“Threatens medics”
This is also known as a “war crime”
I know it’s an old joke but they really are considering it more of a Geneva Checklist, it seems.
The Geneva Suggestion
Removed by mod
That really depends on whose ambulance it is and how, exactly, it’s being used. If it’s specifically assigned to the military for casualty transport then it’s a target. But if it’s a civil service that’s just the closest response after a bombing then congratulations, you’ve committed a war crime by attacking it.
Which is why other militaries go out of their way to make sure they aren’t targeting civil health infrastructure. Versus Israel who seems to be treating it like a target list. Again.
The Israeli military also claimed on Saturday, **without providing any evidence, **
It’s still about the statement.
During the 2006 war there were documented cases of Hezbollah abusing ambulances for military transport.
If it’s dead and in Vietnam it’s Vietcong, amirite?
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
What the IDF actually said:
In a post on X, the IDF’s Arabic spokesperson threatened that it would target “any vehicle carrying armed men, regardless of its type.”
Using ambulances to transport active combatants is a war crime and the vehicle loses its protection.
The IDF literally masqueraded as medical personnel and assaulted a hospital while still in medical garb. Just saying…
Removed by mod
That was a special police operation, IIRC, where IHL doesn’t apply.
Using military personnel in a military occupied country, is a “special police operation”, huh?. It sounds like just redefining things now. Like the special military operation of Putin which is totally not an invasion of a sovereign nation.
I looked up the event you’re probably referring to. It was in area A, so even if it was a police unit, these should be considered combatants and international conflict. Operating in area A is a breach of the Oslo accords for Israeli forces.
The squad executing the targeted killing of one militant in the hospital were clothed in different civilian clothes (men, women) as you can see in the video. Only a minority of them wore medical uniforms.
The article doesn’t say, but I remember reading somewhere that it was a border police operation. The IDF and Israeli police forces have special units that specialize in undercover work and blending in with the Palestinian Arab population.
One could argue that covert infiltration and targeted killing avoided civilian casualties that would have occurred using a uniformed frontal assault.
Under IHL these Israeli operatives would be classified as spies and not get protections reserved to prisoners of war.
The article doesn’t say, but I remember reading somewhere that it was a border police operation.
I don’t think we can rely on your imperfect memory. As far as I’m concerned. this was a war crime, much worse than what IDF is complaining about in the OP since it was actually clear and not just “we killed them, therefore they were combatants” CYA.
Nobody cares what you call them. They are armed and agents of the state. That’s a war crime.
So the Lebanese police too?
Just declaring anyone with a rifle as part of the enemy is a wild way to get yourself in front of the Hague.
But also no. It depends on what the ambulance is doing. Going to the hospital? That’s a war crime. Moving armed soldiers to the Frontline, that’s a target.
It’s not nearly as simple as gun=target. This is the military, not the American police.
I don’t think Lebanese police is a combatant in the current war. If police participated in combat operations, they would be combatants.
So, if you’re a police officer and a foreign nation is invading, you should just stand around looking really disappointed?
So it’s also a war crime when Israel treat IDF soldiers with your logic
Treating wounded is never a war crime.
If a combatant is hors de combat, no longer able to fight, then they are no longer a valid military objective.
If the IDF shuttles soldiers ready to fight to the front using an ambulance, it’s a war crime. Shuttling injured soldiers from the front to the back is not a war crime.
Hezbollah and also Palestinian militant groups have been observed to use ambulances to do the former.
It’s just an IDF accusations. No independent investigation confirmed it
There are independent investigations from the 2006 Lebanon war documenting similar cases. You can also find this for previous wars in Gaza and the West Bank.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-hospital-strikes-worsen-health-crisis
An IDF spokesperson said in a televised interview that day: “Our forces saw terrorists using ambulances as a vehicle to move around. They perceived a threat and accordingly we struck that ambulance.” Human Rights Watch did not find evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes
Based on what evidence?
An injured fighter is no longer a combatant and entitled to medical treatment like any other human being.
But by blowing up the ambulance so that only body parts can be found after, it can always be claimed that the patients were still healthy before being bombed.
Specific ambulances are only attacked if there’s intelligence like surveillance that says it’s being used to transport combatants or weapons. If all ambulances were systematically targeted, all ambulances would camouflage as civilian vehicles.
You are correct that persons hors de combat are protected.
Evidence in war zones is always difficult, especially when combatants don’t wear uniforms. You can easily make a combatant look like a civilian, by removing the weapons from the scene. Making civilians look like combatants just takes putting a weapon next to their body. Independent neutral investigators will rarely arrive at a scene before one of the belligerent forces.
Classic Guardian.
The Guardian are pretty much the voice of New Labour, who are totally in bed with Israel (they’re still sending them weapons and even sent surveillance planes to help them in Gaza).
If The Guardian is actually critical of Israel and the IDF that’s a pretty good indication that the Zionist Genocide has already burned most of their good will even in Britain which is one of the most right wing states in Europe and has a history of invariably either being one or supporting White Colonist States in their Genocides of the locals (remember how they supported Appartheid until the last minute and even called Mandela “a terrorist”?!).
Ah yeah I guess let’s dig out a Fox News article instead to find out the truth?
