Israel bombed home in #AlShati without warning & killed 6, including 4-year-old: http://t.co/MhYwhZx2gG #50Days4Gaza pic.twitter.com/Eefaf3xoAW— AmnestyInternational (@AmnestyOnline) August 4, 2015
The truth is that two of those killed were Islamic Jihad members, one a member of the Al Bakri family that lived there and the other a top commander.
Ramadan Ahmad al-Bakri:
Ibrahim Mohammad al-Mashharawi:
The tweet doesn't mention this. Neither does the Gaza Platform that Amnesty pretends is a "research tool."
But Amnesty's own report on the war does acknowledge that these terrorists were in the house, as well as the fact that the family initially denied this:
Although family members denied it, both Ramadan Kamal al-Bakri and Ibrahim alMashharawi were members of Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades, as was confirmed when, after some weeks, their names appeared on their list of “martyrs”.Amnesty's Gaza Platform quotes this Amnesty report but did not choose to quote this relevant section. Because the point of the Gaza Platform is not to reveal the truth to researchers, it is meant to hide the truth in the quest to accuse Israel of war crimes.
Amnesty interviewed scores of people in Gaza. Many of them lied the same way this family did, denying any militants in their vicinity - and Amnesty believed them without question. Since then, as I've documented, many of these victims have been found to be terrorists and we now know that their relatives lied to Amnesty.
And Amnesty knows that they are often lied to, but when the lies take too much effort to find, they will always give the "witnesses" the benefit of the doubt - ignoring the fact that Hamas and other groups explicitly instructed Gazans to lie and claim everyone was a civilian. In other words, every single thing that "witnesses" tell Amnesty about IDF actions cannot be trusted when the interviewees are still living in Gaza and could suffer punishment for telling the truth.
Amnesty does not talk about that very relevant fact. They know that they are being lied to but they choose to believe it unless the evidence becomes overwhelming.
Ramadan al-Bakri used his family as human shields and used his family home to protect his commander, Ibrahim al-Mashharawi. Amnesty has nothing negative to say about that.
While Amnesty is attempting to paint Israel as guilty of war crimes, it is in fact adding every day more and more evidence that Amnesty in the Middle East is little more than an anti-Israel propaganda outlet masquerading as a human rights NGO.
UPDATE: The IDF's report described the truth:
According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the strike in question was aimed at Omar Al-Rahim, a senior commander, at a rank equivalent to that of a deputy brigade commander, in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization. Al-Rahim was staying in the house of Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant. During the target planning process, it was assessed that there might be a number of civilians present in the building, but that the extent of the harm expected to these civilians would not be excessive in relation to the significant military advantage anticipated to result from the strike. It was planned that the strike on the building would be carried out using a precise munition, and in a way in which would allow achieving the aim of the strike whilst minimizing harm to the surrounding buildings.Amnesty and the Gaza Platform didn't report about Omar al-Rahim even though they have a broken link to the IDF report.
After the event, as a result of the strike, the target, Omar Al-Rahim, was severely injured, and Ibrahim Al-Masharawi, who was a senior commander at a rank equivalent to a battalion commander in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was killed, along with Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant, and four civilians.
After reviewing the factual findings and the material collated by the FFA Mechanism, the MAG found that the targeting process in question accorded with Israeli domestic law and international law requirements. The decision to strike was taken by the competent authorities and aimed at a lawful target - a senior commander in Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The strike complied with the principle of proportionality, as at the time the decision was taken, it was considered that the collateral damage expected from the strike would not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from it. Moreover, the strike was carried out while undertaking precautionary measures which aimed to mitigate the risk of civilian harm, with an emphasis on those who were present in the surrounding buildings. Such measures included, inter alia, the choice of munition to be used, as well as the deployment of real-time visual coverage. Additionally, it was found that the provision of a specific warning prior to the attack, to the people present in the structure in which the target was located, or to those in adjacent buildings, was not required by law and was expected to result in the frustration of the strike's objective.