this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
246 points (77.3% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2238 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
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Hi there. How about an old soldier who actually had to know this stuff and use that knowledge in a war?

First off, a single incident isn't enough. A sniper or even a squad doing stuff can be dealt with in other ways. In order to strike a hospital (or any protected target) with explosives you need evidence it's a target of "military or strategic value". This is why Israel isn't just claiming a few sporadic attacks but instead that all of the hospitals are actually command centers.

Second, the protected target can only be hit by proportional force that accomplishes a specific goal. If there's an artillery battery in the parking lot and I level the obstetrics wing with dumb bombs then I've committed a war crime. Smart bombs with very low yields absolutely exist. Another example is the eponymous claim of rooftop rockets. I can hit that with an airburst explosive to prevent structural damage to most concrete buildings. In the context of protected targets these things matter. You don't get a green light to demolish it unless it's basically been hollowed out for military use only.

Third, whoever fires on the protected target is responsible for providing the evidence it was required. And war crimes investigators take a very dim view of "they did it once a decade ago", as a reason. Israel and it's allies have yet to do anything that actually proves the existence of a military or strategic target in places like the UNRWA Gaza headquarters.

[–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

While proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn't have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.

Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28#:~:text=to%20medical%20units-,Rule%2028.,and%20protected%20in%20all%20circumstances.

"the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]"

"While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action."

And that's before we get into the creative reinterpreting of LOAC for terrorists in non- international armed conflicts fought by non-state insurgent groups which were invented post 9-11.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I never said it had to be in exclusive use to get fired on.

I did say the party firing on the hospital needs to provide evidence that each hospital, at each time, was a legal target. "I said so" doesn't pass muster.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First off, a single incident isn’t enough.

This is not an isolated incident.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We don't even have evidence of a single incident.

And before you reply with LoOk At ThE ViDeO!11

That's one guy. In the street outside a hospital. That in no way justifies anything other than the infantry going by to check it out and help the doctors. One guy with an RPG (not the sensationalist ATGM setup the headline would have us believe) is nowhere near the evidence required to drop ordinance on a hospital.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In that case, let's talk soldier to sailor as I suspect I've been out much longer than you and can provide the perspectiveof what is being seen. You're logically spoken, so I'm going to assume ~sgt rank and American.

During the US time in Afghanistan there was significant urban combat, with multiple civilians around, limited identification of combatants and a campaign to win over the local population so you had to be absolutely sure of your target and operations. This was not just the guy on the ground, but the operations planning at officer level, approval to senior command and in liason with local forces. Post patrol or fire fight the was debriefs, justification of actions, and improvement points to be discussed, remedied and distributed. This happens across theater, from rifleman to pilot to special ops. You likely sat in brief after brief, got frustrated at ops planning, and had to debrief and relive the worst day of your life in hopes lessons could be drawn to save lives down the track.

We civilians saw none of that. We saw videos of tomahawks being launched, helicopters flying, burnt out trucks. Civilians screaming, dead kids, burnt buildings. Coffins coming home, memorials, speeches.

What is happening in Israel is likely very similar. Im not Israeli intelligence so I don't see the planning that went into the attack, didn't sit in the ready room as the pilots got briefed, haven't seen the after action reports - because this information doesn't make it to the news and isn't distributed. The best we have to go off is exactly the same as we had for America - there are laws around it, civilians will get harmed in virtually any conflict, but a person who is well aware of the damage they are about to inflict, where, and who else will be affected still has to press the button or pull the trigger knowing exactly where that round is going.

The flaw in your argument is not that you are incorrect - far from it. It's the belief that because you were not directly involved to witness it it didn't happen.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm older than you think. I was in the 2003 Iraq invasion. And I was specifically a mortarman. I have vivid memories of listening to the fires net and the Battalion coordinator asking for exact details and then us getting exact fire mission specifics to minimize damage. ( A normal mission would be something like all guns fire 10 rounds of ground det HE as fast as possible. These missions were more like our best gun firing one airburst or smoke at a time.) The thing is, those details are all recorded because you have to be able to account for every mission fired on a protected target. They wouldn't be sensitive either, not the parts about how exactly Hamas is using the building as reported by units on the ground. The reporting method is known and Hamas' tactics are something they want to show the world.

It's the absence of these reports along with the completely lackluster post battle evidence that has me wondering what the hell the Israelis are doing.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc -5 points 1 year ago

My friend, they celebrate an airstrike with multiple rocket enough to create a crater few meter wide, using it on a human target, inside a crowded refugee camp. They certainly will not listen to any reasoning.