You do realise that, legally, hospitals are allowed to be shot at if they house active enemy combatants, right?
Do you also realise that war crimes are only for established nations? Hamas has actively avoided calling itself the official government of Gaza because then they can be held liable for war crimes and international scrutiny. (Take note of how the Taliban are struggling to fight now that they call themselves the government.) So long as Hamas doesn’t make itself official, both Hamas and Israel do not need to worry about war crimes.
This is the law. It only applies to nations that have signed up for the law. Palestine, Gaza, has not. Is this Israel’s doing? Or Hamas’s? It’s unclear.
It’s also crucial to note that once you start dressing your soldiers in civilian clothing and hiding in civilian infrastructure, then the Geneva Convention no longer applies, as there is no way to differentiate combatants and civilians. It’s designed this way to be deterrence against dressing as civilians, ‘Do it, and your civilian population can now be legally shot at.’ Hamas is aware of this and considers their civilian population as martyrs, as said by state media in the region and by some of the population themselves.
See, what’s really interesting is that if Palestine and the Arab nations never went to war with Israel when the UN created the two states, then Palestine today would have so much more land and resources and actually be a nation in the UN—meaning no Hamas and meaning state recognition. Unfortunately, WW2 didn’t finish in the Middle East, so no patience for Jews or Muslims.
All in all, the law doesn’t apply because Palestine isn’t a state, and Hamas doesn’t conform to combatant standards or laws. You can call war crimes all you want, but legally, Israel is allowed to continue so long as Hamas is active, hence the importance of their surrender.
Oh? A wikipedia article about the Middle East; they won’t be biased! Have a look over on Wikipedia Arabic, where you have Wikipedia arguing that slavery is actually good and women like wearing burqas and anyone who draws the prophet Muhammed is actually deserving of death.
So they were thrown out. And Wikipedia adopted a philosophy of ‘equalising history,’ where certain parts of history will not be featured on Wikipedia to ensure equity. Corporations and funds will decide what is fiction and what is fact. If you use Wikipedia for your history, especially political history, you’re consuming propaganda, as seen by your article mainly sourcing Al Jazeera
Don’t use Wikipedia for anything political. It’s for plants and mountains.
Whataboutism
aw, I can’t mention the opponent’s warcrimes too?
Goodluck trying to explain any conflict ever then, lmao.
There is no such thing as a justification for war crimes.
Because Hamas uses civilian infrastructure, this is well documented.
Spell it with me
W A R C R I M E
There is no such thing as a justification for war crimes.
You do realise that, legally, hospitals are allowed to be shot at if they house active enemy combatants, right?
Do you also realise that war crimes are only for established nations? Hamas has actively avoided calling itself the official government of Gaza because then they can be held liable for war crimes and international scrutiny. (Take note of how the Taliban are struggling to fight now that they call themselves the government.) So long as Hamas doesn’t make itself official, both Hamas and Israel do not need to worry about war crimes.
This is the law. It only applies to nations that have signed up for the law. Palestine, Gaza, has not. Is this Israel’s doing? Or Hamas’s? It’s unclear.
It’s also crucial to note that once you start dressing your soldiers in civilian clothing and hiding in civilian infrastructure, then the Geneva Convention no longer applies, as there is no way to differentiate combatants and civilians. It’s designed this way to be deterrence against dressing as civilians, ‘Do it, and your civilian population can now be legally shot at.’ Hamas is aware of this and considers their civilian population as martyrs, as said by state media in the region and by some of the population themselves.
See, what’s really interesting is that if Palestine and the Arab nations never went to war with Israel when the UN created the two states, then Palestine today would have so much more land and resources and actually be a nation in the UN—meaning no Hamas and meaning state recognition. Unfortunately, WW2 didn’t finish in the Middle East, so no patience for Jews or Muslims.
All in all, the law doesn’t apply because Palestine isn’t a state, and Hamas doesn’t conform to combatant standards or laws. You can call war crimes all you want, but legally, Israel is allowed to continue so long as Hamas is active, hence the importance of their surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes
Oh? A wikipedia article about the Middle East; they won’t be biased! Have a look over on Wikipedia Arabic, where you have Wikipedia arguing that slavery is actually good and women like wearing burqas and anyone who draws the prophet Muhammed is actually deserving of death.
But, legitimately, Wikipedia is awful for anything vaguely related to politics. See, there was a big coup in 2019 where long-time users and founders were thrown out of Wikipedia because they insisted that Wikipedia should remain entirely neutral and decentralised. They thought the administration shouldn’t be comprised mainly of hedge fund managers.
So they were thrown out. And Wikipedia adopted a philosophy of ‘equalising history,’ where certain parts of history will not be featured on Wikipedia to ensure equity. Corporations and funds will decide what is fiction and what is fact. If you use Wikipedia for your history, especially political history, you’re consuming propaganda, as seen by your article mainly sourcing Al Jazeera
Don’t use Wikipedia for anything political. It’s for plants and mountains.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem