When Hamas uses hospitals for military purposes (or any purpose "harmful to their enemy" [other than solely medical care of injured Hamas combatants]), those hospitals lose their protected status otherwise provided by the Geneva Convention.

I don't like the prospect of hospitals being attacked, but if Hamas houses combatants or arms inside a hospital, attacking Hamas therein does not appear to be a war crime, provided Israel has issued a warning and allowed a reasonable time for Hamas to vacate the hospital.

The Geneva Convention does not provide "One Weird Trick to Avoid Combatants Being Attacked"

The Geneva Convention does not provide carveouts to particularly angry personnel. You can try to define fake conditions to justify it but the hearing hasn't happened so you're just speculating.

And you know what? You can document the torture, sexual assault and murder of innocent prisoners without getting a proper investigation from the ICC. Many US citizens will remember that from Abu Ghraib! Lord only knows how much the CIA is shielding Israel from the fallout of SAVAK. You might as well drop the moralizing pretenses and admit that you don't think a fair trial would be desirable.

If fighting X requires you to inflict war crimes, perhaps you should question the premise of why you are fighting in the first place.

And assuming the answer to the questioning is that the war is currently required.

Let's say in order to return the hostages (considered popular amongst the Zionists).

Now what is the practical way to execute the war without the abovementioned consequences?

What's the alternative?

Move Israel to somewhere in the middle of the USA ... if it weren't for logistics and ancient ghost stories, that would be the solution.

However, war crimes are not a solution.

Quit meddling in Arab democracies?

I'm reminded of an episode of Saga of Tanya the Evil where a 'guerilla military unit' had 'taken over a captured city'. The progag's military unit had to go 'clear the city'. Their military commanders had given clear orders that all hostile forces were enemy soldiers who must be killed. They started by issuing a demand to release the hostages and allow them to exit the war zone. One of the few who didn't want to fight was shot while trying to escape. From that point it predictably went in a very bad direction.

As far as I'm aware, the citizens of Israel are free to leave that country* (free to enter another country is another issue, but they're also free to move about). It's terrorism and illegal military action to knowingly fire upon civilians. I agree with that for all sides of a conflict. The issue with the other side(s) in this conflict is that they do not present as a clearly identified military force. IMO the most proper solution is the same as evaporatively purifying water. Issue sufficient (<< heavy lifting here) warnings for civilians to leave an area, with an area for them to move to. Then any who remain in the military action area are combatants. Probably just like in the anime episode that showcases this circumstance. (war is hell, that's one of the hells.)

It's been widely reported that the IDF substantially loosened their acceptable civilian collateral casualty rules after Oct 7th.

>> In each strike, the order said, officers had the authority to risk killing up to 20 civilians. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/26/world/middleeast/israel-h...

The very existence of guidance change on civilian casualties should constitute a war crime, because to put it another way, the IDF decided that Palestinian civilian lives were worth less after the terror attacks.

In other metrics, the October attacks killed 1,200 Israelis, plus 1,700 killed in the war. Versus 50,000+ Palestinian fatalities.

So we're at ~1:17 Israeli: Palestinian killed.

I feel like any human can agree there should be an ethical ceiling to that number. Maybe it's lower or higher than the current number, but it being unlimited is genocide.

The Gulf War had a more extreme casualty ratio of ~1:1,000+. Would you consider that an extremely unethical war? Should the US have done something differently to even out the ratio?

Apples/oranges. In the Gulf War there were identifiable, organized military forces.

Ergo, the majority of those casualties could be attributed to military:military.

Given the nature of the Gaza conflict, trying to sub-classify casualties leads inevitably to the 'military aged male' problem.

It seems like we're in agreement now that total casualty ratios alone (like that 1:17 ratio) aren't very meaningful metrics.

Civilian casualty ratios are more relevant to ethics, but we don't know that number since Hamas doesn't report their losses.

I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that the Geneva Conventions require combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population.

When Hamas fighters repeatedly, strategically, and intentionally fail to do so, I think they bear significant (and even the majority) responsibility for the resulting increase in what you call "actual civilian casualties".

The onus should still be on the more technologically advanced military to justify their operations.

Just because the enemy is harder to find doesn't give blanket license to level apartment blocks because it's easier.

> The very existence of guidance change on civilian casualties should constitute a war crime

Surely a change in tactics by Hamas could lead to a legitimate reason to change the proportion of civilian risks.

Imagine if Hamas were scrupulously avoiding all civilians and civilian structures by 200 meters before date X and changed tactics on date X to freely intermingle with civilians and occupy civilian structures with military units and arms.

I'd expect before date X for Israel to have minimal civilian casualties be considered acceptable and proportional, but after that change in tactics I would see justification for a change in the math to justify a higher figure as being the lowest reasonable amount of civilian risk.

And indeed, Israel has made token efforts to say this is happening, but I'm not aware of any proof. Which, coupled with the fact that the IDF is explicitly prohibiting reporting, isn't a good look.

Furthermore, even if Israel has a justification for large numbers of civilian casualties, there are other portions of the Geneva Convention it's obviously breaching:

>> ART. 53. — Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

>> ART. 55. — To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

>> ART. 56. — To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the co-operation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

I would say that more than one view exists of whether Israel is an Occupying Power in Gaza.

One is that Hamas governs Gaza and Israel is not occupying Gaza via a sustained and continuous military control of the territory and population, but rather has intermittent military operations and is otherwise more akin to an embargo. (The US was not "occupying Cuba" at the height of the Cuban embargo, for example.)

The other is that Israel is occupying Gaza, notwithstanding Hamas' claim to be independently governing the territory and the lack of continuous occupying military forces holding territory on the ground.

Whether Israel or Hamas has effective control over the territory and its population does not appear to me to have a bright-line/clear-cut answer. I don't think either side has less than 10% control, but I don't think they have more than 90% control either.

Iff they are an Occupying Power, then they have those obligations. Many of those obligations presume an effective control by an on-the-ground occupying force.

The US didn't have troops in Havana during the Cuban embargo.

Israel certainly has the military capability to control aid, ergo they have the responsibility to facilitate it.

Are you serious? ... congratulations on your PhD in Gaslighting.

You've earned it.