248
submitted 1 year ago by bboplifa@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn't give them the right to bomb the hospital point blank period, proportionality clauses kick in and it's arguably reason to ground assault it but they cannot ignore the civilian cost of life when they're are other ways to go about clearing the garrison.

Ed: Jesus Christ, 3 seconds on Google prior just can't seem to do.

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately as soon as they garrisoned it it became a legitimate military target and yes, they literally now have a right to bomb it. Level it, no, you are right on a proportional response and that would still be a war crime, but bombing what is now a legitimate military target prior to any invasion (like any other military target) can absolutely be justified.

Hamas knows this, and are deliberately trying to put the global blame on Israel when THEY GARRISONED A FUCKING HOSPITAL.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lol "garrisoned". This isn't Age of Empires. Gaza is one of the most densely populated area on the planet. They have no freedom of movement, and the area is completely blockaded. Anywhere anyone in that area tries to stage a defense is a "civilian area." They're literally prohibited from having anything else.

So there is nowhere they could defend from that you wouldn't consider "human shield."

But you know that.

Edit: Corrected. Because fascist apologists love getting honest interlocutors hung up on semantics. I misspoke, and it's "just" one of the most densely populated areas. Because that changes my argument in any real way whatsoever.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Uhh... military forces holding a building and using it as a base is literally called a garrison.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know what the word means. If you want to get all semantic about it, Hamas isn't a "military force," they're an insurgency. I'm not sure an insurgency "garrisons".

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As the elected representative of Palestine they are indeed a military force, operating in a state to state conflict. Like the taliban in Afghanistan - they are the controllers of the country, no longer an insurgency. How "good" they are, morally or militarily, is irrelevant.

Its like saying the US of A is actually an insurgency because they toppled the British government and established their own. Nope - government.

How fair the elections were is up for debate, and how they stopped elections but they are thr government of Palestine.

Furthermore, why are you bring up that I'm being semantic with a word that you had a problem with using?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No the fuck they don't!

You just ain't right bud, do some fucking reading before you spout Israeli talking points.

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Medical establishments and units enjoy protection because of their function of providing care for the wounded and sick. When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed. This would be the case for example if a hospital is used as a base from which to launch an attack; as an observation post to transmit information of military value; as a weapons depot; as a center for liaison with fighting troops; or as a shelter for able-bodied combatants.

Source - International commitment of the Red Cross. Hamas is doing all of these.

Are you telling me you know better than the biggest humanitarian organization on the planet? I have been studying this for two years, read well over 150 peer reviewed articles on conflict and the effect it has on the civilian population, and studied multiple places where International law was not followed. I've done enough fucking reading on the topic and don't need to reply with pro-anyone agenda to discuss it.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.

Same source, you know that's theres like thousands of laws in relation to war correct?

I don't know better boss, but I can use the search bar and read, you don't need much more than that to know you're objectively wrong and your source agrees.

this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
248 points (77.1% liked)

World News

38978 readers
1179 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