect, though it would be a public relations disaster.

Under Article 13 of Protocol I, "The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded."

What Hamas is doing in using Shifa Hospital for its activities and, in the process using its patients as human shields, is absolutely prohibited. Article 13 states, "Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack."

Having said that, as noted previously, I hope that Israel does not conduct any air strikes on the hospital despite Hamas' reprehensible human shielding there. Other methods should be used to apprehend Hamas' personnel so as to minimize risks to the hospital's staff and patients. Any harm that would result would be Hamas' responsibility due to Hamas' actions with respect to the hospital.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

These terrorist cowards are the cause of thier own peoples suffering.

 

[Iriemon]

In the continuing combat between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization, Hamas is continuing to use Gaza's civilian population as human shields. The January 6, 2009 edition of Haaretz revealed:

Hamas has thus far avoided direct clashes with Israel Defense Forces troops, preferring instead to take refuge in densely populated civilian neighborhoods, Palestinians sources said yesterday.

Hamas, they said, prefers to shoot from between houses, leaving local civilians to absorb the IDF's retaliatory strikes. Yesterday, two Palestinian families were killed by IDF fire...

The sources also said that senior Hamas officials have been spotted more than once wandering around the maternity ward of Gaza City's Shifa Hospital and even using the hospital to hold press conferences, on the theory that it offers a safe haven from Israeli fire. For the same reason, Hamas forces have taken refuge near buildings that serve as headquarters for various international organizations, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations.

Hamas' human shielding is a violation of international law. Under Article 51 of Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." By placing its facilities, weapons, and operatives in the midst of civilians, firing from densely-populated areas, and using hospitals as command and control centers, Hamas is violating international law. As a result, Hamas bears total responsibility for civilian casualties that result from its human shielding.

This is an Israeli news source; is it confirmed by more objective sources?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is an Israeli news source; is it confirmed by more objective sources?

Yeah we can't trust those pesky J00s..... :rofl

 

[Dezaad]

This is an Israeli news source; is it confirmed by more objective sources?

No matter what news source you find, you have to consider how they would have acquired their information. The only people that could give reports are Israeli Soldiers and Gazan Palestinians.

What do you think the liklihood is that you are going to get objective information of any kind out of a war zone. That said, Haaretz is probably the most objective Israeli source you are going to find.

 

[Iriemon]

Yeah we can't trust those pesky J00s..... :rofl

Maybe that is your belief. Personally, I don't trust my own government for sources of information particularly when it comes to war reporting. I'm not inclined to trust a source from one of the belligerents involved.

 

[Iriemon]

No matter what news source you find, you have to consider how they would have acquired their information. The only people that could give reports are Israeli Soldiers and Gazan Palestinians.

What do you think the liklihood is that you are going to get objective information of any kind out of a war zone. That said, Haaretz is probably the most objective Israeli source you are going to find.

I'm not familiar with the source, but I'm just guessing they don't have the Palestinians best interests in mind.

Even objective news sources show bias, particularly in war time. We've seen it in our own country.

Israel has a strong interest in shaping public opinion in its favor, particular in the US. I'd expect Israeli soldiers and news sources to convey reports in a way that is consistent with this objective.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Maybe that is your belief. Personally, I don't trust my own government for sources of information particularly when it comes to war reporting. I'm not inclined to trust a source from one of the belligerents involved.

This is Haaretz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not the Isreali government, This is like the NY times of Isreal. You like the NY times right?

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not familiar with the source, but I'm just guessing they don't have the Palestinians best interests in mind.

Even objective news sources show bias, particularly in war time. We've seen it in our own country.

Israel has a strong interest in shaping public opinion in its favor, particular in the US. I'd expect Israeli soldiers and news sources to convey reports in a way that is consistent with this objective.

Since it is the Israeli's that will not allow western journalists in to Gaza to report on what's going on, I have to conclude that the story isn't what the Israeli's are making it out to be. I mean if they were telling the truth, they'd want someone from the media to come in and say, "Yup, it's just like they said it is." But they won't, so it probably isn't.

 

[shiznit770]

Incorrect, though it would be a public relations disaster.

Under Article 13 of Protocol I, "The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded."

What Hamas is doing in using Shifa Hospital for its activities and, in the process using its patients as human shields, is absolutely prohibited. Article 13 states, "Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack."

Having said that, as noted previously, I hope that Israel does not conduct any air strikes on the hospital despite Hamas' reprehensible human shielding there. Other methods should be used to apprehend Hamas' personnel so as to minimize risks to the hospital's staff and patients. Any harm that would result would be Hamas' responsibility due to Hamas' actions with respect to the hospital.

What "activities" are they doing in the Hospital? I think we are all aware of Hamas' severe lack of military power. The expectations of fighting a war on an open field are far extinct. Especially when the war is at their doorstep.

Like it or not Hamas does not equal military target, yet Israel treats it as such. Their political leaders and even policemen (not military) are targeted despite their proximity to civilians. Hamas, like any other governing body, has a military branch conducting their operations. What you're saying equates to another country targeting a of hospital because there are Democrats in it.

 

[ADK_Forever]

What "activities" are they doing in the Hospital? I think we are all aware of Hamas' severe lack of military power. The expectations of fighting a war on an open field are far extinct. Especially when the war is at their doorstep.

Like it or not Hamas does not equal military target, yet Israel treats it as such. Their political leaders and even policemen (not military) are targeted despite their proximity to civilians. Hamas, like any other governing body, has a military branch conducting their operations. What you're saying equates to another country targeting a of hospital because there are Democrats in it.

Hamas are cowards. Dats a fact, Jack!

The bolded statements above don't even deserve a response.

Only cowards hide behind women and children and the sick.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hamas are cowards. Dats a fact, Jack!

The bolded statements above don't even deserve a response.

Only cowards hide behind women and children and the sick.

Maybe their not hiding. Maybe their just visiting.