During a United Nations Security Council meeting this week, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield launched a full-throated condemnation of Russia’s bombing of Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital on Monday. The attack was a part of a Russian bombing campaign that killed more than 30 Ukrainian civilians.
“We’re here today because Russia … attacked a children’s hospital,” Thomas-Greenfield said. “Even uttering that phrase sends a chill down my spine.”
Thomas-Greenfield went on to list a string of Russian attacks on other Ukrainian hospitals throughout the war. She described Russia’s aggression as a “campaign of terror” and labeled its attacks on civilian infrastructure as violations of international law. Representatives of other countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, echoed Thomas-Greenfield’s denunciations. (Russia’s ambassador denied responsibility for the Monday bombing.)
“I’m very glad the U.S. is coming out and so vocally condemning all of those actions,” said Jessica Peake, an international law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, referring to Thomas-Greenfield’s comments toward Russia. “But at the same time, we don’t get any language anywhere near as strong as that when we’re talking about Palestinian hospitals, or Palestinian schools, or Palestinian children.”
Are the circumstances identical?
I feel very confident in saying a childrens cancer ward far from the Ukrainian front likely had no military utilization. Probably no rockets fired from the roof, no soldiers inside, etc etc.
Can hamas say the same with confidence? Even though their medical facilities were very close to the fighting? I do not know, personally, and still condemn the Israeli attacks.
But I also know the circumstances are not the same.
There was no evidence for Hamas using the hospital as a military base so yes they are identical. There is no evidence of Hamas launching any rockets from the roof of those hospitals either not sure where that claim comes from.
Ironically the only party using hospitals and schools as military bases in Gaza is israel. After they force all the patients out that is.
Even if their were a rocket or a soldier on the roof, Russia would but be morally justified in blowing it up. Nothing you said is relevant to that situation.
If a hospital is used as a combat position, it becomes a valid target for attack. You are not prohibited from returning fire just because the attackers are striking from a hospital.
Blowing up a hospital is not morally justified just because you’re able to bullshit your way into calling it a combat position. Your use of “prohibited” is a weaselword. Obviously they’re not prohibited - this is trivially true since they do it. It’s still not morally justifiable.
Oh, certainly. Well, war is hell. It’s an inherently immoral practice, one of the most evil things we engage in. When it happens though, it needs to follow a certain set of rules, for a variety of reasons of which morality is just one.
That said, “hospital” is just a word. If the building is occupied by patients and doctors and is not part of the fighting, then I fully agree with you. If it is empty of doctors and patients, and instead a battalion of soldiers is shooting at you from it, it should be blown up. The activities happening determine what happens, not the name and type of the building.
Adressing only both of these extremes ensure that nothing you said addresses any aspect of reality.
They’re hypotheticals meant to communicate how the Geneva Conventions actually work in real life. Sorry if you don’t like it.
The Geneva convention isn’t relevant to Israel’s current war in Gaza. Blowing up hospitals remains immoral. Sorry if you don’t like it.
War is immoral, everything about it. No exceptions. Humanity does not function based on universal morality though, it functions on law.
Let me repeat: Even if Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were hiding where children are, you do not bomb your way through children to get at your target.
See, it really is that simple, no discussion or comparisons needed.
No, I’m afraid not. I wish it was that way, but it’s not true. Otherwise any army could protect itself from bombardment with human shields, which is not the case.
Every opportunity will be used and abused, whatever you think of as despicable, it will be used. So that is never an argument to stop fighting for what is right.
Find another way to get at your enemy. Yes, it will be harder then dropping a bomb but such it the cost of going to war and having the opinion to not turn 5 year olds into a red mist.
Yes, that is preferable when possible. I think this is why they raided some of the hospitals with ground forces instead of bombing them, which they could have. The outcry would have been too intense for such an unethical strike.
Uh… Yes. “Their” medical facilities were very close to the fighting because all of Gaza is a warzone what are you even talking about?
Exactly. And that is a difference. Since it is different, it means the circumstances are different. I’m not saying it’s fair, circumstances are usually very unfair. They still exist though.
Why are they dropping bombs that take out entire blocks though? They aren’t even being precise about it. It is not like they have hidden their genocidal intents.
“The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy” – Daniel Hagari
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly” – Yoav Gallant
Just a few of many quotes that reveal their intents and yet here you are defending genocide.
No. The children in the Ukrainian hospital were white.
I do enjoy the hypocrisy of Western leaders, they aren’t even tacit about it anymore, and the public evidently are so propagandized as to justify genocide even when they think they oppose it.