• AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    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.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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."

      • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        (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”.

        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.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

          • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • pivot_root@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

              Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy

              1. 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;

              © The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

              (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.