• AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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."

          • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            29
            ·
            edit-2
            9 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.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 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.

              • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                9 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  18
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 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.

    • muse@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, when you’re trying to defend the indefensible, this is exactly the kind of pathetic response I’d expect to read. Be better.

          • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            29
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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?

            • muse@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

        • Collision Resistance@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • Collision Resistance@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              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?

              • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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?