-3

Due the IDF raid on Shifa hospital in Gaza, Qatar calls for international probe for Israel(1). On the other hand, giving the evidence the IDF claims to find during their raid (2), it seems that Hamas themself used the hospital as their basement, which is against the international law.

If we will think of this in objectionable mind without doubting each organization's opinion, those claims cancels each other out, or one of those are worse?

(I'm looking for official content than opinions)

Sources:

  1. https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/11/15/Qatar-calls-for-international-probe-into-Israeli-raids-on-Gaza-hospitals-
  2. https://nypost.com/2023/11/15/news/israel-says-it-found-evidence-of-hamas-base-at-al-shifa-hospital-during-raid/
5
  • 2
    Even if both true, the claims only cancel each other out if you believe that two wrongs make a right.
    – Obie 2.0
    Nov 15, 2023 at 20:33
  • 2
    If you did not use it for military purposes, there would no grounds to invade it. So it's not just the 2 wrongs argument, the chronology matters. If Hamas indeed uses hospitals, the consequence of their doing so weigh more on their side. Nov 15, 2023 at 20:46
  • The wording of the question is awful, as it invites opinion. Fortunately the accepted answer does provide an answer to the question as it should have been asked (although I consider it is a duplicate of the linked question). At the very least, please edit the question to meet Politics standards.
    – SJuan76
    Nov 15, 2023 at 21:34
  • @SJuan76 with the reception of this QA I want this to be removed and burry my head in the ground . . .
    – USerNAme
    Nov 15, 2023 at 23:56
  • @SJuan76: well, the answer certainly is a duplicate. The part of the Q whether one may use hospitals at all for fighting wasn't exactly addressed. Somewhat surprisingly [to me], some academics said you can in some circumstances. And the circumstances involved Ukraine doing so. See link below the answer. Nov 18, 2023 at 18:02

1 Answer 1

11

According to the Geneva Convention, civilian hospitals that are being used to harm the enemy (even for legitimate military purposes - not just terrorism) are legitimate military targets in war. If a warning has been given in advance.

Article 19 of the Geneva Convention:

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war

Similar question and answer on this site: What does the Geneva Convention suggest in a situation where the military is deliberately operating from heavily populated areas?

2
  • 4
    Keep in mind however: that still requires you to observe proportionality (expected military gains vs expected civilian casualties) and limit those civilian casualties as much as possible. Which I mostly think Israel is actually doing, out of decency and self-interest (not getting the plug pulled on this operation). Nov 15, 2023 at 21:03
  • Interestingly, Ukraine got quite a hall pass in an academic review in that regard, even using hospitals for fighting. law.stackexchange.com/a/97340/12295 The prohibition in treaties has a number of exceptions for the defender too. Nov 18, 2023 at 17:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .