2023-10-19 17:14:46
The attack on the Baptist hospital in Gaza has sparked much controversy and controversy over responsibility for the attack. However, several important points need to be considered to better understand the situation.
International law
According to international law, if there is a significant enemy military installationthis may constitute a legitimate target for military action. This principle aims to prevent the exploitation of civilian facilities for military purposes, which would endanger both civilians and combatants.
In this case, two sources of international law are relevant. The first is Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Article 51 establishes the right to self-defense, which is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, known as the prohibition on the use of force.
Article 51 recognizes the “natural right” to individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack against a member state of the United Nations. This right of self-defense may be exercised until the United Nations Security Council takes the necessary measures to restore international peace and security. States exercising self-defense must immediately inform the Security Council and must suspend such measures once the Council has taken the necessary actions to restore peace.
The second relevant source is the Geneva Convention, which establishes that if a warring army deliberately places military installations inside civilian facilities, such as a hospital, the belligerent counterpart can legitimately strike these military installations. However, it is important to note that international humanitarian law requires respect for civilian structures and the protection of civilians not involved in the conflict.
The Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols establish the principle of distinction between military and civilian objectives. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilian facilities, such as hospitals, for military purposes. However, if a military installation is deliberately placed within a civilian facility, such as a hospital, the hospital could lose its special protection and become a legitimate target. AND It is crucial to note that any military action in this context must be proportionate and necessary for legitimate military purposes, avoiding indiscriminate harm to civilians and their resources. These standards are binding for countries that have ratified the Geneva Convention.
In summary, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention do not conflict but complement each other. The Geneva Convention establishes specific rules for conduct during armed conflicts, while Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the right of self-defense of States, which must be exercised in compliance with international norms and treaties, including the Conventions of Geneva.
Hospitals as targets in recent conflicts, the case of al Kindi oncology hospital in Aleppo, the largest in the Middle East
Taking recent conflicts as an example, it is evident that hospitals are often targeted and used as military bases. This practice exposes them to the risk of damage or destruction, with mutual accusations from both parties involved, which often seem hypocritical as they seek to exploit public outrage.
Kindi hospital in Aleppo, before and after the attack
An eloquent example of this situation occurred in Syria in 2013, when Salafist terrorists, financed by the West, destroyed the Syrian hospital al-Kindi using trucks loaded with explosives. Surprisingly, this devastation has not triggered a significant reaction from the international community. These events highlight the urgent need to abandon ambiguous attitudes and responsibly address the prohibition on involving civilian structures in military operations, in order to preserve the lives of non-combatants and maintain respect for international humanitarian law.
This also implies the absolute need to avoid the placement of military targets in densely populated areas. Furthermore, in the context of humanitarian law, the implementation of sanctions that primarily impact the civilian population should be absolutely prohibited, as has happened in Syria, Iraq and Gaza in recent days. The consequences of such sanctions can often exceed the effects of direct attacks on the population, causing undue suffering to civilians.
Independent investigation
Returning to the massacre at the Baptist hospital in Gaza, to clarify the circumstances of the incident and determine responsibility, an independent investigation is essential. Such an investigation should be impartial, transparent and credible to provide an accurate account of what happened. Otherwise it will happen that each party accuses the other. This happened throughout the Syrian conflict to the awe of those who could counteract with less media power.
The actions of Hamas
It is worth noting that Hamas, in its actions, should have expected a response similar to that previously shown by the Israeli government. Their tactical choice evidently took into account the potential loss of civilian life and considered this a plausible and acceptable outcome.
Discrepancy in the treatment given by the West
By analogy, in this matter, we can see a notable discrepancy from the West’s treatment of this situation. Another position was taken and continues to be maintained towards Russia, where in Bucha it was directly considered necessary to accuse Russia of a mass massacre of civilians, while refusing an international commission of investigation. According to some authoritative sources, the massacre of civilians in Bucha was the result of punishment by the Ukrainian army. In support of this hypothesis there are some objective elements, such as a white band on the bodies of the killed civilians and food parcels distributed to them by the Russians, as well as testimonies from members of the Ukrainian forces who have clarified the intention to severely punish the ‘ collaborators’.
Returning to the case of the massacre at the hospital in Gaza, again in this case we find ourselves in a confrontation in which each of the adversaries tries to turn the situation in their favor by arousing public disapproval. However, the fact escapes us that the succession of atrocities that we see every day is the response to another massacre and a wrong approach to the problems of the Palestinian people, who have chosen terrorism and the murder of civilians as a means to vindicate their just demands. Obviously, no barbaric act justifies a disproportionate response, but one should realize that modern weapons of war are perhaps ‘smarter’, but considerably more destructive than those used in the conventional warfare we have seen in the past.
The result is that the destruction and death of human beings is much greater than in the past. There is no humanity in war, except that of the individual towards the enemy, and the morality of those who, due to their moral convictions, put a brake on the field of possibilities that they can implement to destroy the enemy.
To conclude, I would like to point out that war is under no circumstances inevitable, and often the causes that make it ‘inevitable’ are deliberate: in many cases those who then set themselves up as defenders of ‘human rights’ artificially implement terrorist problems and structures (or facilitate them) to create the suitable environment in which justify an armed intervention or solicit the armed intervention of others in a situation of induced instability.
#Massacre #Baptist #hospital #Gaza #controversy #perpetrator #attack #international #law