- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I made a post about this on combatfootage(NSFL) .This is wayyy worse than the post suggests.
The IDF dressed up as medics and civilians and executed a person lying on a hospital bed. It’s a new war-crime world record.
Jeez Christ. War crimes without blinking.
Every time you think these Israeli terrorists can’t get any worse they prove to the world that they can reach a new depraved low
This post and multiple comments are being reported, so I’m making a top post to be 100% clear on this:
The facts of the issue are not in dispute. Israel did send an undercover team into a hospital to assassinate legitimate military targets. They admit to it and we have surveilance camera footage confirming it.
Problem #1 - Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions. You cannot run an assassination operation in a hospital, that’s a war crime. Even if the targets are legitimately bad people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_neutrality
"The First Geneva Convention states that there should be no “obstacle to the humanitarian activities” and that wounded and sick “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.”[4]
Article 18 demands that medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
Problem #2 - Dressing as civilians, doctors, and women to engage in a military operation is is SEPARATE war crime called “perfidy”.
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."
Not to mention only one of three killed was even associated with Hamas.
One with Hamas, the two others with Islamic Jihad. So yes, that makes three terrorists.
Two terrorists, one combatant. Unless I missed something Hamas is not a designated terrorist organization.
Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization? What the fuck are you smoking?
Hamas is not a designated terrorist organization
It is:
- US: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
- EU: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024D0332 (see also https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/138098.pdf )
- UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
- Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/hamas-palestinian-listed-as-terrorist-group-australia-government/100839262
- Argentina: https://frenteacano-com-ar.translate.goog/el-gobierno-argentino-incluira-al-grupo-hamas-en-la-lista-de-organizaciones-terroristas/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp (Google Translate link)
In that case I stand corrected
No you are not. OC conveniently left out UNSC, which does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. The strongest there is in the list is perhaps the list of the EU, but even that one is perhaps not impartial and rather beholden to its memberstates geopolitical interests tied to Israel.
With the veto powers I consider the UN security council impotent and a puppet - my guess is Russia vetoed any security council resolutions on this one. Ill take Australia and the EU voice any day.
Remove vetoed powers and ill consider them representing us correctly.
They bombed entire hospitals and the world community didn’t bat an eye, so they thought that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to them
Thanks for adding that. I’m not sure that I feel the first point applies here (I can see that people might argue otherwise) but the second point seems like a slam dunk.
The second point applies to both - a combatant also entered as a civilian and received aid pretending to be a civilian.
One doesn’t justify the other - the way i could legitimize it is by saying the hot squad dropped their disguise before engaging… like sending their own flag up the pole. Would need to review prior to saying if it was correct or not.
The arguement against the first section is that those protections apply to civilians and non combatants - conviently left out of their statement. The (pretty solid IMO) arguement is that combatants do not fall under this protection, and terrorists never do, abd these were still designated combatants including possibly carrying arms and planning ops. The room also looks oddly cleaned for three dead people including at least one head shot.
Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions.
Again, not a clear-cut issue. You cannot extrapolate a few lines from the Geneva Convention with your own definitions of what constitutes a “patient”. So again, since this misinformation is being repeated, I find it only fair to quote a few passages on why that is, at least, debatable and why it is still indeed very important to add that the 3 killed were terrorists, were carrying guns and were planning a terrorist attack.
The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.
(there wouldn’t be an article about it if it was an obvious question: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/ , you should contact that journal and ask them to retract that article since you seem to say that they’re wrong)
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 an active terrorist member of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, carrying at least one gun, planning a terrorist attack, and very likely committing perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in a hospital, all of that is certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”. You’re free to consider the more general moral debate on whether it’s okay to assassinate terrorists hiding in a hospital, but it’s wrong and misleading to make the Geneva Convention say what it clearly doesn’t say at all.
What would have clearly defended the terrorists’ right to care would have been if they surrendered and left Hamas. But in the absence of that, it’s, at best, still debatable whether the First Geneva Convention defends those terrorists’ right to hide as civilians in a hospital to “receive care” or not.
With all this said, yes, it is very much indeed misinformation to maliciously leave out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.
“shall be respected and protected in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES”. This absolutely is a clear cut issue.
If you had the full section, yes.
You missed the part where a patient refrains from all acts of hostility (Hamas one wasnt), and terrorists don’t qualify at patients (two jihadists). Otherwise i could break a leg, admit myself to hospital and be free to plan and act upon anything I wanted.
Those who fall under the protection are protected in all situations. Active combatants and terrorists don’t fall under the protection of the convention.
It’s not when they themselves require “the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility”.
Again, since you’re fully confident in this, go ask the journal to retract the article I linked to. Show them how they should read the Geneva Convention, that it “shouldn’t be a debate” and that it shouldn’t even require an article.
Again, they were in hospital beds, they were NOT engaging in hostility.
Being in a hospital bed doesn’t make you a non combatant - like other poster said, it’s also what you are doing from that bed.
CNN just stated that according to the hospital, he was sleeping when he was killed.
In the nicest way possible- irrelevant. Doesnt matter if you were awake any more than falling asleep on watch.
go ask the journal to retract the article I linked to
Classic bullshit demand.
Oh look - links to the act, information provided in a clear and balanced way, and discussed without insults and posturing is downvoted to shit yet buh, warcrime is pushed to the top. Me thinks there is a bias.
is downvoted to shit
You should take those counts with a grain of salt, and they shouldn’t mean anything in principle since we have no Karma here. I caught someone making two accounts just yesterday to downvote everything on my profile. Lemmy has a clear vote manipulation problem and some are clearly weaponizing it to try to hide some stories from those who filter by “Hot”, like for instance this story which literally got censored by the bot downvotes: https://lemmy.world/post/10789603
I know it means nothing as both there is no karma and they are worthless, but misinformation and lies still carry weight based on what people believe others think.
If we want a community where facts and evidence are supported we need to be supportive of those that provide facts and skeptical of those that throw out emotive language and half truths.
Even given that this was a terror cell actively planning a terrorist attack, this is unjustifiable. If they had the operational access to assassinate them, they also had the power to extract and arrest them. If they had evidence strong enough to compel an extrajudicial killing, then they had evidence to present at trial.
Why is the most moral army in the world committing war crimes? Does that make them more or less moral?
Assuming the 3 killed were Hamas, this is still a warcrime. You don’t bomb hospitals, and you don’t send hit squads into hospitals to murder people.
deleted by creator
(Still assuming those killed were hamas)
No its not - and to whoever calls me anti or pro something stop hiding behind insults. Stick with the events that actually are war crimes - there are enough to go around from both sides.
It is a war crime to attack a hospital being used for purpose. A hospital (and other protected places) lose their protection when they are used for military purposes, including housing combatants, storage of munitions or logistics and command.
What Israel failed miserably at (and I hope those responsible are held to account) is proportional response, as even without protection the response must be proportional and minimize civilian casualties and wider damage. A small hit team that targeted specific military personnel hiding in a hospital is a much more measured response than bombs through the roof.
If they killed non combatants (either civilians or injured, non combat capable combatants) then a different story.
Well, one of them was in a wheel chair so yeah they assassinated a non combatant in a hospital
Non combatant doesn’t just mean not running around with a rifle shooting things - its ability and conduct.
If im planning an attack, then walk into a hospital im still a combatants - I become a non combatant when I stop, surrender or am no longer capable of engaging due to my ability… out of the fight so to speak. You don’t magically become impervious when you walk (or wheeled) in the door then vulnerable when you walk out.
He was in hospital because shrapnel had severed his spine. In the west bank. You can throw semantics at it, but going by the context I’d put money on him not being actively engaged in combat as he was incapable by your words
I think the best way to explain it is take the example to the extreme end - would bin laden have been capable of planning the 9/11 attacks from a hospital bed while not able to walk?
Law and precident are literally semantics - the difference between a war crime with the penalty of death and a frowny face is literally the details.
So then literally no one is protected then. According to you anyone could be a terrorist committing thought crime.
Feel like I’m talking with people trying to find a reason to be offended. Take 5 seconds
Is every protected person
-
a known member of a terrorist organization
-
been wounded conducting what are considered terrorist actions
-
in proximity to two other terrorists
-
before considering what other information may be held by IDF.
-
Israel committing war crimes like there’s no tomorrow. Accountability needs to be taken.
Removed by mod
No Nazi apologists. Removed.
Quite the opposite.
BTW dont understand the logic of sending a link to the removed comment that doesnt show the comment… ?!
Yeah, that’s one of the things that needs to be better.
I wonder if people read beyond the headline, but it’s probably too much to ask.
About those assassinated, from that same article:
Hamas confirmed that Jalamneh was one of its members. The Jenin Brigade, which includes a number of Palestinian armed resistance groups, said in a statement that two of the three men were members of Islamic Jihad.
Or is AlJazeera also just Israeli propaganda?
It doesn’t matter if they were legitimate military targets or not, the conventions of war forbid dressing up as civilians, women, and doctors to assassinate people undergoing medical treatment IN A HOSPITAL.
Israel going “yeah, but they were all bad” is an ADMISSION, not a justification.
There is no questioning the facts here, we have surveilance camera footage. Israeli forces illegally disguised themselves to kill targets in a hospital.
It does not matter that they were legitimate targets. Hospitals are OFF LIMITS.
Hospitals are OFF LIMITS
To terrorists too? Your oversimplification makes it seem like a clear-cut case when it’s not.
With the escalation of terrorism worldwide in recent years, situations arise in which the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, creating serious ethical problems. The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/
So yes, sorry to insist on it again but it does matter and it is important to detail that the 3 assassinated were terrorists, and yes it should be considered misinformation to maliciously leave that out.
People undergoing medical treatment are, indeed, off limits. It does not matter if they are terrorists or not.
This is all part of the Geneva conventions which Israel is now in clear violation of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_neutrality
"The First Geneva Convention states that there should be no “obstacle to the humanitarian activities” and that wounded and sick “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.”[4]
Article 18 demands that medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
The Declaration of Geneva was created as an amendment to the Hippocratic Oath in 1948, a response to the human experimentation on Nazi prisoners."
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy
- 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.
No, I’ve been told repeatedly Al Jazeera is in fact palestinian propaganda that shouldn’t be trusted and that I’m ignorant for having done so. Damned if I do damned if I dont I guess
Also I guess you didn’t read beyond the article either. Disguising oneself as a medic is a big ol’ frownie face in the war crimes community
To be clear, Al Jazeera DOES have a blind spot when it comes to anything involving Qatar. If there’s a Qatari interest, and Al Jazeera is reporting on it, take it with a grain of salt.
I’m sorry you feel sorry that Hamas and Islamic Jihad lost three terrorists today.
Yes, when you’re trying to defend the indefensible, this is exactly the kind of pathetic response I’d expect to read. Be better.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital. But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
All of that is entirely irrelevant
Is it? If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t need to leave it out to gather support for the assassinated terrorists. You perfectly know that the reaction would have been different if OP hadn’t left it out, which is why you still insist on leaving it out, and yes, that is scummy.
Every reputable outlet is not leaving out that crucial detail:
- Israeli special forces disguised as doctors kill three militants at West Bank hospital;
- Israeli forces kill three Palestinian fighters in West Bank hospital raid;
- Israeli Forces Kill a Hamas Commander Inside a West Bank Hospital, Military Says;
- Israeli Force Raids West Bank Hospital Disguised as Doctors, Kills Three Hamas Terrorists.
It… is?
Yes, it is.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
It’s maddening to watch people like yourself jump over themselves to shove words in other’s mouths. Never defended, not even by omission, Hamas terrorists.
It’s like me saying “wow you support these 3 war criminals? You must also support the IDF gunning down civillians waving white flags and specifically targeting journalists to the point that more journalists have died by Israel’s hands than all the combined deaths of journalists during WW2.”
See how that also makes you look like a piece of shit without you even opening your mouth?
I’m not on Hamas’s side.
I’m also not on Israel’s side. I’m just here to watch, helplessly, as this multi generational conflict keeps going, and more people die as the genocide ramps up.
I’m also here to watch people like you twist themselves in knots to keep pointing out the terrorists to ignore the genocide happening, and pretending that anyone pointing to genocides enjoys israeli children getting bombed.
In summary: be better. I get that you’ve picked sides in your morally upright conflict. But there is no good side. And just because someone pointed out that “your side” committed a war crime isn’t absolving the other guys’ war crimes.
Two things can be true sweetie. I know thats a difficult concept for someone wanting to paint the world black and white, while ignoring all the red.
Don’t you think it is a little off-brand for the world’s most moral army to summarily execute terrorists in West Bank (which Israel illegally occupies), without due process and also, terrorizing civilians in a hospital.
You’re free to ask on c/asklemmy “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three terrorists hiding in a hospital?” and get a debate going on the morality of it. It’s not okay to keep spamming the lie by omission that “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”, obviously insinuating that they killed 3 random civilians, in order to gather more sympathy for the terrorists.
Do you know West Bank is not Gaza?
Do you justify the military occupation of West Bank?
Do you think that if Hamas militants somehow enter US, then Israel can send its military into US to execute them on US soil?
You’re beating around the bush here. Why is it so hard for you to include the excerpt? Remember, the rules in this community allow you to do that. Why is it hard for you to write “IDF killed 3 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists” instead of “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when you refer to this incident?
I don’t write the headlines
