• HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    (Still assuming those killed were hamas)

    No its not - and to whoever calls me anti or pro something stop hiding behind insults. Stick with the events that actually are war crimes - there are enough to go around from both sides.

    It is a war crime to attack a hospital being used for purpose. A hospital (and other protected places) lose their protection when they are used for military purposes, including housing combatants, storage of munitions or logistics and command.

    What Israel failed miserably at (and I hope those responsible are held to account) is proportional response, as even without protection the response must be proportional and minimize civilian casualties and wider damage. A small hit team that targeted specific military personnel hiding in a hospital is a much more measured response than bombs through the roof.

    If they killed non combatants (either civilians or injured, non combat capable combatants) then a different story.

    • Geobloke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, one of them was in a wheel chair so yeah they assassinated a non combatant in a hospital

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Non combatant doesn’t just mean not running around with a rifle shooting things - its ability and conduct.

        If im planning an attack, then walk into a hospital im still a combatants - I become a non combatant when I stop, surrender or am no longer capable of engaging due to my ability… out of the fight so to speak. You don’t magically become impervious when you walk (or wheeled) in the door then vulnerable when you walk out.

        • Geobloke@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          He was in hospital because shrapnel had severed his spine. In the west bank. You can throw semantics at it, but going by the context I’d put money on him not being actively engaged in combat as he was incapable by your words

          • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I think the best way to explain it is take the example to the extreme end - would bin laden have been capable of planning the 9/11 attacks from a hospital bed while not able to walk?

            Law and precident are literally semantics - the difference between a war crime with the penalty of death and a frowny face is literally the details.

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              So then literally no one is protected then. According to you anyone could be a terrorist committing thought crime.

              • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Feel like I’m talking with people trying to find a reason to be offended. Take 5 seconds

                Is every protected person

                • a known member of a terrorist organization

                • been wounded conducting what are considered terrorist actions

                • in proximity to two other terrorists

                • before considering what other information may be held by IDF.