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.
Hi there. How about an old soldier who actually had to know this stuff and use that knowledge in a war?
First off, a single incident isn’t enough. A sniper or even a squad doing stuff can be dealt with in other ways. In order to strike a hospital (or any protected target) with explosives you need evidence it’s a target of “military or strategic value”. This is why Israel isn’t just claiming a few sporadic attacks but instead that all of the hospitals are actually command centers.
Second, the protected target can only be hit by proportional force that accomplishes a specific goal. If there’s an artillery battery in the parking lot and I level the obstetrics wing with dumb bombs then I’ve committed a war crime. Smart bombs with very low yields absolutely exist. Another example is the eponymous claim of rooftop rockets. I can hit that with an airburst explosive to prevent structural damage to most concrete buildings. In the context of protected targets these things matter. You don’t get a green light to demolish it unless it’s basically been hollowed out for military use only.
Third, whoever fires on the protected target is responsible for providing the evidence it was required. And war crimes investigators take a very dim view of “they did it once a decade ago”, as a reason. Israel and it’s allies have yet to do anything that actually proves the existence of a military or strategic target in places like the UNHRW Gaza headquarters.
While proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn’t have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/…/rule28#….
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.
I never said it had to be in exclusive use to get fired on.
I did say the party firing on the hospital needs to provide evidence that each hospital, at each time, was a legal target. “I said so” doesn’t pass muster.