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

World News

39046 readers
2462 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 51 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 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."

[–] Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention only one of three killed was even associated with Hamas.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 7 points 9 months 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

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months 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 9 months 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.