Re: Occupied Palestine…
Lovely use of selective quotations. I especially liked how you literally ignored the portions of the report that state in no uncertain terms that the Israelis were acting in violation of international humanitarian law, as well as the parts that discuss the “indiscriminate and unlawful” attacks on medical services, and UN peacekeepers.
Let’s quote from the Amnesty International report now, shall we?
On the basis of all the information available, Amnesty International believes that the IDF intentionally attacked the UN compound, although the motives for doing so remain unclear. The IDF have failed to substantiate their claim that the attack was a mistake. *Even if they were to do so they would still bear responsibility for killing so many civilians by taking the risk to launch an attack so close to the UN compound.
*
It is also clear, based on the available information, that *Hizbullah combatants fired a mortar from a position within 200 metres of the periphery of the UN compound. All indications are that they were firing at an IDF patrol who had infiltrated north of the security zone and had apparently been laying mines. The intention of the Hizbullah combatants in choosing that location for the mortar is unclear; it might have been to shield themselves against an IDF counter-attack in the belief that the UN compound would be too close for the IDF to respond. Even if this was not the intention of the Hizbullah combatants, by taking up positions where they did they clearly were reckless as to the consequences this might have for the civilians in the immediate area. In either case, this is a clear breach of the laws of wars prohibitions on using the civilian population as a shield. However, Hizbullahs *action in no way justifies the IDF attack on the compound.
**The Israeli authorities further argue that they have a right to respond to attacks and that if civilians are killed it is because *Hizbullah *is using them as a shield. However, when Protocol 1 was drafted, those involved, including military experts from many countries, were fully aware of the need to balance the protection of civilians against the demands of military necessity. To allow an armed force carte blanche to attack without regard for civilian lives simply on the basis that the civilians in question are being used as shields, would undermine efforts to protect them. For this reason, while prohibiting shielding tactics, international law also makes clear that use of such tactics does not provide the other side with a licence to kill civilians. Article 50(3) of Protocol 1 provides:
The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Furthermore, Article 51(8) makes clear that even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a violation of international law does not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. Such measures include refraining from launching an attack, and even cancelling an attack in progress, if such an attack may be expected to cause disproportionate loss of civilian life, and giving advance warning of an attack.
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150421996?open&of=ENG-2D2
No one is absolving Hezbollah of using human shields. But to claim that it’s any sort of justification for blowing up a UN compound teeming with civilians is nothing short of morally bankrupt. Even the Israeli government knew that…which is why they (and the US, of course) denied that the attack was even done intentionally.