site banner

ISRAEL GAZA MEGATHREAD IV

This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sorry for the leading question but am I the only one naive enough to ask "Why don't the israeli troops just walk into the al-Shifa hospital?"? Where I live, if the national army wanted to take over the closest hospital I am confident they could do it in like 5 minutes by walking in through the front door.

If the answer is as I suspect, "the Israeli troops can't walk into the hospital because the hospital is being defended with guns," then why doesn't that fact appear in your average news story like this one? I know this sounds like a post from a person who really cares about Israel and is always going on about media bias against that country, so I just want to add a disclaimer saying that my position on Israel is that I'm just a normal American non-Jew who doesn't really know or care very much about it.

But honestly, to go back to my opening question, what the heck is going on at the hospital? Why can't they just take it over?

Why wouldn't they just blow it up while they have an excuse to? Netanyahu was talking about how he's dealing with Amalek all over again, do you know what was commanded to do to them?

The bar for blowing hospital and it not being a war crime is quite high. Not impossible and Hamas has made sure to make Israel life easier by doing their best to make any civilian infrastructure legitimate military target, but still it is a big deal.

The bar for blowing hospital and it not being a war crime is quite high.

The bar is extremely low, as low as 'is it being used as a military position.'

War crime law is not that legitimate military targets (military positions, command posts, munition stores) are made ineligible by the presence of protected classes (i.e. hospitals), but rather than protected classes are made eligible by the presence of legitimate military targets. There are no protected classes of military sites where someone can fire at you, but you can't fire back.

The proportionality principle, which is what limits collateral damage that could kill civilians, is proportionality relative to what is needed to destroy the legitimate military target compared to other means that would achieve the same military effect, not the proportion of military-to-civilian casualties. There are no convention requirements to take military casualties in the process of storming military objectives in order to minimize civilian casualties.

The proportionality principle, which is what limits collateral damage that could kill civilians, is proportionality relative to what is needed to destroy the legitimate military target compared to other means that would achieve the same military effect, not the proportion of military-to-civilian casualties

And that is actually a high bar in my book. If there are no civilians you are free to overkill.

And no one particularly cares about overkill, because overkill is wasteful and takes away relevant resources for the next engagment. Outside of a few propaganda contexts- which are extremely rare in civilian casualty contexts- civilian-overkill is a military-waste issue as much as anything else.