"...the U.N. held a hearing and issued a report by its special commission on Israel's response to the mass demonstrations along its border with Gaza, known as the 'March of Return.' The U.N.'s findings, which assert Israel violated international law and downplay or ignore systematic legal violations by Hamas, are misguided and pose serious concerns not only for Israel but also the United States...
First, there is overwhelming evidence Hamas – designated by the United States and European Union as a terrorist organization – violated international law. Fundamentally opposed to Israel's existence, Hamas set the stage by declaring 'we will take down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.' It used demonstrators as human shields to enable its armed fighters to approach and attempt to breach the border fence and attack Israelis. After one of the largest actions last May, a senior Hamas official admitted its operatives accounted for 50 of the 60 deaths.
These actions, a clear violation of Hamas's obligations under international law, made it challenging for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to distinguish between innocent civilians and individuals who could lawfully be targeted for breaching or attempting to breach the border fence.
Second, and contrary to the U.N.'s findings, the IDF's rules of engagement were consistent with international law in regulating the use of force in this setting.
The IDF operated in a context defined both by Israel's broader ongoing armed conflict with Hamas, and by the complicated tactical environment presented by the approaching mass crowds that mixed unarmed protestors with operatives of enemy armed groups. Hamas' use of crowds meant that more harm could result on both sides, particularly to civilians, if the fence was breached in any meaningful way.
Provided the appropriate steps are taken, in situations like these it is reasonable under international law for commanders on the scene to permit use of live ammunition, both in response to a breach of the fence and – under certain conditions – to prevent a breach in the first place. It is also lawful to use lethal force against a belligerent operative of an enemy armed group like Hamas...
We are skeptical of judgments about international law – including the law of armed conflict – from a U.N. commission whose principal members appear to lack expertise in military law or these types of security operations...
Finally, the U.N.'s findings are dangerous because they incentivize further bad acts by Hamas and others who would seek to similarly weaponize the law...
Adversaries emboldened by the lack of censure for Hamas' illegal tactics are now more likely to employ similar strategies against U.S. forces."