place this in the context of the seven year long siege. when it comes to indiscriminate attacks, hamas is guilty of that. amounts to a war crime. so does targeting a united nations school, bombing civilian structures, targeting civilians directly. those also amount to war crimes. it is important to think about the context in gaza. someone else's work crime does not justify your war crime. international humanitarian war crimes are individual.

it does not justify widespread attacks on the civilian population. both parties are obligated in both parties should be held accountable. no one is a victim. it does not matter about the victim. it is about rule of law and implementing specific calculations in who can be targets and you cannot. the civilian population cannot be a target number at or who begat dirk is. -- no matter who is the target. >> i recall the first two questions. there were three, though.

question, with regards to the capture of an israeli soldier, there are extensive reductions with regards -- protections with regards to captured soldiers. i will point out a few things right now that apply to soldiers captured in battle. they should not be treated as a hostage. they should not be treated as bargaining chips. this applies to all of the parties in conflict. with regards to the specific individuals who may have been captured, they should be allowed to communicate freely with her family -- with her family. given immediate

act -- access to the red cross. with regards to the second question, nobody -- no policymaker should be forced to take sides on the question of human rights. human rights means that every civilian should be protected in the context of conflict. there should be no collective punishment, which applies of the description to the gaza blockade. have exerts ought to the freedom to stand up for human rights. one way to think about this, the u.s. government provides funding for the iron dome, which fromcts israeli civilians some rockets fired by hamas militants and palestinian armed groups. where is the iron dome for civilians in palestinian -- iron

dome for palestinian civilians? that is the basic question. is the u.s. government going to hold its adversaries accountable, but also its allies accountable? the death toll speaks for themselves. before any israeli civilians were killed i hamas rocket fire, over a thousand palestinians have been killed. a third were children. the death tolls speak for themselves and we need to value all human life equally. it is also important to note that we are not funding hamas

rocket fire. we are funding is really rocket fire -- israeli rocket fire which is killed 4000 people. this is happening in our name as americans and it is our duty to stand up against a. -- against it. >> [inaudible] friends don't let friends kill children. >> the uses to which u.s. weapons can be put by a foreign country are limited. it very clearly -- the use of force by israel is in no way legitimate self-defense.

it is being used to commit war crimes and so forth and the challenge for this audience on capitol hill is to ensure that applied.s are being israel should not be held to a different standard. it should be held to the exact same standard we have four other countries -- we have further countries. a nation cannot receive any deliveries of arms or weapons or ammunition if it is in violation of this law. if congress is serious about the laws it passes, it has to up like this law to israel. -- apply this law to israel. we have time for two quick questions. a lot of the justification for israel's attacks on palestinian territory is that hamas is hiding rockets and civilian controlled areas.

what would your response be to that argument? israel's he fact that iron dome is successful in blocking rockets, is it correct to say that any rockets were tally ancient by israel -- retaliation by israel is illegal? that should not launch any rockets and if it had not done so, it would've been better for security? it is similar to what i said previously.

the justification that human shields allow somebody to disregard civilian casualties, that is not international trinitarian law. that is wrong -- international humanitarian law. if israel knows their missiles in a hospital or under a school, the presumption is that is not a military target. that is the calculation. each target needs to be evaluated in that way. you need to distinguish between military objects and civilian objects. that, if that military object will cause a disproportionate impact to civilian life, you still cannot bomb that. there is a rentable of distinction. -- there is a principle of distinction.

the tax of been characterized by complete disregard of international law and civilian life. it goes back to the blockade. the blockade is characterized by complete disregard of civilian life. very little proportionality in the of this. -- in any of this. >> with regards to the question, the storage of palestinian armed groups, amnesty international has been monitoring such reports. we have not seen any evidence of gaza civilians being compelled to be human shields as the israeli government has claimed. we've not seen any evidence to support that. noted incidences where hamas members have stored rockets near civilian areas and

there are no reports of the several facilities where rockets have been found. those schools were not actively being used at that time. rockets being stored in and around actively civilian populated structures, amnesty international has not found evidence to suggest there are munitions or rockets being stored in facilities where civilians are. >> there is ample evidence by israeli humans rights groups of israeli soldiers using palestinians as human shields. that is never discussed in the media. all of these children and their parents and grandchildren killed this morning had no weapons in their house.

>> [inaudible] the argument that hamas hides weapons in active civilian areas has not only been debunked by amnesty international. i think the nbc reporter witnessed for children playing on the beach, no weapons anywhere around them. he saw them blown to pieces. i have a four-year-old child and it is unimaginable. the talking point of hamas hiding his weapons is straight out of a playbook. past theirsee talking points and look at the reality. -- we need to see past their talking points and look at the reality. claimedry similar, they

he was throwing molotov cocktails. we have a student who witnessed what happened. it is a relevant because nothing can justify restoring the hands of a child and beating him. >> i want to thank all of our panelists for their heartfelt words, their expert testimony, their work for justice and for peace. thank you for attending. for more information about this

issue, please see the website of the u.s. campaign to end the israeli occupation. thank you very much for coming. [applause]

>> a house hearing on preparations for the next round of health-care enrollment. after that, q&a. live at 7:00, your calls and comments on washington journal. >> tonight, three members of congress talk about their technology legislation. >> i believe in a free internet without government intervention. done in thebeing private sector. why would he not their brand exposed? we think the blackout rule -- the fcc took the first move.

they will vote at the end of the share. a bill that tries to address concerns over retransmission consent, giving people level footing when it comes to being able to negotiate the broadcast, providers and the people trying to deliver that media. it puts people on 11 till langfield -- on a level playing field. brian higgins and cory gardner, tonight at 8:00. >> e-house energy and commerce subcommittee held that meeting on thursday. the next open enrollment period starts on november 15.