Terrorist cell embedded itself within civilians around Al-Quds Hospital, fired from the hospital entrance at IDF soldiers, and was subsequently eliminated
That’s why staging attacks or garrisoning troops at hospitals, thus turning the sick and injured into human shields, is not only a horrible and inhumane thing to do, but also a war crime.
At some level Hamas knows this, and so the question is why they would do even do it? Is it because they think that using human shields is an effective deterrence? Or is it because they want to provoke an IDF counter-attack against a hospital so they can use it in their propaganda? Either way, it’s a war crime on Hamas’ part and generally terrible for the innocent people in Gaza.
I’m not talking about the law. Laws change over time.
I downvoted you because frankly I think that is a dumb and irrelevant thing to say. The world doesn’t work based on your, or mine, or anyone else’s personal sense of justice, nor should it. That’s why international law exists.
Under international humanitarian law, Hamas using sick people as a human shield is giving the IDF every excuse and legal justification they need to counter-attack the hospitals that they are using to state those attacks. Period.
I would vastly prefer if Hamas didn’t do that. I would vastly prefer that the IDF didn’t have legal justification for attacking hospitals. But what I prefer doesn’t mean shit.
But I guess when you can’t argue against the substance of what I’m saying you can only make embarrassing claims about the timing of meaningless internet points.
Lol, and you completely ignore me saying “Not all laws are just. Not everything just is a law.”
If you want to focus on the law, go right on ahead. I don’t even know why you’d bother replying to someone who clearly states they are not focusing on the law telling them what the law says.
Let’s be real. You’re biased towards Israel so you argue against anything that criticizes it. You don’t want me to say killing civilians is unjust because it’s critical of Israel’s behavior, which you cannot allow.
Just admit it. You’d come across as more genuine than whatever you’re doing now.
Lol, and you completely ignore me saying “Not all laws are just. Not everything just is a law.”
I don’t disagree or take issue with that part.
If you want to focus on the law, go right on ahead. I don’t even know why you’d bother replying to someone who clearly states they are not focusing on the law telling them what the law says.
You responded to me. I responded to you. That’s how conversations work among people who aren’t terminally online.
I was talking about the law because the law is objective. Whether you personally feel something is justified is subjective and irrelevant. One person’s mind can justify anything. Another person might say that no use of military force is ever justified. While a third person might choose to justify the actions of one side over another based on their ideological alignment or political affiliation.
You’re biased towards Israel so you argue against anything that criticizes it.
Do you not see that it’s just as easy for me to baselessly say you’re biased towards Hamas so you argue against anything that Israel does?
I won’t make that argument because it’s weak and, frankly, more than a little bit petty and embarrassing. You have to be pretty shameless to go there.
I’m on the side of the innocent, which you would understand if you read the substance of what I’m saying. Anybody who is on the side of the innocent can easily determine that Hamas are shit eating cowardly bitches for fighting from hospitals, and in doing so they are only further hurting the innocent.
Anyway, you’re boring me with this shit. I’m not an IDF general bombing hospitals, nor am I a Hamas terrorist taking cover behind injured children, so take your pent up frustrations on them instead.
Not unconditionally though. From your own linked source:
Before carrying out an attack on a medical establishment or unit that has lost its protected status, a warning must be given. Where appropriate, this should include a time limit, which must go unheeded before an attack is permitted. The purpose of issuing a warning is to allow those committing an “act harmful to the enemy” to terminate such act, or – if they persist – to ultimately allow for safe evacuation of the wounded and sick who are not responsible for such conduct and who should not become the victims of it.
Where such a warning has remained unheeded, the enemy is no longer obliged to refrain from interfering with the work of a medical establishment or unit, or to take positive measures to assist it in its work. Even then, humanitarian considerations relating to the welfare of the wounded and sick being cared for in the facility may not be disregarded. They must be spared and, as far as possible, active measures for their safety taken.
This derives from the obligation to respect and protect the wounded and sick as well as the general rules on the conduct of hostilities that apply to attacks on any military objective. Notably, an attacking party remains bound by the principle of proportionality. The military advantage likely to be gained from attacking medical establishments or units that have lost their protected status should be carefully weighed against the humanitarian consequences likely to result from the damage or destruction caused to those facilities: such an attack may have significant incidental second- and third-order effects on the delivery of health care in the short, middle and long-term.
An attacking party remains also bound by the obligation to take precautions in attack, in particular to do everything feasible to avoid or at least minimize harm to patients and medical personnel who may have nothing to do with those acts and for whom the humanitarian consequences will be especially dire.
So leveling an entire hospital because a single rocket is fired from one by terrorists isn’t exactly justified by the law, even if firing rockets from a hospital is a war crime and justifies some degree of proportional reaction assuming humanitarian concerns can be justified.
As for why Hamas does this, it’s because it’s a win win for them. Either they reduce the capabilities of retaliation when humanitarian concerns are factored in, or they harm Israel’s image when engaging in disproportionate retaliation that isn’t adequately factoring in humanitarian concerns.
But the whole point of the Geneva convention and regulation regarding conduct in war is that even if your enemy is the literal worst, that stooping to their level is not what modern nations should do, and concern for the civilians even in enemy territory is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of the disregard for those laws by your own enemies.
I can’t regard Hamas as anything but disgusting terrorists and it’s troubling how much I see apologist rationalization for their terrorist acts on here.
But that doesn’t justify the IDF throwing the Geneva convention out the window and bombing civilian infrastructure to rubble any more than ISIL’s activities in Syria justified Assad’s bombing civilian areas where they were present to rubble.
They’ve been known to do all those things. I don’t know that they did all of it this time (time will tell) but why would they fuck their image in the eyes of world superpowers now? They need support.
And they leveled the hospital? I thought they sent people away after they cleared Hamas out?
Hamas knows they can and will retaliate so they form their strategy to leverage this. And Israel thinks they can get away with bombing hospitals by dumping shit tons of money on pr. What should be done is it should be made illegal according to international humanitarian laws, god knows why it isn’t.
It remains a mystery why Israel shoots at
Hamas baseshospitals.It remains unjustified.
Sadly, that’s wrong. According to established international humanitarian law, it is justified to counter-attack hospitals in the event that they are used to gather recon or stage attacks. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflicts-what-law-says
That’s why staging attacks or garrisoning troops at hospitals, thus turning the sick and injured into human shields, is not only a horrible and inhumane thing to do, but also a war crime.
At some level Hamas knows this, and so the question is why they would do even do it? Is it because they think that using human shields is an effective deterrence? Or is it because they want to provoke an IDF counter-attack against a hospital so they can use it in their propaganda? Either way, it’s a war crime on Hamas’ part and generally terrible for the innocent people in Gaza.
I’m not talking about the law. Laws change over time. Not all laws are just. Not everything just is a law.
So in your own personal sense of justice, is it just to wage militant attacks from hospitals and other civilian resources?
Personally I think it’s wrong to use sick and injured people as human shields.
Neither side is justified.
Hamas hiding behind civilians isn’t justification to kill the civilians.
Edit: he downvoted me in less than a minute, lol. I guess we know where he stands on the bias spectrum.
He thinks Israel is justified in killing these civilians. Wow.
I downvoted you because frankly I think that is a dumb and irrelevant thing to say. The world doesn’t work based on your, or mine, or anyone else’s personal sense of justice, nor should it. That’s why international law exists.
Under international humanitarian law, Hamas using sick people as a human shield is giving the IDF every excuse and legal justification they need to counter-attack the hospitals that they are using to state those attacks. Period.
I would vastly prefer if Hamas didn’t do that. I would vastly prefer that the IDF didn’t have legal justification for attacking hospitals. But what I prefer doesn’t mean shit.
But I guess when you can’t argue against the substance of what I’m saying you can only make embarrassing claims about the timing of meaningless internet points.
Oh well, whatever. Have a good one.
Lol, and you completely ignore me saying “Not all laws are just. Not everything just is a law.”
If you want to focus on the law, go right on ahead. I don’t even know why you’d bother replying to someone who clearly states they are not focusing on the law telling them what the law says.
Let’s be real. You’re biased towards Israel so you argue against anything that criticizes it. You don’t want me to say killing civilians is unjust because it’s critical of Israel’s behavior, which you cannot allow.
Just admit it. You’d come across as more genuine than whatever you’re doing now.
I don’t disagree or take issue with that part.
You responded to me. I responded to you. That’s how conversations work among people who aren’t terminally online.
I was talking about the law because the law is objective. Whether you personally feel something is justified is subjective and irrelevant. One person’s mind can justify anything. Another person might say that no use of military force is ever justified. While a third person might choose to justify the actions of one side over another based on their ideological alignment or political affiliation.
Do you not see that it’s just as easy for me to baselessly say you’re biased towards Hamas so you argue against anything that Israel does?
I won’t make that argument because it’s weak and, frankly, more than a little bit petty and embarrassing. You have to be pretty shameless to go there.
I’m on the side of the innocent, which you would understand if you read the substance of what I’m saying. Anybody who is on the side of the innocent can easily determine that Hamas are shit eating cowardly bitches for fighting from hospitals, and in doing so they are only further hurting the innocent.
Anyway, you’re boring me with this shit. I’m not an IDF general bombing hospitals, nor am I a Hamas terrorist taking cover behind injured children, so take your pent up frustrations on them instead.
Not unconditionally though. From your own linked source:
So leveling an entire hospital because a single rocket is fired from one by terrorists isn’t exactly justified by the law, even if firing rockets from a hospital is a war crime and justifies some degree of proportional reaction assuming humanitarian concerns can be justified.
As for why Hamas does this, it’s because it’s a win win for them. Either they reduce the capabilities of retaliation when humanitarian concerns are factored in, or they harm Israel’s image when engaging in disproportionate retaliation that isn’t adequately factoring in humanitarian concerns.
But the whole point of the Geneva convention and regulation regarding conduct in war is that even if your enemy is the literal worst, that stooping to their level is not what modern nations should do, and concern for the civilians even in enemy territory is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of the disregard for those laws by your own enemies.
I can’t regard Hamas as anything but disgusting terrorists and it’s troubling how much I see apologist rationalization for their terrorist acts on here.
But that doesn’t justify the IDF throwing the Geneva convention out the window and bombing civilian infrastructure to rubble any more than ISIL’s activities in Syria justified Assad’s bombing civilian areas where they were present to rubble.
They’ve been known to do all those things. I don’t know that they did all of it this time (time will tell) but why would they fuck their image in the eyes of world superpowers now? They need support.
And they leveled the hospital? I thought they sent people away after they cleared Hamas out?
Hamas knows they can and will retaliate so they form their strategy to leverage this. And Israel thinks they can get away with bombing hospitals by dumping shit tons of money on pr. What should be done is it should be made illegal according to international humanitarian laws, god knows why it isn’t.
The law says its OK so it must be OK!