this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
938 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
60033 readers
2738 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
where is your citation?
edit: even if there is, that does not justify the shelling of hospitals by the IDF
There was an article on the active page of Lemmy yesterday with confirmation of Hamas fighting from a major hospital.
So it should be easy for you to link it. That is, if it does prove your point and exists in the first place. Because right now your source is "trust me bro".
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1699881898-idf-releases-footage-of-hamas-firing-rpg-from-gaza-city-hospital
https://www.aol.com/news/israel-clashes-hamas-major-hospital-162417982.html
Of course it justifies it. Why wouldn't it?
Because of the geneva conventions about protections civilians.
What does the Geneva Convention say about using civilians as human shields? What does the Geneva Convention say about using hospitals, schools, places of worship as military headquarters or outposts? What does the Geneva Convention say about murdering civilians to prevent them from evacuating from an area that is under attack?
There are protected symbols such as the red cross and red crescent that you are not allowed to misuse. But it is also clear that everyone is responsible for not doing any war crimes. So even if your enemy does a war crime you are not allowed. Normally the only protected places along the ones you have listed are hospitals. All have to do their best to protect civilians, you are not allowed to engage an enemy if there are big risks of damaging no-combatants, e.g. if a small group of enemy combatants is traveling through an area filled with civilians, you are not allowed to target that area just because the few targets. Military targets have to travel is areas with civilians all the time. Targeting civilians is always a war crime. All actions have to be proportional. There is never an excuse to commit a war crime. Even if the enemy targets hospitals, like Russia, is accused of in Ukraine, that does not give Ukraine forces any permission to attack Russian hospitals. If Hamas shoots civilians, it doesn't excuse IDF to do the same. Even if IDF shoots civilians, Hamas is not allowed to do the same. In technical terms, you could discuss the theoretical coverage of the Geneva Convention as such for the Gaza strip. The amendments around it may or may not regulate how Israel and IDF are allowed to operate. It was written for regular wars between nations, if, when, how, and stuff get into civil wars. What happens then is a bit more unclear. There are regulations about occupied territories, that Gaza falls into.
Then I assume you're aware that the Geneva Convention make one exception where hospitals lose their protection: when they're used for a military purpose that is harmful to the enemy.
In other words: a warring faction cannot simply set up a military headquarter, a military outpost or a military attack position in a hospital and expect to enjoy the full protection granted to medical facilities while using it to attack the enemy.
You're aware of that, right?
I'll say losing its protection is an over-simplification. Yes, when a significant military target is misusing the protected signs they can be ignored. You still however are not allowed to break the first rules around minimising any civilian losses. So the civilian people in the area are still protected, they don't lose their protection. Injuries to civilians should always be kept minimal. If the hospital is cleared out and is only used for military operations (treating wonder soldiers is not a military operation here) then the symbols of the hospital don't have any protection. No, if you attach from within anything that is protected, you should expect to be attacked. At the same time, any attack on the enemy has to be proportional and should always strive to minimize civilian losses. Including civilian material losses. An example is a sniper hiding in a civilian building. It's probably a war crime to bomb the house. Even when there are no civilians in the house. If there is a full platoon using the same place for defense, and the terrain is hard, it is probably ok for the same bombing. If the building also has a few hundred civilians, well it is back in the probable war crimes to bomb it out and some other ways of taking the objective have to be considered. This even looks at the house without any special protection. Same with an ambulance, if there are enemy combatants in the ambulance attacking you, of course, you can take it out. If there are enemy combatants in the ambulance that are not attacking you, you can take them prisoner. But you can't shoot first to make sure there are no combatants in it. For me, if there has been a bombing of a hospital building with masses of patients inside, it's a clear war crime. Even if there were a few military in the same building.