"If its true that more than 100 women and children died", then "Israel violated International Law" during hostage rescue, says former executive director of Human Rights Watch

You know that Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation, yes?

I think it's perfectly fair to question casualty numbers if the source is Hamas, which I've said on previous threads. That shouldn't upset anyone, and it shouldn't lead to deletions.
Hamas have both form for it, and an obvious motivation for doing so.

I think the suggestion that only Israel has any issue with accepting without question the figures coming from a terrorist organisation is a bit suspect.

Eh? It's the guy in the article that you linked to yourself who used the word 'if' about the figures.

And yes, if Israel believes the numbers are being *inflated they could solve this by letting independent bodies and agencies in.

Time will tell us, and while numbers may be disputed, that the level of suffering has been too much is in my eyes not up for debate.

Here is an article published by The Lancet Group.

‘No evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health’

Benjamin Q Huynh
Elizabeth T Chin
Paul B Spiegel

Published:December 06, 2023

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext

Saying that it's upsetting that I don't automatically accept the figures put out by a terrorist organisation is mad though.

Right, so you are sceptical of the Israeli figures even thought they've been reported internationally. Which is absolutely fine. Of course they have reasons to play down the figures.

But if you don't suspect that Hamas has any reason to play up the figures, then you seem pretty naive.

Propaganda comes from both sides in a conflict.

Of course I'm going to suggest numbers coming from a terrorist organisation might not be entirely reliable. Don't be silly. Everyone should be sceptical.

Israel put the figures at under 100. Do you believe those "internationally reported numbers"? I would suspect that you are sceptical of those.

Just read it in the article

"The ministry does not distinguish combatants from civilians, but it reports that the dead included 64 children and 57 women, or 44% of the total. Given that many of the men who were killed in the course of the operation were in a nearby market, we must assume that a good proportion of them were civilians as well. That is a horrible civilian toll."

I'd have thought all figures are in dispute that come out of Hamas.

I've not seen a figure specified for women and children by anyone.

I’m confused. Are all men automatically counted as Hamas?

It specifically says women and children, not 100 total.

That it has been voted unhelpful doesn’t mean that it was inaccurate though.

The article the Guardian links to says “killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army”.

The link from his tweet suggests: “The US Air Force Pamphlet states that Article 23(b) of the Hague Regulations has been construed as prohibiting “assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive’”

That clearly doesn’t apply here.

The link from his tweet also says “While the Hague Regulations prohibit “to kill or wound treacherously”, Additional Protocol I prohibits “to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy”

And it discusses dressing as a civilian.

However the soldiers did not dress as civilians in order to kill adversaries, but to rescue hostages, so this would also seem not to apply.

BUT, if Ken Roth has read both those documents, then he has serious questions to answer as in his Guardian article linked to in the OP he says

“That may constitute the war crime of perfidy, which prohibits soldiers from dressing as civilians during military operations when it leads to death or injury”

That is a clear misrepresentation of what the law says, and what the documents he himself linked to say.

He has changed the active - perfidy in order to kill, into the passive - perfidy which leads to deaths. These are not the same thing at all.

It was during the rescue of hostages while dressed in military uniforms that the deaths occurred, and from the description of events, the dressing as civilians was to avoid deaths, not cause them.

If he has been the Director of Human Rights Watch, he should be able to read documents and interpret them correctly, so in this case he has chosen to misinterpret.

Why?

Is the heading a quote or a factual statement?

I don't see quotation marks