Israel is vowing to wipe out Hamas in a relentless onslaught on the Gaza Strip but has no obvious endgame in sight, with no clear plan for how to govern the ravaged Palestinian enclave even if it triumphs on the battlefield.
If you’ve talking about the hospital, the IDF provided proof from intelligence footage and al-jazeera showing it was a misfire, and it hit a parking lot, not the actual hospital.
Otherwise, what IDF is doing is bombing where they know there are Hamas terrorists, and they don’t notify the Palestinian civilians to get out of the way.
I don’t know if that’s a war crime, especially since the IDF told Palestinian civilians to go south, but human shields is an issue too. A moral one.
Or maybe I’m misinformed and you know something I don’t, or we disagree on something.
No I’m not talking about that one. Remember a week or so ago when they designated evacuation spots that would be safe from airstrikes then airstriked those locations? Remember when they bombed trucks full of people evacuating south, as ordered, along designated safe routes? According to my understanding, these are blatant war crimes.
Didn’t find that specific truck reference, but I did find. BBC reference from yesterday that people in Khan Younis were bombed after being told to head south of Wadi Gaza. They were bombed because of Hamas presence.
I don’t know if attacking terrorists that hold human hostages as shields is a war crime, but it sure as shit sounds awful. Especially since the civilians can’t always tell they’re being actual human shields.
Massive bias aside, the guardian was at least decent enough to get the Israeli response. However, the IDF isn’t providing a direct answer, which raises suspicion.
Regardless, letting civilians know they should head south and then attacking the designated safe routes is definitely a problem, unless they can prove they didn’t.
Problem is, if the IDF would legally ratify each attack, they’ll kill nothing but civilians.
It’s a shitty situation either way. War in Gaza can’t possibly be clean.
Luckily for Hamas, they don’t have such rules to abide by.
The laws of war require armies to avoid deliberately targeting civilians, and also to avoid attacks that by their nature cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants. In particular, in Gaza, because it’s such a densely populated urban area, when you fire explosive weapons on a massive scale, it’s predictable that civilians will die. It’s predictable that children will die.
And naturally some wikipedia to help, but I only quote from the red cross. Feel free to check the links.
Hamas is in clear violation of all the articles of the 3rd common article of the Geneva convention. Every single section. However, the law doesn’t apply since they never agreed to be bound by them or sign the accord.
I did not see any article that states that if your enemy isn’t bound by the Geneva convention, then it means you aren’t too.
The 1987 additional to the Geneva protocol at 1977 also states in article 3 section 1 that “nothing in this protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a state or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the state or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the state.”
This would explain the repeating political statement: “Israel has the right to defend itself”, as it matches this section.
Also, during the original signing of the Geneva article 3, France and Britain inserted section C paragraph 1 “Scope of the application of common article”.
And this states verbatim - "Common article 3 does not provide a detailed definition of its scope of application, nor does it contain a list of criteria for identifying the situations in which it is meant to apply. It merely stipulates that ‘[I]n the cas of armed conflict not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties’, certain provisions must be respected by the parties of the conflict.
So this is quite the rabbit hole in terms of the law.
I will read further into this, but it seems that saying the city is dense makes them guilty is a claim for court, and a guess, not a ruling.
It doesn’t also clearly let’s Israel off the hook, as definitions can sway the lettering.
Also, maybe I’m missing some addendums. Don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.
Laws aside though, this is still an awful situation.
If you’ve talking about the hospital, the IDF provided proof from intelligence footage and al-jazeera showing it was a misfire, and it hit a parking lot, not the actual hospital.
Otherwise, what IDF is doing is bombing where they know there are Hamas terrorists, and they don’t notify the Palestinian civilians to get out of the way.
I don’t know if that’s a war crime, especially since the IDF told Palestinian civilians to go south, but human shields is an issue too. A moral one.
Or maybe I’m misinformed and you know something I don’t, or we disagree on something.
Please elaborate.
No I’m not talking about that one. Remember a week or so ago when they designated evacuation spots that would be safe from airstrikes then airstriked those locations? Remember when they bombed trucks full of people evacuating south, as ordered, along designated safe routes? According to my understanding, these are blatant war crimes.
Didn’t find that specific truck reference, but I did find. BBC reference from yesterday that people in Khan Younis were bombed after being told to head south of Wadi Gaza. They were bombed because of Hamas presence.
I don’t know if attacking terrorists that hold human hostages as shields is a war crime, but it sure as shit sounds awful. Especially since the civilians can’t always tell they’re being actual human shields.
What a nightmare.
Why were they ordered to head to a location that has Hamas presence?
Also, another similar incident:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-gaza-area-bombed-after-warning-to-move
If both these locations had Hamas presence then that’s a massive failure on the part of the IDF.
Also articles about the bombed refugee trucks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna120252
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/gaza-civilians-afraid-to-leave-home-after-bombing-of-safe-routes
Massive bias aside, the guardian was at least decent enough to get the Israeli response. However, the IDF isn’t providing a direct answer, which raises suspicion.
Regardless, letting civilians know they should head south and then attacking the designated safe routes is definitely a problem, unless they can prove they didn’t.
Problem is, if the IDF would legally ratify each attack, they’ll kill nothing but civilians.
It’s a shitty situation either way. War in Gaza can’t possibly be clean.
Luckily for Hamas, they don’t have such rules to abide by.
According to this interview with someone from the Human Rights Watch, it is considered a war crime (if I understand it correctly):
My source is https://ihl-databasrs.icrc.org and https://www.icrc.org (international red cross).
And naturally some wikipedia to help, but I only quote from the red cross. Feel free to check the links.
Hamas is in clear violation of all the articles of the 3rd common article of the Geneva convention. Every single section. However, the law doesn’t apply since they never agreed to be bound by them or sign the accord.
I did not see any article that states that if your enemy isn’t bound by the Geneva convention, then it means you aren’t too.
The 1987 additional to the Geneva protocol at 1977 also states in article 3 section 1 that “nothing in this protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a state or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the state or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the state.”
This would explain the repeating political statement: “Israel has the right to defend itself”, as it matches this section.
Also, during the original signing of the Geneva article 3, France and Britain inserted section C paragraph 1 “Scope of the application of common article”.
And this states verbatim - "Common article 3 does not provide a detailed definition of its scope of application, nor does it contain a list of criteria for identifying the situations in which it is meant to apply. It merely stipulates that ‘[I]n the cas of armed conflict not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties’, certain provisions must be respected by the parties of the conflict.
So this is quite the rabbit hole in terms of the law.
I will read further into this, but it seems that saying the city is dense makes them guilty is a claim for court, and a guess, not a ruling. It doesn’t also clearly let’s Israel off the hook, as definitions can sway the lettering.
Also, maybe I’m missing some addendums. Don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.
Laws aside though, this is still an awful situation.