During a United Nations Security Council meeting this week, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield launched a full-throated condemnation of Russia’s bombing of Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital on Monday. The attack was a part of a Russian bombing campaign that killed more than 30 Ukrainian civilians.
“We’re here today because Russia … attacked a children’s hospital,” Thomas-Greenfield said. “Even uttering that phrase sends a chill down my spine.”
Thomas-Greenfield went on to list a string of Russian attacks on other Ukrainian hospitals throughout the war. She described Russia’s aggression as a “campaign of terror” and labeled its attacks on civilian infrastructure as violations of international law. Representatives of other countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, echoed Thomas-Greenfield’s denunciations. (Russia’s ambassador denied responsibility for the Monday bombing.)
“I’m very glad the U.S. is coming out and so vocally condemning all of those actions,” said Jessica Peake, an international law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, referring to Thomas-Greenfield’s comments toward Russia. “But at the same time, we don’t get any language anywhere near as strong as that when we’re talking about Palestinian hospitals, or Palestinian schools, or Palestinian children.”
If a hospital is used as a combat position, it becomes a valid target for attack. You are not prohibited from returning fire just because the attackers are striking from a hospital.
Blowing up a hospital is not morally justified just because you’re able to bullshit your way into calling it a combat position. Your use of “prohibited” is a weaselword. Obviously they’re not prohibited - this is trivially true since they do it. It’s still not morally justifiable.
Oh, certainly. Well, war is hell. It’s an inherently immoral practice, one of the most evil things we engage in. When it happens though, it needs to follow a certain set of rules, for a variety of reasons of which morality is just one.
That said, “hospital” is just a word. If the building is occupied by patients and doctors and is not part of the fighting, then I fully agree with you. If it is empty of doctors and patients, and instead a battalion of soldiers is shooting at you from it, it should be blown up. The activities happening determine what happens, not the name and type of the building.
Adressing only both of these extremes ensure that nothing you said addresses any aspect of reality.
They’re hypotheticals meant to communicate how the Geneva Conventions actually work in real life. Sorry if you don’t like it.
The Geneva convention isn’t relevant to Israel’s current war in Gaza. Blowing up hospitals remains immoral. Sorry if you don’t like it.
War is immoral, everything about it. No exceptions. Humanity does not function based on universal morality though, it functions on law.
There are no laws governing Israel’s conduct in Gaza at this moment , and unconditional US support ensures that this will remain the case. You’re purposely talking about irrelevant nonsense to deflect from their obviously immoral acts.
No, I’m not talking about irrelevant nonsense, I’m talking about war as it pertains to a war. Note, I have said several times that what is happening is very immoral. This is not deflection.
Additionally, international law certainly applies, the ICJ has jurisdiction to try war criminals regardless of where they are.