It's a pity that they couldn't back it up with evidence in the instance I supplied. ...Like it's ok to just pretend they are worthless and their lives are worth shit.
....This as a chain of logic does not make sense to me.
Apply it to other situations, and see how it sounds:
For example, in Afghanistan, through a series of errors, the US bombed a hospital in Kunduz where MSF was working as part of the fight to drive the Taliban (who had taken over the Provincial capital) out of the city. As is typical, with this sort of occurrence, initial information was poor, provided by actors trying to cover their butt for having made an error, and senior officers trusted their junior officers' accounts until investigations proved them wrong.
The United States military initially said the airstrike was carried out to defend U.S. forces on the ground. Later, the United States commander in Afghanistan, General John F. Campbell, said the airstrike was requested by Afghan forces who had come under Taliban fire. Finally, Campbell said the airstrike was a US decision, made in the US chain of command and not requested by Afghan forces. Campbell said the attack was "a mistake," and, "We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility." The USCENTCOM 15-6 report stated that General Campbell's own lack of strategic guidance and dissemination of certain Rules of Engagement were major contributing factors that led to the command and control breakdown prior to the airstrike...
Therefore, (following the logic chain)
every target the US struck in Afghanistan was a series of errors that resulted in killed MSF personnel.
?
Similarly, IDF senior officers initially trusted their junior officers' accounts of the incident you refer to until an investigation revealed otherwise. The IDF then
publicly accepted that they were at fault, and fired the relevant Commander, because that is what Israel does when this sort of thing happens.
Therefore (following the Logic chain) it is impossible for someone to be a member of HAMAS if Israel strikes them.
?
That's not an argument,
@Serenity. It's an attempt to use a perfectly reasonable emotional response to color reaction to another.
Watch, I can do it to:
* "After Oct 7th, many Australians celebrated, and anti-semitic attacks spiked. A couple of Australian nurses even bragged about using their medical facilities to kill Jewish patients." (bad incident that should provoke a negative emotional reaction)
* "Therefore, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when Australian medical personnel on this forum have ' certain attitudes ' towards Jews broadly and Israel in particular." (baseless accusation intended to color posters' reactions to any Australian medical personnel by tying it to the emotional reaction to the first incident)
However, just as you yourself should not be considered in the same light as the dismissed Australian nurses simply because you share a nationality and a broad career field, the targeting of Anas al-Sharif should not be considered in the same light as the shooting of the ambulance you discussed.
One was (apparently) the result of a deliberate targeting process. The other was infantry on the ground reacting in the moment (and when the enemy uses civilian and medical vehicles, yeah, I can speak for experience, that means totally innocent civilian and medical vehicles are going to end up getting lit up - which is one of the reasons (as we have discussed before) why Perfidy is so forbidden in the LOAC).
So the incident you appeal to was infantrymen making a snap decision without relevant information, and then trying to cover it up when they realized they had f'd up. The incident under discussion
here is a deliberate decision-making process overseen by lawyers (who IIRC have the authority in the IDF to override commanders when they say something violates the Laws of Armed Conflict) to conduct a strike that Israel likely knew would immediately garner international scrutiny. Israel (apparently) had a good chunk of their targeting package ready to declassify and release as part of their planned response to that scrutiny, to demonstrate that the action they had taken was lawful.