@DarkGamer that’s a bit of a misconception. They’re not legal targets according to most international law experts. Eg
Even when civilian housing may be used by combatants to take shelter, as alleged in the attacks on the Jabalia refugee camp, launching attacks on entire apartment blocks is prohibited if they will lead to disproportionate damage, death and displacement of a large number of civilians, the UN expert warned.
“No asserted right of self-defence under international law can cover such attacks,” he said. “This is particularly the case when the right of self-defence is asserted in the context of an occupation.”
Article 8 of the Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”. 05 But it makes an exception if the targets are “military objectives”. Philip-Gay said that “if a civilian hospital is used for acts harmful to the enemy, that is the legal term used”, the hospital can lose its protected status under international law and be considered a legitimate target. Nevertheless, if there is doubt as to whether a hospital is a military objective or being used for acts harmful to the enemy, the presumption, under international humanitarian law, is that it is not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/17/can-hospitals-be-military-targets-international-law-israel-gaza-al-shifa
Sounds like it depends on what one considers disproportionate, what one considers an occupation, (Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005,) and whether Israel can prove these targets were used by Hamas as military objectives/used for acts harmful to Israel.
I’m just noting, in terms of international law experts, outside of Israel and the US, a pretty clear consensus is emerging that the scale of what Israel is doing to civilian infrastructure does in fact amount to war crimes.
@DarkGamer that’s a bit of a misconception. They’re not legal targets according to most international law experts. Eg
Source
Sounds like it depends on what one considers disproportionate, what one considers an occupation, (Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005,) and whether Israel can prove these targets were used by Hamas as military objectives/used for acts harmful to Israel.
Sure. It’s a matter of definition.
I’m just noting, in terms of international law experts, outside of Israel and the US, a pretty clear consensus is emerging that the scale of what Israel is doing to civilian infrastructure does in fact amount to war crimes.