World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

The US media is focusing on the fighting near hospitals in the Gaza Strip. The Netanyahu government has decided that it is justified in conducting military operations near or against these hospitals because Hamas terrorists are using the hospitals as refuges. The US media has decided not to question this tactic; instead, the media seems to indicate that the attacks on hospitals are simply unfortunate acts of war. The acceptance of this definition of collateral damage is morally reprehnsible.

Collateral damage is defined as injuries suffered inadvertently by noncombatants in an attack on a legitimate military target. The idea of collateral damage was adopted in the 20th Century as violence in war became anonymous with the advent of missiles and bombs which are difficult to target precisely. The doctrine admits the legitimacy of that violence if the intention is only to attack clearly identified military targets.

The phrase should more properly be understood as a euphemism that gives priority to military necessity over the lives of the innocent.

I have no doubts that Hamas deliberately uses civilian facilities to find protection against attacks and that tactic is an abomination. The question is whether that technique automatically vitiates the protections against killing noncombatants. And that question is paramount when we are talking about the use of hospitals as refuges.

To its credit, the Netanyahu government has encouraged patients in hospitals to evacuate, but this exhortation is hollow. Patients go to a hospital to be cured of an injury or disease and it is difficult for people under those circumstances to flee through a war zone. Patients are hostages to their conditions and hospitals are special places designated to provide comfort and therapy. Actions which have the effect of denying that care–including the provision of food, water, medical supplies, and fuel–can never be acceptable. It is also important to remember that none of the patients had any control over how their vulnerability could be exploited by an immoral military tactic.

I also am not sure how much of a military advantage hiding in a hospital provides to a combatant. There are no military targets to attack in a hospital and a combatant would have to leave the hospital to join the fight. Weapons can be stored in a hospital, but, again, they must leave the hospital to be used. I understand that Hamas uses mines to shuttle from a hospital to other areas, but closing off those mines is a better military option since it addresses the tactical vulnerability without the loss of innocent lives. The option is more dangerous for the Israeli military, but it can be attained without noncombatant losses.

There are few actions that diminish the moral authority to wage war more than attacks on helpless people. Such attacks must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.