The World Health Organization has published it's assessment of the state of health care facilities in Lebanon following the month long Israeli bombing campaign this last July. The full report can be found here. Here are a few snippets from the accompanying press release, Lebanon health facilities have suffered considerable damage.

Quote: ... The assessment, by the Lebanon Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization, looked at more than 400 health facilities in Lebanon in the areas most affected by the conflict. These include dispensaries, health care centres, outpatient hospital departments and hospitals in the affected districts. The findings are critical to determine priorities in the early recovery of Lebanon's health system. The assessment provides the basis for the Early Recovery Strategy for the Health Sector in Lebanon. It calls for USD 13.3 million for actions aimed at restoring access to critical health services for the 1.2 million people most affected by the conflict. ... During one week in August, assessment teams fanned across the country to determine: whether facilities were damaged; staff were able to work; and the availability of adequate water, fuel and sanitation, and medical supplies. The assessment finds that damage to buildings varies drastically from one place to another. In total, 26% of all health facilities are not functioning due to physical damage, lack of staff or lack of accessibility. A total of 12 buildings were totally destroyed and 38 severely damaged, with the most damage in Bent Jbeil, followed by Marjayoun, Nabatieh and the southern suburbs of Beirut. ...

So far this story has been completely ignored by Western media. The only account that pops up via google news is from Iran [1]. Perhaps the Western media is waiting for the WHO Regional Committee to release it's final resolution, or perhaps the Western media simply turns a blind eye when it comes to Israeli war crimes? I use that term because, frankly, attacking a hospital is a war crime. Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

Quote: Article 8.-Terminology ... (e) "Medical units" means establishments and other units, whether military or civilian, organized for medical purposes, namely the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment-including first-aid treatment-of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, or for the prevention of disease. The term includes, for example, hospitals and other similar units, blood transfusion centres, preventive medicine centres and institutes, medical depots and the medical and pharmaceutical stores of such units. Medical units may be fixed or mobile, permanent or temporary; ... Article 12.-Protection of medical units 1. Medical units shall be respected and protected at all times and shall not be the object of attack. ... Article 13.-Discontinuance of protection of civilian medical units 1. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. 2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy; (a) That the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge; (b) That the unit is guarded by a picket or by sentries or by an escort; (c) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick, and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the units; (d) That members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons. ...

So what do you think? 12 buildings demolished, 38 severely damaged, 26% of all facilities not functioning. Do you think this is for real or just Hezbollah using the United Nations to create propaganda? Why do you think what you think about it? What questions does this report raise for you? What do you think should be done in response to this report?

They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

Painting a big red cross on the roof of a building isn't a shield against accident, and paper shields are worthless in war.

If it comes out that someone in Israel decided to bomb the hospitals to make sure they kill the most Hezbollah supporters they can, then yes it is a war crime.

If they can provide they had creditable intelligence stating that ACTIVE millitants were housed there, then they are fair game as far as war goes.

Besides, how many of those rockets fired from the north were hitting military targets?

All in all, a horrible mess that shouldn't have happened in the first place, lets just hope people don't get trigger happy again.

Quote:Original post by Iftah
The towns you mentioned are totaly control by Hizballah. Healthcare is provided by Hizballah alone and according to what I've been told under the Hizballah financed health facilities (or schools or soccer fields or mosaques) they have storage bunkers of ammunition and rockets.

Who told you that? I thought Marjayoun was a Christian town. This tourism web site, Marjayoun doesn't really speak to that but it does make it sound like a place of world heritage.

Quote:Original post by Iftah
At the time the conventions were written there was no issue about health care being used as military base. There were no shooting from within healthcare. These laws are somewhat outdated like laws against camoufalge. It doesnt mean hospitals should be destroyed if there are terrorists hiding in them, but a pharmecy with a big bunker below it may need be destroyed. A dentist office with terrorists shooting from within it may need to be destroyed. As far as I know only one hospital was attacked and that was by ground troops and not "destroyed".

I sounds like you didn't read the snippets that I quoted from the Protocol because they explicitly address the situation of medical units being used as military bases. Those laws are not at all outdated and it seems to me that people that say so are seeking to apologize for war criminals or decriminalize such behavior. For example when the Bush administration called the anti-torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint", it was clear that they were seeking to legalize torture because they intended to torture terrorism suspects and didn't want to be held legally responsible for it. Where did you hear that only one hospital was attacked and that it wasn't destroyed? What does that source say about this WHO report?

Quote:Original post by Iftah
You need to view the attacks in context. Maybe they are warcrimes against innocent healthcare, maybe they destroyed a Hizballah storage area with some pharmacy on top. If the latter, which I believe is the case, then I find it justified.

I think you need to read those protocols. Weapons storage isn't sufficient to justify attacking medical facilities. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. They have to be used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Weapons storage isn't harmful to the enemy, weapons fire is. And if they are going to be attacked they have to be warned first.

Quote:Original post by Iftah
The thousands of rockets Hizballah has are hidden inside civilian houses and inside civilian facilities with total disrespect the civilians Hizballah "protects". Are we to give them immunity because of this? I don't think so.

If you don't want to be considered war criminals then yes. Like I said, read the Protocols. In addition to what I wrote above about medical facilities, if there is a doubt about civilians buildings, you're not supposed to attack them. It's not enough to say afterwards that if a building was destroyed it must have been used to store rockets. That's just an assumption that your guys can do no wrong.

Quote:Original post by Iftah
According to a professor of international law Israel hasn't commited a war crime
interview with Horst Fischer but I don't know if the interview acknowledged "hospital attacks".

Did you not read the interview? Fischer doesn't mention hospitals at all. He isn't as strident with his statements as you are. He doesn't directly say that Israel hasn't committed war crimes, he says "If there were a court case against one of the [Israeli] commanders or the soldiers, then a prosecutor would need to prove that the necessary precautionary measures were not undertaken and not applied and that maybe also intentionally, civilian objects or civilians were targeted. I don't think that was the case, but a prosecutor would need to prove that."

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

guess what, it's also illegal to attack medic units of an enemy army.

Quote:Original post by maximAL

Quote:Original post by LilBudyWizer
They were prolly used to treat Hezbollah militants. It isn't like we would call it terrorism or something if they sank one of our hospital ships.

guess what, it's also illegal to attack medic units of an enemy army.

Not if that medical units attacks you first.

Edit: Although you're talking about conventional warfare. In this case because it's a civilian medical center, it can't be taken for granted that the people who work there actually had any say in whether weapons were fired from there (if any weapons were fired from there).

OH! BUT THE CHIN! THE CHIN WASN'T HURT!