• EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.