• devz0r@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective.

    • 11181514@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh ok phew. I didn’t know it wasn’t a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo!

    • Makfreeman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes.

      • devz0r@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: “Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;”

          • Threeme2189@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What about finding tunnels, weapons, bombs and having terrorists hiding and firing from within the hospital compound? Is that enough or does Hamas need to put up a sign reading “military objective” at the entrance?

            • Sparlock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean they DID find like 9 guns and a calendar we were told was a hostage watching schedule… so yea totally needs to be nuked just to be sure. /s

              • Threeme2189@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                They’ve found a large amount of ammunition, IED and mortar shells in bedrooms, schools, mosques, hospitals, etc. Let’s just turn the other cheek and let them use them to kill Israel’s general population. No need for an /s

                • Sparlock@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No need for an s? So you want them to kill Israelis? Wtf.

                  How about being on the side of not killing anyone? Israel has all the power in this situation, and has for decades, but they show no signs of not wanting to just clear the Palestinians out.

                  And before you go all ‘but hamas’ you would need to explain the west bank.

        • Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties.

          So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one’s military operations doesn’t remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned.

      • Copatus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except in theory, you would want your hospitals protected regardless, even if it wasn’t a war crime to hide the military there. Because that’s where your population is vulnerable and being healed.

        Using your own population as shields is just next level. Those are the people you are supposedly fighting to protect in the first place.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t mean protected in a military sense, I mean protected in a legal sense, ie, assuming your opponent is bound by international law, having them forbidden from attacking those places. In a more normal conflict, it’s in the best interests of both governments to follow this sort of rule, since the military value of a hospital is (supposed to be) kept low, and each side knows that attacking medical facilities might lead to the other side doing the same in retaliation. However, this isn’t really a normal conflict, and Hamas does not act like a state (since it isn’t really, it’s a terrorist group taking on some of the roles of a state).