Israel has been carrying out a “targeted operation” in the al-Chifa hospital in Gaza since Wednesday November 15. Observers and Internet users are divided on the question of whether, in doing so, the Jewish state is respecting international law or not.
The al-Chifa hospital, the largest in Gaza, has for several days been at the heart of the war between Israeli soldiers and Hamas fighters, more than a month after the terrorist attack targeting the Jewish state and the start of the Israeli response. This culminated on Wednesday, November 15, when Israel launched what the Jewish state calls “a targeted operation” in this hospital.
Enough to fuel a debate that is raging on social networks and on certain TV sets. The responses under the message from the Caisses de strike account, followed by tens of thousands of people on the social network X, is an example. Caisses de strike shares an extract from the CNews show L’Heure des pros, in which political columnist Vincent Hervouët asserts that “the Geneva Conventions authorize belligerents to target hospitals when they are used by the enemy to conceal themselves”.
“Hamas set up the battlefield in the middle of hospital beds.
The Geneva Conventions authorize belligerents to target hospitals, when they are used by the enemy to conceal themselves. pic.twitter.com/3hJENoWZCs— Caisses de strike (@caissesdegreve) November 13, 2023
Caisses de strike asks other Internet users if it’s true. Cécile Duflotthe general director of Oxfam France, responds that “it’s wrong”, invoking article 18 of the Geneva Convention. What the lawyer does Mickaël Chemla answers him in turn: “You can’t cite a principle without citing the exception that comes right after it.” This same debate has been repeated endlessly for several days on X. So, what is it really?
The Geneva Convention protects hospitals against attacks…
Both camps are actually right and are based on two articles of the Geneva Convention relating to the protection of civilians in time of war.
Those who say that Israel does not respect international law rely, like Cécile Duflot, on article 18 of this convention. It states that “civilian hospitals organized to provide care for the wounded, the sick, the infirm and women in childbirth may not, under any circumstances, be the object of attacks; they will, at all times, be respected and protected by the parties to conflict”.
The belligerents must, as much as possible, make these hospitals visible to their enemies so that they are not targeted. They must also not install military objectives nearby, “as far as possible”.
…except when hospitals are used to “commit acts harmful to the enemy”
But, Article 19 of the Geneva Convention comes immediately after giving an exception to this rule, explaining under what conditions the protection of hospitals mentioned in Article 18 is lifted. “The protection due to civilian hospitals can only cease if they are used to commit, outside of humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy”specifies the convention.
THE “acts harmful to the enemy” are neither defined nor detailed in the text. The Geneva Convention only specifies what cannot be considered as such acts: the fact of carrying an individual light weapon to defend the sick, the fact that the establishment is guarded by armed men, or the fact that wounded fighters are treated there.
In a note published on November 6, the International Committee of the Red Cross, however, considers that “the reason for the loss of this protection is clear” and a list of examples. When health establishments “are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations and, thereby, harm the enemy, the reason for this protection disappears. This is particularly the case when a hospital is used as a launching base of an attack, observation post used to transmit information of military interest, weapons depot, liaison center with armed troops, or even to shelter able-bodied combatants”.
The exception provided for by law is not a blank check
However, the head of the ICRC legal service, Cordula Droege, explains in a video published on X that these exceptions are not a blank check. First, there are rules to respect. Before attacking a hospital, it is first necessary to verify factually, with supporting evidence, that it is indeed being used militarily by the opposing party. If so, then a warning must be given for the opposing party to stop using it or, if it does not stop, to evacuate patients and medical personnel.
Hospitals enjoy special protection under international humanitarian law due to their vital function for the wounded and sick.@CDroegeICRC, Head of the ICRC Legal Service, explains it to us. 👇 pic.twitter.com/omCkc9MNsT
— ICRC (@CICR_fr) November 6, 2023
Cordula Droege recalls that, “under international humanitarian law, any attack is subject to the principles of proportionality and precaution. This means that the party to the conflict must take necessary measures to avoid or minimize harm to patients and medical personnel”.
“Under the principle of proportionality, the party must ask itself whether the deaths, injuries and destruction caused by this operation are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage sought. When a hospital is located in a combat zone, damage to health services is generally not limited to the short term, but also has medium and long term effects. In conflict situations, health services are essential due to the large number of injured and sick”she emphasizes.
Israel wants to prove that it respects international law
Knowledge of international law allows us to better understand Israel’s communication around its “targeted operation” in al-Chifa hospital. For example, the Jewish state had warned of its intentions. For General Dominique Trinquand, interviewed by franceinfo on Wednesday, “it’s a way of saying that he respects the laws of war and that he warns the civilian populations so that they are not under the blows of the IDF” (the Israeli army).
This is one of the reasons why Israel constantly repeats that Hamas uses this hospital for military purposes or that it is important for the Jewish state to prove it by claiming to have found “munitions, weapons and military equipment” of Hamas in this health establishment, supporting images. To also prove that Hamas is breaking international law by using this hospital. Which Hamas firmly denies.
But only an independent investigation will be able to say whether these images are true, whether Hamas used this hospital – or others that were targeted by the Israeli army before, such as the nearby al-Rantissi pediatric hospital in which Israeli soldiers entered Monday November 13 and where they say they found a secure basement serving as “Hamas command and control center” as well as weapons, and even evidence that Hamas held hostages there – and therefore whether the Israeli operation respects international law.