• cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Even if it did, and I wouldn’t take Israels best ally as complitelly objective fact, you don’t just bomb a whole hospital full of civilians

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      From the Israeli point of view yes you do.

      Hospitals being a forbidden target is important, civilians dying is not, because they don’t care about civilians.

      It’s sad to see how something intended to become a Jewish nation after 2k years and so on became a dumbed down pidgin version of 1950s’ late European colonialism.

      • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        To defend that israel does not commit war crimes, I have seen zionists claim that if civilians are used for military purposes (involuntary human shield), they become valid military targets ._.

        • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Could that same argument be applied to army reservists in a country with mandatory military service?

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d say that arguement is stronger because they had their whole life to prepare not to serve a genocidal army, instead of being made to participiate in war with no choice or warning. If we evaluate both using the metric of Free and Prior Informed Consent we see one is measurably worse.

        • kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s because of the Geneva Convention (origin of the modern concept of war crimes.)

          It’s designed to be applied mutually, if only one side does then it’s basically non-functioning.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            Absolutely not. We already had this argument in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. War crimes are war crimes. You can get away with some of the more esoteric ones for not fighting a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, but slaughtering civilians en masse is a crime full stop.

          • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            I understand that many of the humanitarian safeguards and international law can be disadvantageous when only one side gets things right.
            But those are important guarantees, they are even used to differentiate the supposedly “good and civilized”, if they are discarded every time they are inconvenient, aren’t they just dead letter?

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yup. I think there’s a difference between the factual claim of whether Hamas has operations on the hospital grounds vs the justification for the type of military action taken against the hospital. I think it is possible to accept there is truth to the Hamas operations center being located there and still condemn the military tactics used against the hospital due to civilian casualties and harm it caused. Unfortunately those 2 things seem to be conflates that acknowledgement of Hamas being there is implicitly condoning Israel’s actions.