Hamas’s Affection for Deceased Palestinians
The First Geneva Conventions: Protecting Wounded Soldiers
In 1859, human rights activist Henry Dunant witnessed the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino and was appalled by the mistreatment of wounded soldiers. He tirelessly worked to unite governments and establish rules for the treatment of captured and injured soldiers. These rules, known as the First Geneva Conventions, were signed in Geneva in 1864.
Expanding Protection to Civilians: The Fourth Geneva Convention
It took 85 years for the world to address the treatment of civilians in wartime. The horrors of World War II prompted the expansion of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 to safeguard non-combatant civilians. The Fourth Geneva Convention aimed to encourage military actors to separate themselves from civilians and protect them. The 1977 additional protocols explicitly prohibited the use of human shields in war.
Outlawing Human Shields: Protecting Civilians
- Article 12(4) states: “Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack.”
- Article 51(7) states: “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.”
- Article 8(2)(b) of the 1998 ICC Statute says, “‘[u]tilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations’ constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.”
The purpose of banning human shields is clear: no country should sacrifice its military goals to protect civilians deliberately put in harm’s way by the enemy. Allowing the use of human shields would only lead to more civilian deaths in the pursuit of military objectives.
The Media’s Distorted Narrative: Hamas and Human Shields
Despite knowing that Hamas uses human shields and openly boasts about it, the legacy media and the political Left continue to downplay this reality. Recent events in Gaza have revealed the extent of Hamas’ disregard for civilian lives. Rocket launchers were found near children’s pools and playgrounds, and Hamas prevented the evacuation of civilians. The media echoed Hamas’ false claims, further distorting the truth.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
Israeli Defense Forces discovered that an ambulance, which Hamas claimed was targeted while transporting the wounded, was actually being used to transport terrorists. This aligns with Hamas’ past practices. Meanwhile, the Al-Shifa Hospital, Hamas’ military headquarters, remains operational, and large crowds cheer as Hamas members attack Israelis.
Israel, in contrast, has made extensive efforts to minimize civilian casualties. They have made thousands of calls, dropped leaflets, and sent messages urging civilians to temporarily evacuate for their safety. Despite these efforts, Hamas claims a high number of civilian casualties, but their statistics are unverified and often inflated.
Meticulous Use of Force: Israel’s Commitment to Minimize Civilian Casualties
Israel’s approach to the use of force is meticulous, aiming to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. Comparatively, historical conflicts have resulted in far greater civilian deaths. The numbers speak for themselves: millions of civilians died in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts.
While the media and critics focus on Israel’s actions, they conveniently ignore the staggering civilian casualties caused by other nations in the Middle East. The Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen, the Syrian civil war, and Pakistan’s deportation of Afghan civilians are just a few examples.
The Double Standard: Blaming Israel and Ignoring Hamas’ Atrocities
Despite Hamas’ use of human shields and its deliberate targeting of Israeli troops, the media and certain political figures, like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib, falsely accuse Israel of indiscriminate bombing. This moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas serves to justify Hamas’ atrocities and delegitimize Israel’s right to defend itself.
Rashida Tlaib defended Hamas’ genocidal slogan, claiming it was about freedom. However, the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free” is a call for the destruction of Israel, not freedom. The Palestinian Authority and its advocates refuse to condemn Hamas’ atrocities, further highlighting their support for violence.
The Dangerous Game of Moral Equivalence
The goal of those who support Hamas is not to prove Israel’s inferiority but to establish moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. This equivalence leads to violence, as Hamas knows it can manipulate public opinion and count on allies to downplay their actions. Politicians like Barack Obama contribute to this dangerous narrative by spreading blame to everyone, ultimately pressuring Israel into making concessions to its enemies.
This pseudo-sophisticated take, this radical chic perspective, only serves to perpetuate evil and allow terrorists to pursue their destructive agenda. It is crucial to recognize the stark difference between Israel’s commitment to minimizing civilian casualties and Hamas’ deliberate use of human shields.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP
How does the media’s portrayal of Israel and the failure to hold terrorist groups accountable impact efforts to protect innocent lives and promote a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of conflict
E context and circumstances must be taken into account. Israel faces threats from terrorist organizations like Hamas, which openly seeks its destruction. These groups specifically target civilians and seek to cause maximum harm. To defend its citizens and ensure their safety, Israel must respond with decisive force. However, it also goes to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties, including warning civilians before military operations and using advanced technology to target only terrorist infrastructure.
The Complex Reality of Conflict
It is essential to acknowledge the complexity of conflicts and the difficult decisions that nations like Israel face. These decisions involve weighing the need to protect their citizens with the obligation to protect civilians on the other side. This is not a perfect process, and tragic incidents can occur. However, it is crucial to distinguish between accidental civilian casualties and deliberate acts of using civilians as human shields, as Hamas does. The laws established by the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit the latter, recognizing the importance of protecting innocent lives.
Conclusion
The First Geneva Conventions laid the foundation for the protection and fair treatment of wounded soldiers. Subsequent conventions expanded these protections to include civilians in times of war. The outlawing of human shields is one of the crucial principles established to safeguard civilian lives. However, the media’s distorted narrative and the failure to hold groups like Hamas accountable for their actions hinder progress in preserving innocent lives. It is essential to recognize the meticulous efforts made by countries like Israel to minimize civilian casualties while facing complex security challenges. Through a comprehensive understanding of the context and commitment to international laws, we can strive towards a world where all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, are protected and treated with dignity in times of conflict.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...