Reply #86: so peacekeepers for the UN are to have one definition of human shielding, but that's.... [View All]

[shira]

....really not anything anyone should go by - including the UNHRC? Why then would they include such a definition in one of their UN sponsored projects?

1. It's not that HRW is defining "similar" things differently - the scenarios are identical between the LTTE, Somalis, etc.. and Hamas. In fact, on the LTTE, etc.. HRW and one of their investigators last month use the UN glossary's definition for peacekeepers, and you find that just coincidental or of no import? Come on, Violet.

2. They may have served dual purposes as a police force as well, but they were still part of Hamas' military serving a continuous combat function. I'm really not sure why you and the UNHRC reject anything Hamas says when Hamas admits those police were in fact militants. Here's a news article from the first day of OCL:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/27/world/main4687505.shtml

Israeli warplanes rained more than 100 tons of bombs on security sites in Hamas-ruled Gaza Saturday and early Sunday, killing at least 230 people in one of the Mideast conflict's bloodiest assaults in decades. The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel.

Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead. More than 400 people were also wounded.

Do you get what that means, Violet? 15 out of 230 were civilians according to Palestinian officials. That's a clear indication the police were not civilians according to Palestinian officials after the 1st day of combat (before all the propaganda started).

Now once again, why should I just ignore what Palestinian authorities, Hamas officials, etc.. say about their own "police" force? Why must I believe they count as innocent civilians - because we must trust HRW or the UNHRC? Help me to understand this line of thinking, Violet.