Final UN Gaza Report

cincybearcat wrote:

ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.

My answer is 'No, I don't'. But if someone can present to me evidence to the contrary - and it's not an IDF source - then bring it on.

cincybearcat wrote:

you are more of a condescending jerk then the people you call out in posts. Just because you don't use four letter words (oh wait...you do) doesn't mean that you aren't just like the crap you pretend to be outraged by.

But you see, as far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference in occasionally coming across as condescending, compared to asking you who the fuck you are, or describing you as crap, or as human scum, e.t.c.

At no point in this heated debate have I insulted you. Do you see the difference?

cincybearcat wrote:

I believe the leaders of Hamas don't care about civilian casualties...I think they like them because as I said it drives people to their side.

This is actually a pretty despicable comment.

If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.

And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?

Use of Human Shields by Israel during Operation Cast Lead:


1091. In conclusion, from the facts it gathered, the Mission finds that Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa, Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami and AD/03 were
captured by the Israeli armed forces while they were in their homes, in some cases together with
their families, and were then forced at gunpoint to search houses together with the Israeli armed
forces. The Mission also finds on the basis of those facts that they were all subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment during their captivity.

G. Legal findings

1092. Several provisions of international humanitarian law prohibit the practice of using
civilian men captured by the armed forces to search houses in which the invading army suspects
the risk of ambushes or booby traps.

1093. This practice constitutes the use of involuntary human shields and is a violation of article
28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which reads: “The presence of a protected person may not
be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” Article 51, paragraph
7, of Additional Protocol I adds that “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. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from
attacks or to shield military operations.” The prohibition of the use of human shields also has
customary law status (rule 97 of the ICRC rules of customary humanitarian law535), both in
international and in non-international armed conflict. The Mission, therefore, finds that the
Israeli armed forces have violated article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the
prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the
object of attacks, as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I.

1094. In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice was seized of a
case regarding the use of a very similar practice in the West Bank, at the time known as the
“neighbour procedure”. The petitioners, seven Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations,
535 Customary International Humanitarian Law…, p. 337. The Israeli Government recognizes the customary nature of the principle enshrined in Additional Protocol I, article 51 (7) (“The operation in Gaza…”, para. 151).

A/HRC/12/48
page 297 described cases in which “the IDF forced Palestinian residents to walk through and scan
buildings suspected to be booby-trapped, and in which it ordered them to enter certain areas
before the combat forces, in order to find wanted persons there; also described are cases in which
the army used residents as a “human shield” which accompanied the combat forces, to serve as a
shield against attack on those forces. […] Further described were cases in which local residents
were asked about the presence of wanted persons and weapons, under threat of bodily injury or
death, should the questions go unanswered.”536 In other words, the petitioners described
incidents analogous to those investigated by the Mission in Gaza.
1095. In their response to the petition, the Israeli armed forces and other respondents “clarified
unequivocally that they recognize that the forces operating in the field are categorically
forbidden from using Palestinian residents as a ‘live shield’ or as ‘hostages’, and that involving
local residents in any activity exposing them to danger to life or limb is prohibited.”537 The
Israeli armed forces also submitted to the High Court of Justice a directive regarding the use of
the so-called “early warning” procedure. This procedure relied on the allegedly exclusively
voluntary cooperation of Palestinian civilians to give wanted persons a warning to turn
themselves in. The directive states that “it is strictly forbidden to use the local resident in military
missions (e.g. locating explosive charges, intelligence gathering).” It also provides “it is strictly
forbidden to use a local resident as a ‘live shield’ against attack. Thus, during the advance of the
force, accompanied by the local resident, the latter is not to be positioned at the head of the
force.”538

1096. As a result of these assurances given by the Israeli armed forces, the High Court of
Justice did not rule on the so-called neighbour procedure, but on the “early warning” procedure.
In its ruling, it found that the “early warning” procedure was also “at odds with international
law” and ordered the armed forces to desist from any further use of the procedure.539 In reaching
this outcome, Supreme Court President A. Barak left no doubt that he considered the “neighbour
procedure” to violate article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He quotes approvingly from J.
536 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al., case

A/HRC/12/48
page 298
Pictet’s Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in which it is stated that “such practices
[the use of human shields], the object of which is to divert enemy fire, have rightly been
condemned as cruel and barbaric”.

1097. When reporting on its military operations in Gaza, the Israeli Government stated:
IDF’s rules of engagement strictly prohibit the use of civilians as human shields.
Moreover, the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that use of civilians in any capacity for the
purpose of military operations is unlawful, including the use of civilians to call terrorists
hiding in buildings. Following this judgement, this latter practice has also been proscribed
by IDF orders. The IDF is committed to enforcing this prohibition.
The IDF took a variety of measures to teach and instil awareness of these rules of engagement in commanders and soldiers.540

The Israeli Government does not, however, in any way mention the very specific allegations of
use of Palestinian civilians as human shields in January 2009 which have been in the public
domain since they were published in an Israeli newspaper in March 2009541 and in NGO reports
from April 2009 onwards, and which have been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General
of Israel in letters by Israeli NGOs.

1098. The Mission further finds from the facts available to it that the conduct of the Israeli
armed forces in the cases above violates article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This
provision dictates that “no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” The ICRC
Commentary notes that “article 31 prohibits coercion for any purpose or reason and the obtaining
of information is only given as an example. Thus, the custom, hitherto accepted in practice but
disputed in theory, that an invasion army may force the inhabitants of an occupied territory to
serve as ‘guides’ is now forbidden.”542

A/HRC/12/48
page 299
1099. The questioning of civilians under threat of death or injury by Israeli soldiers, who
demanded information about Hamas and the location of Palestinian combatants and tunnels, also
constitutes a violation of article 31. The Mission has no information on cases in which such a
threat was actually followed by the killing of a captured civilian. However, Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa and Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami, all claim that they
were threatened with execution. Majdi Abd Rabbo also claimed that he was kicked and beaten
by soldiers until he gave in to their request to enter the house of HS/08. Mahmoud Abd Rabbo
al-Ajrami was thrown from the second floor of his house after refusing to provide information to
Israeli soldiers, resulting in several broken ribs.

1100. The use of the “neighbour procedure”, now apparently renamed “Johnnie procedure”,
constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights norms. It puts the right to life of the civilians
concerned, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, at risk in an arbitrary and unlawful way. The anguish
to which civilians who, blindfolded and handcuffed, are forced at gunpoint to enter houses which
– this is the reason they are forced to enter the houses – might be booby-trapped or harbour
combatants who might open fire on them, can only be described as cruel and inhuman treatment
prohibited by article 7 of ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses were all deprived of liberty and the
security of their person violated. This also constitute a violation of article 9 of ICCPR. The
Mission must state that numerous civilians who came into contact with the Israeli armed forces
during the military operation recounted shocking stories of humiliation that would certainly be in
stark contravention of the principle of respect for human dignity, which forms the core of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.

1101. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts
are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to
protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the
conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the
said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of
the Rome Statute.

1102. Finally, the Mission finds that obliging Majdi Abd Rabbo to use a megaphone to call on
the men trapped in the house behind his to surrender, on the grounds that ICRC was present and they could safely hand themselves over, qualifies as a violation of article 37 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits perfidy. At the time, the Izbat Abd Rabbo area was a closed military zone into which no one, including ICRC, was permitted to enter.
Perfidy is defined by article 37 as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”. Acts amounting to perfidy resulting in death or serious personal injury are also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (vii) of the Rome Statute.