There’s a telling quote from an Amnesty International representative regarding exactly what they think constitutes a war crime. Apparently, if they think it’s a crime, well then, it is.
Human rights groups are seeking to build a case that Israel and Hamas violated the laws of war during the fighting last month in this tiny coastal territory – a charge both combatants reject.
On Tuesday, the International Criminal Court said the Palestinian Authority had recognized the court’s jurisdiction in a move aimed at allowing a war crimes investigation.
Given the clarity of Hamas’ violations, such as firing rockets at Israeli cities, organizations are focusing more on Israeli actions, the facts of which they say are harder to establish.
“The Israeli authorities deny everything, so one has to prove what happened in a way that you don’t need to do with the Palestinian rockets,” said Donatella Rovera of Amnesty International.
Imagine that. You need to actually prove a crime happened before you can charge someone with it. Of course it’s not a challenge to prove that Hamas deliberately rocketed civilians. There is ample physical evidence, including videos of the rockets and mortars being launched. But there is nothing but “eyewitness” testimony to Israeli war crimes, and Palestinian eyewitnesses have been proven to be notorious liars. The al-Dura hoax comes immediately to mind.
Among the questions being raised are whether Israel used disproportionate force and failed to protect civilians.
That last one is a beaut. Amnesty, no doubt, will set the rules of what Israel had to do to protect civilians, and then—I know we’re all going to be shocked at this—will determine that Israel did not protect civilians. Of course, Amnesty will not launch an investigation into exactly how many “civilians” killed were actually Hamas terrorists.
The rest of the article is concerned with accusing Israel of war crimes. Note the vagueness of the “charges” and accusations.
The United Nations, the European Union and other organizations accuse Israel of using indiscriminate force, particularly in hits on U.N. buildings and Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. Some of the attacks proved deadly.
On Jan. 6, Israeli troops responded to militant mortar fire by shooting three artillery shells within 100 yards (meters) of a U.N. school, killing 42 people. The Israeli military said the dead included two Hamas militants.
Determining whether the shelling was a violation means asking, “Did they know there were 42 human beings there, or did they just know they were being fired upon?” said Crane, the law professor.
The military responded to requests for comment on the specific cases in this article with a general statement saying Israeli soldiers do not target civilians.
Israel also has been criticized for using white phosphorus weapons, which can be legitimately used in war to create smoke screens or provide illumination. But Fred Abrahams, of Human Rights Watch, said its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitute a war crime.
Doctors reported phosphorous burns throughout the war.
Abrahams also complained that his group’s researchers found 155-mm howitzer shells, which have a 30-yard (meter) margin of error and a blast radius of 300 yards (meters). Israel’s choice of such weapons over more precise alternatives raises questions of intention, he said.
“When you have an alternative that is GPS-guided and very accurate, why would you use a shell that is much less accurate and has a much larger kill radius?” Abrahams said.
Note that the charges aren’t charges. They are all accusations and implications. But that’s good enough for the media. And apparently, Amnesty isn’t far behind.