• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is literally true.

    Specific protection of medical establishments and units (including hospitals) is the general rule under IHL. Therefore, specific protection to which hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used by a party to the conflict to commit, outside their humanitarian functions, an “act harmful to the enemy”. In case of doubt as to whether medical units of establishments are used to commit an “act harmful to the enemy”, they should be presumed not to be so used.

    Emphasis mine.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Proportionality is another factor you’re ignoring.

      They’re also still required to attempt to limit targeting to avoid civilian casualties and yet they don’t

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They do limit targeting. How many strikes are you seeing in the south as compared to the north? That’s a limitation and shows proportionality. You folks may not like it but this is categorically not a war crime.