Israeli Attacks On Lebanese Hospitals No Hoax

They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

The towns you mentioned are totaly control by Hizballah. Healthcare is provided by Hizballah alone and according to what I've been told under the Hizballah financed health facilities (or schools or soccer fields or mosaques) they have storage bunkers of ammunition and rockets.

At the time the conventions were written there was no issue about health care being used as military base. There were no shooting from within healthcare. These laws are somewhat outdated like laws against camoufalge. It doesnt mean hospitals should be destroyed if there are terrorists hiding in them, but a pharmecy with a big bunker below it may need be destroyed. A dentist office with terrorists shooting from within it may need to be destroyed. As far as I know only one hospital was attacked and that was by ground troops and not "destroyed".

You need to view the attacks in context. Maybe they are warcrimes against innocent healthcare, maybe they destroyed a Hizballah storage area with some pharmacy on top. If the latter, which I believe is the case, then I find it justified.

The thousands of rockets Hizballah has are hidden inside civilian houses and inside civilian facilities with total disrespect the civilians Hizballah "protects". Are we to give them immunity because of this? I don't think so.

According to a professor of international law Israel hasn't commited a war crime
interview with Horst Fischer
but I don't know if the interview acknowledged "hospital attacks".

Painting a big red cross on the roof of a building isn't a shield against accident, and paper shields are worthless in war.

If it comes out that someone in Israel decided to bomb the hospitals to make sure they kill the most Hezbollah supporters they can, then yes it is a war crime.

If they can provide they had creditable intelligence stating that ACTIVE millitants were housed there, then they are fair game as far as war goes.

Besides, how many of those rockets fired from the north were hitting military targets?

All in all, a horrible mess that shouldn't have happened in the first place, lets just hope people don't get trigger happy again.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah The towns you mentioned are totaly control by Hizballah. Healthcare is provided by Hizballah alone and according to what I've been told under the Hizballah financed health facilities (or schools or soccer fields or mosaques) they have storage bunkers of ammunition and rockets.

Who told you that? I thought Marjayoun was a Christian town. This tourism web site, Marjayoun doesn't really speak to that but it does make it sound like a place of world heritage.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah At the time the conventions were written there was no issue about health care being used as military base. There were no shooting from within healthcare. These laws are somewhat outdated like laws against camoufalge. It doesnt mean hospitals should be destroyed if there are terrorists hiding in them, but a pharmecy with a big bunker below it may need be destroyed. A dentist office with terrorists shooting from within it may need to be destroyed. As far as I know only one hospital was attacked and that was by ground troops and not "destroyed".

I sounds like you didn't read the snippets that I quoted from the Protocol because they explicitly address the situation of medical units being used as military bases. Those laws are not at all outdated and it seems to me that people that say so are seeking to apologize for war criminals or decriminalize such behavior. For example when the Bush administration called the anti-torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint", it was clear that they were seeking to legalize torture because they intended to torture terrorism suspects and didn't want to be held legally responsible for it. Where did you hear that only one hospital was attacked and that it wasn't destroyed? What does that source say about this WHO report?

Quote:

Original post by Iftah You need to view the attacks in context. Maybe they are warcrimes against innocent healthcare, maybe they destroyed a Hizballah storage area with some pharmacy on top. If the latter, which I believe is the case, then I find it justified.

I think you need to read those protocols. Weapons storage isn't sufficient to justify attacking medical facilities. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. They have to be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Weapons storage isn't harmful to the enemy, weapons fire is. And if they are going to be attacked they have to be warned first.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah The thousands of rockets Hizballah has are hidden inside civilian houses and inside civilian facilities with total disrespect the civilians Hizballah "protects". Are we to give them immunity because of this? I don't think so.

If you don't want to be considered war criminals then yes. Like I said, read the Protocols. In addition to what I wrote above about medical facilities, if there is a doubt about civilians buildings, you're not supposed to attack them. It's not enough to say afterwards that if a building was destroyed it must have been used to store rockets. That's just an assumption that your guys can do no wrong.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah According to a professor of international law Israel hasn't commited a war crime interview with Horst Fischer but I don't know if the interview acknowledged "hospital attacks".

Did you not read the interview? Fischer doesn't mention hospitals at all. He isn't as strident with his statements as you are. He doesn't directly say that Israel hasn't committed war crimes, he says "If there were a court case against one of the [Israeli] commanders or the soldiers, then a prosecutor would need to prove that the necessary precautionary measures were not undertaken and not applied and that maybe also intentionally, civilian objects or civilians were targeted. I don't think that was the case, but a prosecutor would need to prove that."

Lessbread: you miss the point. When you start with axiom that Israel targetted only hizballah, it'll directly follow that when israel bombed hospitals, it was hizballah hospitals. Or that it was `mistake' maybe.

Quote:

Original post by LilBudyWizer They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

guess what, it's also illegal to attack medic units of an enemy army.

Quote:

Original post by maximAL Quote: Original post by LilBudyWizer They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships. guess what, it's also illegal to attack medic units of an enemy army.

Not if that medical units attacks you first.

Edit: Although you're talking about conventional warfare. In this case because it's a civilian medical center, it can't be taken for granted that the people who work there actually had any say in whether weapons were fired from there (if any weapons were fired from there).

OH! BUT THE CHIN! THE CHIN WASN'T HURT!

There was one media source that didn't overlook this fact... I was listening to NPR a few days ago and it was mentioned that the Lebanese hospitals were intentionally targeted by Israeli [missiles] forces during the killing spree, along with key bridges that would've been able to replace vital supplies to keep the hospitals running properly and patients cared for.

(Supplies such as bandages, replacements fluids, blankets and various medical devices had no way of being given to people who needed them.)

In essence, a hospital that is unable to take care of its patients becomes quite useless and would be forced to shut down...permanently. Its pretty dumb to assume that the hospital hits were accidental, along with the tactical destuction of key bridge areas, nearby. Pretty goddamn heartless.

I am reluctant to provide blame to any one source as it seems that this mis-information appears to be a group effort...I am just curious as to who is pulling the strings.

Quote:

Original post by LilBudyWizer They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

Quote:

2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy; ... (d) That members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons.

I think it is quite clear.

Whether the hospitals were used to treat Hezbollah militants or not is really not a problem. We, as far as I can tell, treat even the worse criminals in our hospitals (when needed). That doesn't make blowing the hospital a normal action.

A lot of so-called Hezbollah facilities were civilian facilities. Hezbollah headquarters used to be in civilian suburbs, and a lot of Israeli strikes were directed to these suburbs, with the sole (but utterly false) justification that since it was a Hezbollah controlled suburb, all the inhabitants were Hezbollah members.

Clearly, Israel had some really bad moves during this so called "war against terrorism".

BTW, I suggest you to find the last book by Johnattan Cook when it'll be released in the US (it is already released in the UK). Note that I may not endorse his views - I just give you a link and a book title.

Regards,

Quote:

Original post by Lessbread I think you need to read those protocols. Weapons storage isn't sufficient to justify attacking medical facilities. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. They have to be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Weapons storage isn't harmful to the enemy, weapons fire is. And if they are going to be attacked they have to be warned first.

Intuitively harboring the rockets that rained on Israel qualifies as a harmful act. Commonsensically one does not expect the laws of war to allow for hospitals to be turned into arsenals or command and control centers. Legally speaking, the exceptions listed in article 13 point 2 in the original post make it perfectly clear that the common sense view does not differ from the law. Letter a allows medical personnel only "light individual weapons". Letter c allows ammunitions and weapons to be temporarily stored in a hospital, provided they come from the wounded or sick patients (no katyushas in hospitals allowed). Letter d only allows combatants in a hospital for medical purposes. As for warnings, I think they were a large part of IDF strategy.

We don't know the context of the attacks so your conclusions are as weak as mine objectivly. Subjectivly I know I am right because I know the people involved and no missile will be intentionally fired at civilian place which has no use for terrorism. I think if you were given background for each "hospital attack" (can you give me list of hospitals attacked?) you will find it much harder to condem them.

I think having a stash of rockets below a stash of medicine doesn't give immunity, but you are free to think otherwise. I just wonder if you would think otherwise if the rockets were aimed at your house.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread I think you need to read those protocols. Weapons storage isn't sufficient to justify attacking medical facilities. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. They have to be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Weapons storage isn't harmful to the enemy, weapons fire is. And if they are going to be attacked they have to be warned first.

Supply is one of the most fundamental requirements of war. A cache of weaponry in a hospital is directly aiding the fight and is not in the interests of self defense. Especailly if it is being used to supply front line troops/arty. As with mosques in Fallujah.

In short it makes you a legitimate target. You heal people and want to just do that? You either don't work on top of a weapons cache or don't allow your hospital to be used as such. It puts both the staff and patients lives at risk.

Again this is all what-if as we don't know the reason those buildings were hit.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah We don't know the context of the attacks so your conclusions are as weak as mine objectivly. Subjectivly I know I am right because I know the people involved and no missile will be intentionally fired at civilian place which has no use for terrorism.

No hospital is functionning in Marjayoun and Bent Jbeil (due to shortage in power, drugs, and so on). 60% (that's 18 out of 30) health facilities have been at least severly damaged in Bent Jbeil (21%, 8 out of 26, in Marjayoun). Are you implying that all of these facilities were filled with weapons, Hezbollah fighters and other terrorists?

Let's go one step further in the report study. In Bent Jbeil, 21 out of 30 health facilities provided the service of obstetrician (you know, it means "babies". Terrorists too?). 12 of these same 30 offered the services of pediatricians (children. I guess you'd say that they were (5 y.o.) "young fighters"). Since 60% of these facilities have been severly damaged, it means that something like 12 obstetrician services and 7 pediatrician services (statistical approach - the real numbers may vary between 6-18 and 0-12) were severly damaged during the attack.

How is it possible to justify that?

Moreover, our conclusions might be weak. We are a bunch of misinformed people, or at least we lack the correct informations. But I don't consider the WHO as an organization filled with uniformed people. Their report speak for themselves, and you may have to reconsider your opinion.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah I think if you were given background for each "hospital attack" (can you give me list of hospitals attacked?) you will find it much harder to condem them.

Do you mean that firing an hospital, where civilian are, because there is a possibility that such attack can undermine the ennemy forces should not be condemned? That it can be justified?

Beside that, the full list of attacked hospitals is in the report itself (see LessBread post for the link). Also, look at page 9 - there are pictures of some destroyed buildings.

Quote:

Original post by Iftah I think having a stash of rockets below a stash of medicine doesn't give immunity, but you are free to think otherwise. I just wonder if you would think otherwise if the rockets were aimed at your house.

If you remember the beginning of the conflict (the whole 'Save soldat Ryan' thingy), I seem to recall that Lebanon didn't fired any rocket before the Israelian attack. Am I wrong? Or did you really thought that when attacked, they would just sit there, in a very cool 'wait and see' attitude?

I am of course sad that this war happened. War has never been a good way to resolve any kind of problem. Israeli suffered, that's very true, but Lebanese civilians suffered too - and while nobody deserved this, Israel is still responsible for having launched the war in a disproportional effort to get its 2 soldiers back to home (something which has not been done yet, BTW).

Regards,

Quote:

Original post by meh In short it makes you a legitimate target. You heal people and want to just do that? You either don't work on top of a weapons cache or don't allow your hospital to be used as such. It puts both the staff and patients lives at risk.

Provided that you are able to say "no". I don't know any responsible doctor that will let his patient die because someone came with a gun and said "we are going to put our weapons here. If you are not OK, die or go away".

Your post is written in a way which implies that doctors and health facilities human resources are OK with this situation. You must remember that when there is no doctor in a hospital, there is no patient as well, and this is not a hospital. meaning that the guy with the gun will go in another place to put his weapons.

Quote:

Original post by Emmanuel Deloget Are you implying that all of these facilities were filled with weapons, Hezbollah fighters and other terrorists?

That question is equivalent with "did Hizballah have a policy of using medical facilities as a shield for their operations?" which in turn is equivalent with "did it make strategic sense for Hizballah to use medical facilities to shield their operations?".

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Emmanuel Deloget Are you implying that all of these facilities were filled with weapons, Hezbollah fighters and other terrorists? That question is equivalent with "did Hizballah have a policy of using medical facilities as a shield for their operations?" which in turn is equivalent with "did it make strategic sense for Hizballah to use medical facilities to shield their operations?".

Which, in turn, leads to "is it justified to destroy all the Hezbollah weapon caches, even if they are located in medical facilities for strategic reasons?"

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Weapons storage isn't harmful to the enemy, weapons fire is. And if they are going to be attacked they have to be warned first.

Uhh, sorry to burts your bubble but storage of weapons is a threatening act. When they stock pile IED's in mosque, do you think we sit by and watch?
Stockpile weapons in a protected area and that area loses its protected status.

Weapon stockpiles are very threatening things, it's like putting a loaded gun on the table and then say that since you are not pointing it that no one should worry.

Quote:

Original post by Emmanuel Deloget Quote: Original post by meh In short it makes you a legitimate target. You heal people and want to just do that? You either don't work on top of a weapons cache or don't allow your hospital to be used as such. It puts both the staff and patients lives at risk. Provided that you are able to say "no". I don't know any responsible doctor that will let his patient die because someone came with a gun and said "we are going to put our weapons here. If you are not OK, die or go away". Your post is written in a way which implies that doctors and health facilities human resources are OK with this situation. You must remember that when there is no doctor in a hospital, there is no patient as well, and this is not a hospital. meaning that the guy with the gun will go in another place to put his weapons.

Well it's still a hospital, just not one thats active...

Obviously there may not be concent for the weaponry to be put there or shelter provided to fighters. It doesn't make it any less of a legitimate target though.