• AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦
    link
    English
    -23
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Our two quotes aren’t in contradiction? Here’s what the first Geneva convention defines as “wounded or sick”:

    Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.

    (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )

    Being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.

    medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]

    Irrelevant as no medical facility got attacked (okay, they’ll probably have to replace the bedding) and most importantly not a single civilian got harmed in the process.

    • @jordanlundM
      link
      English
      1611 months ago

      When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.

      The additional factor is dressing as civilians, doctors, and women to accomplish the assassination which is a separate violation. It’s called “perfidy”, and as an aside, how AWESOME is that word.

      https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule65?country=us#sectioni

      "(4) One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example, feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or a surrender or feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness or feigning a civilian, non-combatant status or feigning a protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations or a neutral State or a State not party to the conflict."

      So, no, what Israel has done here is beyond the pale, completely unjustified, war crimes, and admitting to it with “buh, buh, they were terrorists” does NOT justify it.

      • @pivot_root
        link
        English
        1811 months ago

        There’s no point arguing with that guy. His name has an Israeli flag emoji in the name, and it’s pretty clear where his allegiances lay.

        • @jordanlundM
          link
          English
          1311 months ago

          It is clear, and I know nothing I say will convince them.

          What’s important is making it clear that they’re wrong and WHY they’re wrong for anyone else stumbling across this conversation in the future.

          My future peeps can see both sides of it and make up their own minds. :)

          https://youtu.be/xuaHRN7UhRo#t=1m4s

      • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦
        link
        English
        -17
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.

        Conveniently ignoring this doesn’t make your point true: being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.

        Your point would have been defensible if those three terrorists 1- surrendered and left Hamas, 2- weren’t carrying arms (at least one of them was carrying a gun), 3- weren’t accused of planning another terrorist attack and 4- didn’t commit perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in the hospital. Still being active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with one of the three being a commander, IS an act of hostility.

        • @pivot_root
          link
          English
          1411 months ago

          https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

          Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy

          1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

          (a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

          (b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

          © The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

          (d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

          If you think dressing up as women and doctors doesn’t count as feigning of civilian status, oh boy do I have a bridge to sell you.