3 ms·

When their terrorist de-facto government had headquarters under a hospital. It’s really quite recent. One could argue the people were suppressed all along. But

by sshine 2y ago

When their terrorist de-facto government had headquarters under a hospital. It’s really quite recent. One could argue the people were suppressed all along. But there is no obvious distinction between a Palestinian and a rebel, because an environment like that justifiably breeds rebels.

eesmith 2y ago
This is the hospital where the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted a video purportedly from a nurse who worked there, only to delete it a day later after it was widely derided as staged, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shifa_hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shi... goes into quite a bit of detail about that allegation, and the lack of solid, independent verification. But hey, I'm from a country whose military repeatedly bombed a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital "to defend U.S. forces on the ground", even after being given explicit notice and "Médecins Sans Frontières said no Taliban fighters were in the compound", so who am I to judge what's a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike . A weregild of $6,000 per death ought to be enough, right? Patriotism needs no evidence.
- sshine 2y ago
  I stand corrected, thank you. The evidence is not unequivocal, and that itself is suspicious.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    The Geneva Conventions have a very high bar for when suspicion can justify action. Article 22, for example, has: > The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: > 1. That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. > 2. That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. > 3. That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment What evidence are you equivocating over?

by sshine 2y ago

eesmith 2y ago

This is the hospital where the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted a video purportedly from a nurse who worked there, only to delete it a day later after it was widely derided as staged, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shifa_hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shi... goes into quite a bit of detail about that allegation, and the lack of solid, independent verification. But hey, I'm from a country whose military repeatedly bombed a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital "to defend U.S. forces on the ground", even after being given explicit notice and "Médecins Sans Frontières said no Taliban fighters were in the compound", so who am I to judge what's a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike . A weregild of $6,000 per death ought to be enough, right? Patriotism needs no evidence.

sshine 2y ago
I stand corrected, thank you. The evidence is not unequivocal, and that itself is suspicious.
- eesmith 2y ago
  The Geneva Conventions have a very high bar for when suspicion can justify action. Article 22, for example, has: > The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: > 1. That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. > 2. That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. > 3. That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment What evidence are you equivocating over?