• HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have unfortunately seen comments trying to justify it- mostly around them not having a choice (edit: oh look, one just replied), or because otherwise they would be bombed, or its ok because Israel isn’t good either. Whats more disturbing is my comment responding asking if they just justified a war crime because they said it was ok because they would be attacked otherwise got downvoted something like 20 times. Im also aware that isn’t exactly a peer reviewed study.

    I fully agree on your comment regarding how worrying it is how many people think killing them all is ok. No, it is a war crime to garrison a hospital, and it removes protection from that hospital but your response still has to be proportional and in a way that minimizes damage and civilian casualties. They could put a sniper in every window, rockets on the roof and you still can’t level the building.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s understanding not justification. Saying they get why it was done is not at all the same as saying it’s morally or logically correct.

      It specifically does not remove protections, it makes limited military intervention legal. I agree with the rest but that phrasing makes it seem like anything is on the table when it isn’t.