I wonder if people read beyond the headline, but it’s probably too much to ask.
About those assassinated, from that same article:
Hamas confirmed that Jalamneh was one of its members. The Jenin Brigade, which includes a number of Palestinian armed resistance groups, said in a statement that two of the three men were members of Islamic Jihad.
It doesn’t matter if they were legitimate military targets or not, the conventions of war forbid dressing up as civilians, women, and doctors to assassinate people undergoing medical treatment IN A HOSPITAL.
Israel going “yeah, but they were all bad” is an ADMISSION, not a justification.
There is no questioning the facts here, we have surveilance camera footage. Israeli forces illegally disguised themselves to kill targets in a hospital.
It does not matter that they were legitimate targets. Hospitals are OFF LIMITS.
To terrorists too? Your oversimplification makes it seem like a clear-cut case when it’s not.
With the escalation of terrorism worldwide in recent years, situations arise in which the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, creating serious ethical problems. The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.
So yes, sorry to insist on it again but it does matter and it is important to detail that the 3 assassinated were terrorists, and yes it should be considered misinformation to maliciously leave that out.
"The First Geneva Convention states that there should be no “obstacle to the humanitarian activities” and that wounded and sick “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.”[4]
Article 18 demands that medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
The Declaration of Geneva was created as an amendment to the Hippocratic Oath in 1948, a response to the human experimentation on Nazi prisoners."
Our two quotes aren’t in contradiction? Here’s what the first Geneva convention defines as “wounded or sick”:
Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.
Being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
Irrelevant as no medical facility got attacked (okay, they’ll probably have to replace the bedding) and most importantly not a single civilian got harmed in the process.
When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.
The additional factor is dressing as civilians, doctors, and women to accomplish the assassination which is a separate violation. It’s called “perfidy”, and as an aside, how AWESOME is that word.
"(4) One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example, feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or a surrender or feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness or feigning a civilian, non-combatant status or feigning a protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations or a neutral State or a State not party to the conflict."
So, no, what Israel has done here is beyond the pale, completely unjustified, war crimes, and admitting to it with “buh, buh, they were terrorists” does NOT justify it.
When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.
Conveniently ignoring this doesn’t make your point true: being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
Your point would have been defensible if those three terrorists 1- surrendered and left Hamas, 2- weren’t carrying arms (at least one of them was carrying a gun), 3- weren’t accused of planning another terrorist attack and 4- didn’t commit perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in the hospital. Still being active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with one of the three being a commander, IS an act of hostility.
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
If you think dressing up as women and doctors doesn’t count as feigning of civilian status, oh boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
No, I’ve been told repeatedly Al Jazeera is in fact palestinian propaganda that shouldn’t be trusted and that I’m ignorant for having done so. Damned if I do damned if I dont I guess
Also I guess you didn’t read beyond the article either. Disguising oneself as a medic is a big ol’ frownie face in the war crimes community
To be clear, Al Jazeera DOES have a blind spot when it comes to anything involving Qatar. If there’s a Qatari interest, and Al Jazeera is reporting on it, take it with a grain of salt.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital. But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
Is it? If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t need to leave it out to gather support for the assassinated terrorists. You perfectly know that the reaction would have been different if OP hadn’t left it out, which is why you still insist on leaving it out, and yes, that is scummy.
Every reputable outlet is not leaving out that crucial detail:
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over.
Then you shouldn’t have any issues with detailing that the three were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists when you refer to this incident instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
It’s maddening to watch people like yourself jump over themselves to shove words in other’s mouths. Never defended, not even by omission, Hamas terrorists.
It’s like me saying “wow you support these 3 war criminals? You must also support the IDF gunning down civillians waving white flags and specifically targeting journalists to the point that more journalists have died by Israel’s hands than all the combined deaths of journalists during WW2.”
See how that also makes you look like a piece of shit without you even opening your mouth?
I’m not on Hamas’s side.
I’m also not on Israel’s side. I’m just here to watch, helplessly, as this multi generational conflict keeps going, and more people die as the genocide ramps up.
I’m also here to watch people like you twist themselves in knots to keep pointing out the terrorists to ignore the genocide happening, and pretending that anyone pointing to genocides enjoys israeli children getting bombed.
In summary: be better. I get that you’ve picked sides in your morally upright conflict. But there is no good side. And just because someone pointed out that “your side” committed a war crime isn’t absolving the other guys’ war crimes.
Two things can be true sweetie. I know thats a difficult concept for someone wanting to paint the world black and white, while ignoring all the red.
Don’t you think it is a little off-brand for the world’s most moral army to summarily execute terrorists in West Bank (which Israel illegally occupies), without due process and also, terrorizing civilians in a hospital.
You’re free to ask on c/asklemmy “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three terrorists hiding in a hospital?” and get a debate going on the morality of it. It’s not okay to keep spamming the lie by omission that “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”, obviously insinuating that they killed 3 random civilians, in order to gather more sympathy for the terrorists.
You’re beating around the bush here. Why is it so hard for you to include the excerpt? Remember, the rules in this community allow you to do that. Why is it hard for you to write “IDF killed 3 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists” instead of “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when you refer to this incident?
I wonder if people read beyond the headline, but it’s probably too much to ask.
About those assassinated, from that same article:
Or is AlJazeera also just Israeli propaganda?
It doesn’t matter if they were legitimate military targets or not, the conventions of war forbid dressing up as civilians, women, and doctors to assassinate people undergoing medical treatment IN A HOSPITAL.
Israel going “yeah, but they were all bad” is an ADMISSION, not a justification.
There is no questioning the facts here, we have surveilance camera footage. Israeli forces illegally disguised themselves to kill targets in a hospital.
It does not matter that they were legitimate targets. Hospitals are OFF LIMITS.
To terrorists too? Your oversimplification makes it seem like a clear-cut case when it’s not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/
So yes, sorry to insist on it again but it does matter and it is important to detail that the 3 assassinated were terrorists, and yes it should be considered misinformation to maliciously leave that out.
People undergoing medical treatment are, indeed, off limits. It does not matter if they are terrorists or not.
This is all part of the Geneva conventions which Israel is now in clear violation of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_neutrality
"The First Geneva Convention states that there should be no “obstacle to the humanitarian activities” and that wounded and sick “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.”[4]
Article 18 demands that medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
The Declaration of Geneva was created as an amendment to the Hippocratic Oath in 1948, a response to the human experimentation on Nazi prisoners."
Our two quotes aren’t in contradiction? Here’s what the first Geneva convention defines as “wounded or sick”:
(https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )
Being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
Irrelevant as no medical facility got attacked (okay, they’ll probably have to replace the bedding) and most importantly not a single civilian got harmed in the process.
When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.
The additional factor is dressing as civilians, doctors, and women to accomplish the assassination which is a separate violation. It’s called “perfidy”, and as an aside, how AWESOME is that word.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule65?country=us#sectioni
"(4) One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example, feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or a surrender or feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness or feigning a civilian, non-combatant status or feigning a protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations or a neutral State or a State not party to the conflict."
So, no, what Israel has done here is beyond the pale, completely unjustified, war crimes, and admitting to it with “buh, buh, they were terrorists” does NOT justify it.
There’s no point arguing with that guy. His name has an Israeli flag emoji in the name, and it’s pretty clear where his allegiances lay.
It is clear, and I know nothing I say will convince them.
What’s important is making it clear that they’re wrong and WHY they’re wrong for anyone else stumbling across this conversation in the future.
My future peeps can see both sides of it and make up their own minds. :)
https://youtu.be/xuaHRN7UhRo#t=1m4s
Conveniently ignoring this doesn’t make your point true: being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
Your point would have been defensible if those three terrorists 1- surrendered and left Hamas, 2- weren’t carrying arms (at least one of them was carrying a gun), 3- weren’t accused of planning another terrorist attack and 4- didn’t commit perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in the hospital. Still being active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with one of the three being a commander, IS an act of hostility.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and
If you think dressing up as women and doctors doesn’t count as feigning of civilian status, oh boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
No, I’ve been told repeatedly Al Jazeera is in fact palestinian propaganda that shouldn’t be trusted and that I’m ignorant for having done so. Damned if I do damned if I dont I guess
Also I guess you didn’t read beyond the article either. Disguising oneself as a medic is a big ol’ frownie face in the war crimes community
To be clear, Al Jazeera DOES have a blind spot when it comes to anything involving Qatar. If there’s a Qatari interest, and Al Jazeera is reporting on it, take it with a grain of salt.
I’m sorry you feel sorry that Hamas and Islamic Jihad lost three terrorists today.
Yes, when you’re trying to defend the indefensible, this is exactly the kind of pathetic response I’d expect to read. Be better.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital. But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
Is it? If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t need to leave it out to gather support for the assassinated terrorists. You perfectly know that the reaction would have been different if OP hadn’t left it out, which is why you still insist on leaving it out, and yes, that is scummy.
Every reputable outlet is not leaving out that crucial detail:
Yes, it is.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
Then you shouldn’t have any issues with detailing that the three were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists when you refer to this incident instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
It’s maddening to watch people like yourself jump over themselves to shove words in other’s mouths. Never defended, not even by omission, Hamas terrorists.
It’s like me saying “wow you support these 3 war criminals? You must also support the IDF gunning down civillians waving white flags and specifically targeting journalists to the point that more journalists have died by Israel’s hands than all the combined deaths of journalists during WW2.”
See how that also makes you look like a piece of shit without you even opening your mouth?
I’m not on Hamas’s side.
I’m also not on Israel’s side. I’m just here to watch, helplessly, as this multi generational conflict keeps going, and more people die as the genocide ramps up.
I’m also here to watch people like you twist themselves in knots to keep pointing out the terrorists to ignore the genocide happening, and pretending that anyone pointing to genocides enjoys israeli children getting bombed.
In summary: be better. I get that you’ve picked sides in your morally upright conflict. But there is no good side. And just because someone pointed out that “your side” committed a war crime isn’t absolving the other guys’ war crimes.
Two things can be true sweetie. I know thats a difficult concept for someone wanting to paint the world black and white, while ignoring all the red.
Don’t you think it is a little off-brand for the world’s most moral army to summarily execute terrorists in West Bank (which Israel illegally occupies), without due process and also, terrorizing civilians in a hospital.
You’re free to ask on c/asklemmy “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three terrorists hiding in a hospital?” and get a debate going on the morality of it. It’s not okay to keep spamming the lie by omission that “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”, obviously insinuating that they killed 3 random civilians, in order to gather more sympathy for the terrorists.
Do you know West Bank is not Gaza?
Do you justify the military occupation of West Bank?
Do you think that if Hamas militants somehow enter US, then Israel can send its military into US to execute them on US soil?
You’re beating around the bush here. Why is it so hard for you to include the excerpt? Remember, the rules in this community allow you to do that. Why is it hard for you to write “IDF killed 3 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists” instead of “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when you refer to this incident?
I don’t write the headlines