If they took over the hospital a decade ago and you continued to operate in it? Yes absolutely. It’s not like this is something that just happened prior to the war. Doctors without borders could have raised a stink in 2016 until August of this year about it but they chose not to.
There aren’t an abundance of other health facilities the doctors can work from.
Then you don’t work there. Doctors without borders manages to operate in war zones all across the world without operating in military depots. If Palestinians don’t want their help there are millions of underserved people across the world who need their help and won’t force them to compromise their neutrality.
They is who? The government? Hamas the terrorists? Hamas the health authority?
Yes msf should just abandon Gaza hospitals altogether based on unconfirmed rumors (at the time) of the hospitals being used for weapon storage. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
MSF work in the environment that is available to them, wherever that is. Hamas is the elected government in Palestine. It just happens the last elections are 20 years ago and half are under 18.
Not operating there since 2007 would be taking a side, which, again, they don’t do. They treat patients.
You’re right, I don’t work for MSF. When I started the volunteer process, a minimum commitment was 2 years and I could not commit to that. I was not looking at Gaza, but Africa.
The whole point of the name is to say they are non political. You kind of don’t seem to understand the practical implications of that and require a purity of apolitical stance that does not exist in a warzone, or even a stable democracy.
The die hard style terrorist you suggested in the previous comment.
based on unconfirmed rumors (at the time) of the hospitals being used for weapon storage.
They should have demanded the right to inspect the facilities because they were “unconfirmed” only because it made the Jews look good. A report like that coming from anywhere else by outlets like Reuters and the BBC would be seen as fact unless proven otherwise.
MSF work in the environment that is available to them, wherever that is.
There are plenty of places they could be where they’re not. They’ve hardly saturated the worldwide need for charity doctoring. A volunteer stationed in Palestine is one you can’t station in Ethiopia, Hati, etc…
Every doctor in Palestine could be doing just as much good elsewhere in the world.
Not operating there since 2007 would be taking a side, which, again, they don’t do. They treat patients.
If they had refused to serve in military depots; Hamas would have either been forced to provision them a safe place to work. Ignoring your integrity is choosing a side too.
and require a purity of apolitical stance that does not exist in a warzone, or even a stable democracy.
Honestly, “don’t operate in a military installation” is hardly a purity test. Even in active wars the Red Cross will establish field hospitals that doctors like this could work out of and remain apolitical.
Re: they. If you don’t see the nuance between the different options I offered, perhaps you need to research more.
You are referring to Israel as “the Jews”. Israel and Judaism are two seperate things. Many Jewish people are critical of Israel. Many Jewish people are suffering from anti semitism due to acts of Israel.
You offer alternatives for them to work, forgetting of course there is corruption and malfeasance in all the alternatives you offered. Does working in those countries mean they support that? Logical consistency would mean they do.
Once again, the hospitals in Gaza are not military depots. They are I’ll equipped hospitals. Terrorists may have used the rules of war to hide things there, as destroying civilian hospitals is against the rules of war. The fact they did is a war crime. Bombing them is also a war crime. Working there as a doctor, with no links to terrorism is just that, being a doctor.
Abandoning a whole nation of people as there are terrorists among them is an easy way to abandon all apolitical medical help. They could not operate anywhere.
Re: they. If you don’t see the nuance between the different options I offered, perhaps you need to research mor
I’m always down to rewatch diehard. But what version of it spans two decades again? Is that the director’s cut?
Once again, the hospitals in Gaza are not military depots.
This war has definitively proven this to be a false statement. Please re-evaluate your position based on updated data.
Abandoning a whole nation of people as there are terrorists among them is an easy way to abandon all apolitical medical help. They could not operate anywhere.
Emphasis mine. This is objectively untrue. There are many impoverished places on the planet that will not use a hospital as a weapons depot. In fact, the majority of impoverished places that need doctors without borders are willing to do this.
Misusing a hospital is a goalpost shift. Politics is in every aspect of life. If there is a poster in the hospital calling for socialism in a socialist country like Cuba, should they not operate there? What about a workplace safety sign mandated by government which might include information about how to contact their union?
There is no clear line of where politics ends.
You’re obviously purposely misinterpreting. There were weapons found there but its main purpose was a hospital and it’s still very unclear as to how much the hospital was used. We call the term a human shield as we as a species are meant to be above killing the innocent to get to the bad. I think it’s objectively worse to kill innocent people in a hospital including babies than it is to store weapons illigitimately at a hospital.
There is no right here. Only shades of evil. Hamas wish to carry out genocide. That’s horrible. Israel are carrying our genocide. That’s worse.
If there is a poster in the hospital calling for socialism in a socialist country like Cuba, should they not operate there?
The Geneva convention specifies what sort of things are valid military targets. Posters aren’t military equipment, ammunition is. Hamas can put as many fliers, books and posters as they want in hospitals and it’s not a problem. It’s the Ammo depots that make it a military target.
Yes and it specified hospitals as not being a target.
My point is that there are shades of grey in terms of what is considered political.
There is no evidence this far that anyone involved in healthcare was aware there were weapons, even if there were rumours.these we’re not military depots. So let’s not stretch the yruth. This was hiding things in secret locations. Certainly, they should not be there, but that doesn’t make the hospital political. It makes whoever chose the location callous with other people’s lives.
This was at one hospital. Currently, only a third of hospitals remain operational.
The Geneva convention also required to minimise civilian casualties. That is not happening.
I don’t think you will find anyone saying ammunitions should be allowed in hospitals. It’s clearly wrong. However, the deaths of the civilians seeking medical treatment is also wrong and objectively more so.
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.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants which have not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Like that section is there. It’s available for the reading. You don’t have to lie about it like it’s some sort of blanket protection. Israel gives warnings before it bombs these locations.
The Geneva convention also required to minimise civilian casualties. That is not happening.
This is objectively untrue. Gaza isn’t big; you could kill 50% of the population with a WW2-era artillery bombardment. Israel is using expensive munitions; creating safe zones for civilians to evacuate to and phoning civilians before bombing dual-use locations in addition to roof knocking. If this was the Russians there’d be 200k dead Gazans right now.
If they took over the hospital a decade ago and you continued to operate in it? Yes absolutely. It’s not like this is something that just happened prior to the war. Doctors without borders could have raised a stink in 2016 until August of this year about it but they chose not to.
Then you don’t work there. Doctors without borders manages to operate in war zones all across the world without operating in military depots. If Palestinians don’t want their help there are millions of underserved people across the world who need their help and won’t force them to compromise their neutrality.
They is who? The government? Hamas the terrorists? Hamas the health authority?
Yes msf should just abandon Gaza hospitals altogether based on unconfirmed rumors (at the time) of the hospitals being used for weapon storage. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
MSF work in the environment that is available to them, wherever that is. Hamas is the elected government in Palestine. It just happens the last elections are 20 years ago and half are under 18.
Not operating there since 2007 would be taking a side, which, again, they don’t do. They treat patients.
You’re right, I don’t work for MSF. When I started the volunteer process, a minimum commitment was 2 years and I could not commit to that. I was not looking at Gaza, but Africa.
The whole point of the name is to say they are non political. You kind of don’t seem to understand the practical implications of that and require a purity of apolitical stance that does not exist in a warzone, or even a stable democracy.
The die hard style terrorist you suggested in the previous comment.
They should have demanded the right to inspect the facilities because they were “unconfirmed” only because it made the Jews look good. A report like that coming from anywhere else by outlets like Reuters and the BBC would be seen as fact unless proven otherwise.
There are plenty of places they could be where they’re not. They’ve hardly saturated the worldwide need for charity doctoring. A volunteer stationed in Palestine is one you can’t station in Ethiopia, Hati, etc…
Every doctor in Palestine could be doing just as much good elsewhere in the world.
If they had refused to serve in military depots; Hamas would have either been forced to provision them a safe place to work. Ignoring your integrity is choosing a side too.
Honestly, “don’t operate in a military installation” is hardly a purity test. Even in active wars the Red Cross will establish field hospitals that doctors like this could work out of and remain apolitical.
Re: they. If you don’t see the nuance between the different options I offered, perhaps you need to research more.
You are referring to Israel as “the Jews”. Israel and Judaism are two seperate things. Many Jewish people are critical of Israel. Many Jewish people are suffering from anti semitism due to acts of Israel.
You offer alternatives for them to work, forgetting of course there is corruption and malfeasance in all the alternatives you offered. Does working in those countries mean they support that? Logical consistency would mean they do.
Once again, the hospitals in Gaza are not military depots. They are I’ll equipped hospitals. Terrorists may have used the rules of war to hide things there, as destroying civilian hospitals is against the rules of war. The fact they did is a war crime. Bombing them is also a war crime. Working there as a doctor, with no links to terrorism is just that, being a doctor.
Abandoning a whole nation of people as there are terrorists among them is an easy way to abandon all apolitical medical help. They could not operate anywhere.
I’m always down to rewatch diehard. But what version of it spans two decades again? Is that the director’s cut?
This war has definitively proven this to be a false statement. Please re-evaluate your position based on updated data.
Emphasis mine. This is objectively untrue. There are many impoverished places on the planet that will not use a hospital as a weapons depot. In fact, the majority of impoverished places that need doctors without borders are willing to do this.
Misusing a hospital is a goalpost shift. Politics is in every aspect of life. If there is a poster in the hospital calling for socialism in a socialist country like Cuba, should they not operate there? What about a workplace safety sign mandated by government which might include information about how to contact their union?
There is no clear line of where politics ends.
You’re obviously purposely misinterpreting. There were weapons found there but its main purpose was a hospital and it’s still very unclear as to how much the hospital was used. We call the term a human shield as we as a species are meant to be above killing the innocent to get to the bad. I think it’s objectively worse to kill innocent people in a hospital including babies than it is to store weapons illigitimately at a hospital.
There is no right here. Only shades of evil. Hamas wish to carry out genocide. That’s horrible. Israel are carrying our genocide. That’s worse.
The Geneva convention specifies what sort of things are valid military targets. Posters aren’t military equipment, ammunition is. Hamas can put as many fliers, books and posters as they want in hospitals and it’s not a problem. It’s the Ammo depots that make it a military target.
Yes and it specified hospitals as not being a target.
My point is that there are shades of grey in terms of what is considered political.
There is no evidence this far that anyone involved in healthcare was aware there were weapons, even if there were rumours.these we’re not military depots. So let’s not stretch the yruth. This was hiding things in secret locations. Certainly, they should not be there, but that doesn’t make the hospital political. It makes whoever chose the location callous with other people’s lives.
This was at one hospital. Currently, only a third of hospitals remain operational.
The Geneva convention also required to minimise civilian casualties. That is not happening.
I don’t think you will find anyone saying ammunitions should be allowed in hospitals. It’s clearly wrong. However, the deaths of the civilians seeking medical treatment is also wrong and objectively more so.
Like that section is there. It’s available for the reading. You don’t have to lie about it like it’s some sort of blanket protection. Israel gives warnings before it bombs these locations.
This is objectively untrue. Gaza isn’t big; you could kill 50% of the population with a WW2-era artillery bombardment. Israel is using expensive munitions; creating safe zones for civilians to evacuate to and phoning civilians before bombing dual-use locations in addition to roof knocking. If this was the Russians there’d be 200k dead Gazans right now.