this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
153 points (92.7% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

This post and multiple comments are being reported, so I'm making a top post to be 100% clear on this:

The facts of the issue are not in dispute. Israel did send an undercover team into a hospital to assassinate legitimate military targets. They admit to it and we have surveilance camera footage confirming it.

Problem #1 - Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions. You cannot run an assassination operation in a hospital, that's a war crime. Even if the targets are legitimately bad people.

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]

Problem #2 - Dressing as civilians, doctors, and women to engage in a military operation is is SEPARATE war crime called "perfidy".

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."

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thanks for adding that. I'm not sure that I feel the first point applies here (I can see that people might argue otherwise) but the second point seems like a slam dunk.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The second point applies to both - a combatant also entered as a civilian and received aid pretending to be a civilian.

One doesn't justify the other - the way i could legitimize it is by saying the hot squad dropped their disguise before engaging... like sending their own flag up the pole. Would need to review prior to saying if it was correct or not.

The arguement against the first section is that those protections apply to civilians and non combatants - conviently left out of their statement. The (pretty solid IMO) arguement is that combatants do not fall under this protection, and terrorists never do, abd these were still designated combatants including possibly carrying arms and planning ops. The room also looks oddly cleaned for three dead people including at least one head shot.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 6 points 2 years ago

They bombed entire hospitals and the world community didn't bat an eye, so they thought that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions.

Again, not a clear-cut issue. You cannot extrapolate a few lines from the Geneva Convention with your own definitions of what constitutes a "patient". So again, since this misinformation is being repeated, I find it only fair to quote a few passages on why that is, at least, debatable and why it is still indeed very important to add that the 3 killed were terrorists, were carrying guns and were planning a terrorist attack.

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.

(there wouldn't be an article about it if it was an obvious question: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/ , you should contact that journal and ask them to retract that article since you seem to say that they're wrong)

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.

(https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )

Being an active terrorist member of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, carrying at least one gun, planning a terrorist attack, and very likely committing perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in a hospital, all of that is certainly NOT "refraining from any act of hostility". You're free to consider the more general moral debate on whether it's okay to assassinate terrorists hiding in a hospital, but it's wrong and misleading to make the Geneva Convention say what it clearly doesn't say at all.

What would have clearly defended the terrorists' right to care would have been if they surrendered and left Hamas. But in the absence of that, it's, at best, still debatable whether the First Geneva Convention defends those terrorists' right to hide as civilians in a hospital to "receive care" or not.

With all this said, yes, it is very much indeed misinformation to maliciously leave out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh look - links to the act, information provided in a clear and balanced way, and discussed without insults and posturing is downvoted to shit yet buh, warcrime is pushed to the top. Me thinks there is a bias.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

"shall be respected and protected in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES". This absolutely is a clear cut issue.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

If you had the full section, yes.

You missed the part where a patient refrains from all acts of hostility (Hamas one wasnt), and terrorists don't qualify at patients (two jihadists). Otherwise i could break a leg, admit myself to hospital and be free to plan and act upon anything I wanted.

Those who fall under the protection are protected in all situations. Active combatants and terrorists don't fall under the protection of the convention.