World News

Again, you are citing only partial and misleading context.

Here's the full passage from the report:

These included basing fighters within residential areas; urging civilians not to leave their homes after warnings from Israel; using civilian structures for military activity; storing rockets and other weapons in civilian structures and within populated areas; firing rockets from within or in close proximity to civilian buildings; taking cover in civilian buildings after firing; and building tunnels within civilian areas or under civilian structures.

Several of these actions which have been discussed above, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks from the vicinity of civilian buildings, violate the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attacks. But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.” The practices most commonly condemned as such have involved actually moving civilians to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”

So they quote from the same guidelines I just cited, pretty much word for word, and were saying that some of the allegations would not have qualified as using human shields based on the ICRC guidelines, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks in the vicinity of civilian buildings.

Because the important part of what's determined as using human shields is the intentional co-location of the actual humans, not simply the incidental vicinity of civilians.

This does not mean, as you are implying, that launching missiles from within or directly next to an inhabited hospital somehow isn't considered using human shields by Amnesty International. As the language you left out of "several of these actions" not qualifying as the use of human shields indicates, several of the other actions are considered to be the use of human shields.

And the key guidelines to determine the difference per Amnesty International are the exact same guidelines I previously linked to and quoted.

You've clearly crossed the line well into the territory of what's intentionally a bad faith argument here.

Some nerve to talk about a confirmation bias.

Edit: And again some nerve to talk about there being "no evidence" when the report is littered with things like:

Nevertheless, Amnesty International believes that the report is credible and the claim should be independently investigated, together with other reports and claims that Hamas leaders and security forces used facilities within the hospital for military purposes and interrogations during the hostilities. Amnesty International spoke to a Palestinian journalist who was interrogated by officers from Hamas’ Internal Security in an abandoned section of the hospital during the conflict. Hamas’ Internal Security officials also prevented a fieldworker contracted by Amnesty International from photographing damage to the hospital’s outpatients’ clinic on 28 July, when the fieldworker arrived at the hospital shortly after an explosion which damaged the clinic just before 5pm.

Or

There are credible reports that, in certain cases, Palestinian armed groups launched rockets or mortars from within civilian facilities or compounds, including schools, at least one hospital and a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City. In at least two cases, accounts indicate that attacks were launched in spite of the fact that displaced Gazan civilians were sheltering in the compounds or in neighbouring buildings.