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.
"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”.
"(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."
No you are not. OC conveniently left out UNSC, which does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. The strongest there is in the list is perhaps the list of the EU, but even that one is perhaps not impartial and rather beholden to its memberstates geopolitical interests tied to Israel.
With the veto powers I consider the UN security council impotent and a puppet - my guess is Russia vetoed any security council resolutions on this one. Ill take Australia and the EU voice any day.
Remove vetoed powers and ill consider them representing us correctly.
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.
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.
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.
You should take those counts with a grain of salt, and they shouldn’t mean anything in principle since we have no Karma here. I caught someone making two accounts just yesterday to downvote everything on my profile. Lemmy has a clear vote manipulation problem and some are clearly weaponizing it to try to hide some stories from those who filter by “Hot”, like for instance this story which literally got censored by the bot downvotes: https://lemmy.world/post/10789603
It’s not when they themselves require“the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility”.
Again, since you’re fully confident in this, go ask the journal to retract the article I linked to. Show them how they should read the Geneva Convention, that it “shouldn’t be a debate” and that it shouldn’t even require an article.
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."
Not to mention only one of three killed was even associated with Hamas.
One with Hamas, the two others with Islamic Jihad. So yes, that makes three terrorists.
Two terrorists, one combatant. Unless I missed something Hamas is not a designated terrorist organization.
It is:
In that case I stand corrected
No you are not. OC conveniently left out UNSC, which does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. The strongest there is in the list is perhaps the list of the EU, but even that one is perhaps not impartial and rather beholden to its memberstates geopolitical interests tied to Israel.
With the veto powers I consider the UN security council impotent and a puppet - my guess is Russia vetoed any security council resolutions on this one. Ill take Australia and the EU voice any day.
Remove vetoed powers and ill consider them representing us correctly.
I dare him to send some money to Hamas accounts and see whether his position that Hamas “isn’t a designated terrorist entity” still stands
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.
(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)
(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.
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.
You should take those counts with a grain of salt, and they shouldn’t mean anything in principle since we have no Karma here. I caught someone making two accounts just yesterday to downvote everything on my profile. Lemmy has a clear vote manipulation problem and some are clearly weaponizing it to try to hide some stories from those who filter by “Hot”, like for instance this story which literally got censored by the bot downvotes: https://lemmy.world/post/10789603
“shall be respected and protected in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES”. This absolutely is a clear cut issue.
It’s not when they themselves require “the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility”.
Again, since you’re fully confident in this, go ask the journal to retract the article I linked to. Show them how they should read the Geneva Convention, that it “shouldn’t be a debate” and that it shouldn’t even require an article.