A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Hamas did not have a habit of not putting uniforms in combat

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Israeli forces dressed in doctors’ scrubs and women’s clothes have killed three Palestinian militants in an undercover operation in a hospital in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-...

Hmm.

▲

HappyPanacea 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you understand the difference between being not in uniform in order to infiltrate enemy territory and being not in uniform in your own territory?

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy

> It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy… The following acts are examples of perfidy… The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status...

(Assassinating a paralyzed patient in a hospital is also not typically - ahem - kosher. Even if you're in uniform!)

▲

HappyPanacea 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad? because it led to death of civilians who had no part in the fight; pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue. Although assassinating a patient is also not kosher it less relevant to the discussion about use of uniforms.

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue

Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated?

> Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad?

Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons.

▲

HappyPanacea 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated?

The spirit of the law is more important then its letter. Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions.

> Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons.

When did that happened in the Israel-Arab conflict? (When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily?)

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions.

You, earlier: "A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Hamas did not have a habit of not putting uniforms in combat."

Now it's suddenly not a problem? I can't imagine Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions.

> It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily?

German Jews in the 1930s/1940s would probably disagree.

> When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily?

I mean, the IDF killed three Israeli hostages in Gaza, while with their hands up and holding a white flag, because they thought they were infiltrators.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67745092

	▲	km3r an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The spirit of the law is reducing the civilian cost of war. Its hard to argue that Israel's few incidents of wearing civilian clothes for special operations increased the odds of civilian costs compared to the same operation done in uniform. Meanwhile, Hamas's lack of uniforms has led to significantly increased civilian cost.

▲

LorenPechtel 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, Israel has done some infiltration like that. Not proper, but you're pointing out a molehill while ignoring the mountain.

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When the molehill is a war crime, sure.

▲

anderber 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So is the mountain, though

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. You will not find me defending Hamas war crimes, of which there are many too.

▲

cess11 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The israelis must stop the occupation regardless of whether the al-Qassam brigades wear uniform or not.

They should also pay reparations, and send their leaders to the Hague.