There are instances--high-ranking military targets, munitions, fighters--in buildings with civilians. The civilians get it. "Proof" is often sufficient to establish likelihood, but usually in these cases "proof" for some will be a list of each and every item or person destroyed with the list of those people who'd have been killed by them if not destroyed. In other words, the level of proof skyrockets when you don't like the most probable verdict.
In such cases, though, the ultimate responsibility is going to be upon those who were responsible for protecting the civilians during armed conflict. And that's going to be the fighters and government who put them at risk. In these cases--it seems important to reiterate that clause each and every time because otherwise it might be taken as a blanket statement--the responsibility is Hamas'. It's not blaming the victim. It's blaming the guilty, even if they're also victims. One can be both quite easily.
There are also instances where those hurling the bombs people do bad things. If you like to think that your side is composed of innocents and angels and the other side composed of devils and demons, so be it. But there will be cases where a school is hit, possibly by accident or possibly because they believed there was a legitimate target.
Or perhaps because their standard of proof for making something a viable military target is simply lower than yours. This is a common problem because all the talk of "proportionate" and "sufficient" is non-quantifiable. It's also a common problem because people in groups make very far-reaching assumptions to justify those they self-group with or those they are in solidarity with, and equally far-reaching assumptions to denigrate those that they put on the other side of the group line or feel antipathy for. In any event, we're not really important enough as judges and officers of the court to merit having all the evidence sealed for our perusal. What we get from each side is for the court of public opinion, which is a far cry from any sort of legal proceedings.
Sometimes "war crimes" requires intent; sometimes the word seems to require at least negligence, failing to avoid something that could have been avoided and which was easily predicted *in advance* (we're all very good at predicting things after the fact); sometimes it just requires an outcome that people don't like, even if it couldn't have been predicted and negligence is a hard case to prove.
= new reply since forum marked as read
