I appreciate that I'm probably going to need to address the ground element of Israel's counter-offensive. Although that's probably going to be little more than my interpretation of the Wikipedia page at this point.
Prior to that I will need to address the suppressive fire which Israel started laying down on October 7th (7/10/23).
It turns out though. This is all quite a lot more complicated than a Eurovision Song Contest, an Oscars or an Olympic Ceremony. If I mess this up then quite a fair bit more than feelings end up getting hurt.
However, drunk as I am. Much as I'd rather be watching TV instead. I feel I have no option other than to address the November 16th (16/11/23) claim by Human Rights Watch (HRW). That it has not seen any; "Harmful Acts" which would warrant the complex at al-Shifa losing its; "Protected Status" under Article 18 of the First Geneva Convention (1864).
All legal matters very quickly get very complicated. Matters of International Law are much more complicated that matters of Domestic Law.
I think we all have some experience of Domestic Law. The Government passes a law. If you don't obey that law then the Government sends in the police to kick in your front door and drag you off to prison. Some people are lucky enough to get a say in who makes up the Government which passes the laws, every five years or so. That though is your only say in what laws apply to you.
Within International Law nations are very much able to choose which laws apply to them and which don't. Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions is a very good example of this. While 177 nations have agreed that this law does apply to them. None of those nations are parties to this current Israel-Hamas War. So that law does not apply to this war.
However the 1977 Protocol attempts to build on the 1864 Geneva Convention by defining a; "Harmful Act." It defines it as anything more than; "Incidental Small-Arms and Ammunition." That is to say small-arms and ammunition which are within the protected site by accident.
So if a wounded soldier is brought in, unconscious, with their rifle, bullets and grenades etc still strapped to their belt. Then that is not enough to constitute a; "Harmful Act." Particularly if those weapons are secured and locked away by the hospital staff.
As I've said the 1977 Protocol does not apply to this war. Meaning we have to revert to the 1864 test of; "Harmful Acts." Simply whether there were any weapons at the site at all.
It is very well documented that Hamas weapons have been found at the al-Shifa site. In such a volume and manner that is far from incidental to the site's operation as a hospital. So not only has it failed the basic, 1864, test of; Harmful Acts. It has also failed the enhanced, 1977, test of; Harmful Acts.
As a result there is absolutely no basis in International Law for anyone to refer to the site at al-Shifa as a; "Hospital." Let alone a; "Hospital Protected Under the Laws of War."
Just as there are absolutely no grounds for anyone to pay any further attention, let alone money to Human Rights Watch.
23:43 on 17/11/23 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment