• RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Your article says exactly what I said, in more words.

    Instead of “the hill”, go read the articles of the geneva convention, they aren’t that long and are really clear.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I think discussion around the interpretation of the Geneva convention is an important part of this issue though. A lack of clarity in the original text is what allows Israel to claim their actions are not war crimes.

      Here’s the key article: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-19

      At minimum I don’t think this supports the idea that it doesn’t matter at all whether or what Hamas was using the hospital for. But what do you think is meant by this article if not that hospitals can lose protection if used for military purposes?

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are you daft? You’re not even stating the parts of the article you want to discuss. Are you just shilling for Israel?

        It’s pretty black and white. You can attack a hospital that has lost it’s protection, but you have to clearly warn everyone that you think that’s what’s happening, and they best get out before the bombs come. Israel didnt do any of that. They also took no care to reduce loss of civilian life. It was a warcrime and it doesn’t matter if it was really a Hamas base or not.