,
17 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1. If you believe avowed Hamas supporter @JeremyCorbyn, the UN Human Rights Council's latest inquiry on Gaza was fair, objective and credible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
2. Let's begin by taking at a look at the UNHRC resolution that created and governed the inquiry, Resolution S-28/1. This founding text of the inquiry falsely characterized all of the Palestinians at the border fence as “civilians” and their activities as ”peaceful protests.”
3. The prejudicial resolution title itself presumptively referred to “civilian protests;” PP8 spoke of Israel’s “intentional targeting” of Palestinian “civilians”; OP1 referred to “peaceful protests”; OP3 cited “demonstrations” by “civilians” that are “peaceful.”
4. And OP5 referred to Israel’s “assaults” on large-scale “civilian protests.” These blanket characterizations of individuals on the Gaza side—and of their intentions and actions—were false, incomplete and misleading. They tainted the UNHRC commission of inquiry from the start.
5. Moreover, Resolution S-28/1 omitted any reference to Hamas violations of international law, which are widespread and severe: targeting Israeli civilians in violation of Article 51(2) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949;
6. ...using Palestinian civilians, including women and children, as human shields, in violation of Article 51(7) of the First Additional Protocol; and disguising its own fighters as civilians, in violation of Article 37 of the First Additional Protocol — the crime of perfidy.
7. UNHRC Resolution S-28/1 referred to Israel’s “disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force,” suggesting that “the extensive loss of life” on the Palestinian side renders the force used by Israel not proportional.
8. However, notwithstanding the common misconception, the concept of proportionality under the laws of war is not a question of comparing the body count—of tabulating and comparing the number of Israelis killed or injured versus the number of Palestinians killed or injured.
9. Rather, it is a prospective consideration based on the military commander’s assessment of whether the expected civilian casualties will be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain. In fact, the laws of war accept the possibility of civilian casualties.
10. The correct legal analysis would look at whether the Israeli commander who used live ammo in a particular scenario determined that the expected civilian casualties would not be excessive in relation the anticipated military gain, presumably preventing the breach of the fence.
11. It is a case by case analysis that can only be properly undertaken based on facts and data in the control of the Israeli military.
12. Now about the Commission of Inquiry and their report. It is astonishing that not 1 of the 3 members—Sara Hossain, Santiago Canton, Betty Murungi—has expertise on military security operations, law enforcement or border security. They had no competence to examine the issues.
13. Their report failed to condemn Hamas' ongoing efforts to reach Israeli civilian communities in order to engage in unlawful attacks.
Inexplicably, the inquiry likewise failed to condemn Hamas' documented use of human shields.
Inexplicably, the inquiry likewise failed to condemn Hamas' documented use of human shields.
14. The inquiry applied an unrealistic & arbitrary standard for "imminent" threat to life. The actual legal standard was set forth in @Lawfareblog by legal scholars Geoffrey S. Corn & Peter Margulies. lawfareblog.com/use-force-gaza…
15. In their article the law professors noted: "To be targetable under [the laws of war], persons must be reasonably assessed as either belligerent subordinates of the organized armed group or directly participating in hostilities; no further 'imminence' assessment is required."
16. When the UNHRC debates this specious report on March 18th, all delegates will have before them our Written Statement, A/HRC/40/NGO/196, exposing how the inquiry was tainted due to the omissions and misstatements of Resolution S/28-1. unwatch.org/wp-content/upl… 
17. UNHRC delegates will also have before them A/HRC/40/NGO/204, our Written Statement on the evidence of Hamas crimes which we had submitted to the Commission of Inquiry, but which they almost entirely ignored. unwatch.org/wp-content/upl…
