New research finds that Israel’s attacks on Gaza damaged hospitals and other medical facilities at the same rate as other buildings, potentially in violation of international law.
And it doesn’t actually matter if Hamas was using the hospital, or if it was a base of operations.
There are very clear rules in the geneva convention about how to bomb a hostile hospital. Anything other than that is by definition a war crime. (spoiler: the rules weren’t followed).
I think discussion around the interpretation of the Geneva convention is an important part of this issue though. A lack of clarity in the original text is what allows Israel to claim their actions are not war crimes.
At minimum I don’t think this supports the idea that it doesn’t matter at all whether or what Hamas was using the hospital for. But what do you think is meant by this article if not that hospitals can lose protection if used for military purposes?
Are you daft? You’re not even stating the parts of the article you want to discuss. Are you just shilling for Israel?
It’s pretty black and white. You can attack a hospital that has lost it’s protection, but you have to clearly warn everyone that you think that’s what’s happening, and they best get out before the bombs come. Israel didnt do any of that. They also took no care to reduce loss of civilian life. It was a warcrime and it doesn’t matter if it was really a Hamas base or not.
And it doesn’t actually matter if Hamas was using the hospital, or if it was a base of operations.
There are very clear rules in the geneva convention about how to bomb a hostile hospital. Anything other than that is by definition a war crime. (spoiler: the rules weren’t followed).
Legally speaking I think that’s an oversimplification: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4289754-what-are-the-laws-of-war-when-a-hospital-is-a-war-zone/
Your article says exactly what I said, in more words.
Instead of “the hill”, go read the articles of the geneva convention, they aren’t that long and are really clear.
I think discussion around the interpretation of the Geneva convention is an important part of this issue though. A lack of clarity in the original text is what allows Israel to claim their actions are not war crimes.
Here’s the key article: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-19
At minimum I don’t think this supports the idea that it doesn’t matter at all whether or what Hamas was using the hospital for. But what do you think is meant by this article if not that hospitals can lose protection if used for military purposes?
Are you daft? You’re not even stating the parts of the article you want to discuss. Are you just shilling for Israel?
It’s pretty black and white. You can attack a hospital that has lost it’s protection, but you have to clearly warn everyone that you think that’s what’s happening, and they best get out before the bombs come. Israel didnt do any of that. They also took no care to reduce loss of civilian life. It was a warcrime and it doesn’t matter if it was really a Hamas base or not.