bboplifaHamas terrorists fire anti-tank missile at IDF troops from Gaza hospital entrance
donutsTo be clear, staging militant attacks from a hospital is a war crime. To make matters worse, it opens up the likelihood and justification of counter-attacks against that hospital and the people in it.
According to international humanitarian law (IHL), health establishments and units, including hospitals, should not be attacked. This protection extends to the wounded and sick as well as to medical staff and means of transport. The rule has few exceptions.
Specific protection of medical establishments and units (including hospitals) is the general rule under IHL. Therefore, specific protection to which hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used by a party to the conflict to commit, outside their humanitarian functions, an "act harmful to the enemy".
Medical establishments and units enjoy protection because of their function of providing care for the wounded and sick. When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed. This would be the case for example if a hospital is used as a base from which to launch an attack; as an observation post to transmit information of military value; as a weapons depot; as a center for liaison with fighting troops; or as a shelter for able-bodied combatants.
The protection of hospitals during armed conflicts: What the law says
According to international humanitarian law (IHL), health establishments and units, including hospitals, should not be attacked. This protection extends to the wounded and sick as well as to medical staff and means of transport. The rule has few exceptions.
This is the thing that pissed me off - the organization that has a humanitarian symbol so strong you can be legally held accountable for using it in a way that lessens its importance acknowledges that attacking a hospital being used as a military bases is a legal part of war. Meanwhile there are people whos education doesn’t pass high-school screaming that this isn’t legal, or its incorrect, or blaming the aggressor instead of those deliberately putting civilian lives at risk by blatantly ignoring intl rules of conflict.
If you want to throw in your argument against the red cross, spend your life and billions of dollars helping humanitarian issues world wide and then you might have some authority on the matter.
This is modern warfare. War is horrific, innocents get killed, people suffer. We put rules in place to lessen the effects on the innocent and those who circumvent those rules to try make the others look bad need to be removed in the quickest and most efficient way we can - as soon as one group gets away with ignoring the intl rules, everyone can.
I don’t think any intellectually honest person that supports Palestine thinks Hamas is the “good guys”, they are an evil created and grown directly and indirectly by Israel’s actions.
I doubt anyone thinks they are the good guys, but there are multiple trying to justify blatant war crimes and thinking they should be able to operate with immunity because they have civilians in the cross fire.
Im also doubting some “intellectually honest” people on both sides if the arguement. Well, with this CF all six sides of the arguement…
Who is doing that? Who is saying it’s justifiable for Hamas to use a hospital as a base? The only thing remotely close to that I’ve seen is people saying that a group like Hamas is an inevitable byproduct of Israeli occupation. Everyone knows putting a garrison in a hospital is shit, what’s disturbing is how many people think that justifies murdering every civilian in there
I have unfortunately seen comments trying to justify it- mostly around them not having a choice, or because otherwise they would be bombed, or its ok because Israel isn’t good either. Whats more disturbing is my comment responding asking if they just justified a war crime because they said it was ok because they would be attacked otherwise got downvoted something like 20 times. Im also aware that isn’t exactly a peer reviewed study.
I fully agree on your comment regarding how worrying it is how many people think killing them all is ok. No, it is a war crime to garrison a hospital, and it removes protection from that hospital but your response still has to be proportional and in a way that minimizes damage and civilian casualties. They could put a sniper in every window, rockets on the roof and you still can’t level the building.
That’s understanding not justification. Saying they get why it was done is not at all the same as saying it’s morally or logically correct.
It specifically does not remove protections, it makes limited military intervention legal. I agree with the rest but that phrasing makes it seem like anything is on the table when it isn’t.
It’s the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn’t plausible you can’t be all too surprised they choose the other option.
The US spent 20 fucking years fighting in Afghanistan which also had hospital garrisons, I don’t seem to remember a pattern or practice of leveling them though. In fact the hospital that was destroyed kicked off a three party international review, the us apologized and paid the families. Israel on thee other hand said fuck it let’s go bomb hospitals.
It’s the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn’t plausible you can’t be all too surprised they choose the other option.
/u/endlessapollo one of them just replied to you justifying garrison a hospital.
It’s not a justification dude, it’s still wrong but you’re lying to yourself if your say you wouldn’t do it either.
Take a guess where all of the known presidential bunkers are in the us.
How was saying they don’t have a choice not justification of the action?
I cant comment on whether or not I would, but I haven’t. I’m not the one currently using human shields to push my agenda, nor am I the one being looked at for doing so - what I would do is irrelevant because I haven’t done it… like any other law in existence.
So, back on topic - how is saying they don’t have a choice not justification?
Point to another place to setup a secure garrison in the open air concentration camp that is gaza. I’ll wait. Similarly it’s not justification because it isn’t justifiable, as I said it’s still shitty to do but it’s easy to see why it was done. That said you should look into operation shark that was aimed at the proto Israeli terror group Lehi for the bombing of a civilian hotel that contained the Palestinian embassy in 1946. Would you like to venture a guess as to where they found insurgents and weapons? Here’s a hint: chools and opitals.
Correct, you can’t answer because it will destroy your argument. You would do it, I would do it, any person with a brain would which is why there are specific rules about it in international law and it isn’t because it never happens I can assure you of that, quite the opposite in fact.
the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. It isn’t right, nor is it particularly reasonable so it isn’t a justification. You could make a hundred legit arguments here but understanding=justification is hilariously stupid.
…/u/? On lemmy?
Uh… well for a start one of them just replied to you.