I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes.
It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war.
And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.
> i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
That is... quite preposterous.
In any case, if the IDF had even one iota of credible evidence, they would put it out there - instead, all they put out are lies and deception, like the ridiculous 3D animation of Al-Shifa hospital, the Arabic calendar that was claimed to be a list of hostages, verifiable planted evidence, or most hilarious of all, the numerous pristine copies of Mein Kampf.
So let's examine the evidence shall we?
1. The IDF has not published any credible evidence that Hamas have used any hospital for resistance purposes
2. The IDF has repeatedly been caught fabricating evidence
3. International doctors working at hospitals in Gaza say they have seen no evidence of Hamas in hospitals
4. The IDF has now destroyed, damaged or otherwise decommissioned every hospital in Gaza, even going as far as smashing up medical equipment left behind and setting fire to evacuated buildings
5. The IDF itself has illegally set up bases of military operations inside Gazan hospitals it's decommissioned
6. The IDF has been embarking on a campaign of genocide, purposely destroying civilian infrastructure, such as water facilities, power plants, banks etc
7. The IDF recently tried the exact same thing in Lebanon, where they have been destroying civilian other infrastructure, and then made false claims to "justify" bombing a hospital - but they failed, as they were unable to control the media in Lebanon and they showed it was just a regular hospital
8. We've seen IDF soldiers, in their own words on social media, talk about "exterminating" Palestinians for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation
9. We've seen IDF war crimes with our own eyes and ears almost daily for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation
10. We've seen Israeli politicians and TV personalities spread hatred and racism, and issue clearly genocidal statements almost daily for over a year - so the state of Israel, also an aparheid state, isn't exactly a credible organisation
I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes.
It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war.
And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.
> i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
That is... quite preposterous.
In any case, if the IDF had even one iota of credible evidence, they would put it out there - instead, all they put out are lies and deception, like the ridiculous 3D animation of Al-Shifa hospital, the Arabic calendar that was claimed to be a list of hostages, verifiable planted evidence, or most hilarious of all, the numerous pristine copies of Mein Kampf.
So let's examine the evidence shall we?
1. The IDF has not published any credible evidence that Hamas have used any hospital for resistance purposes 2. The IDF has repeatedly been caught fabricating evidence 3. International doctors working at hospitals in Gaza say they have seen no evidence of Hamas in hospitals 4. The IDF has now destroyed, damaged or otherwise decommissioned every hospital in Gaza, even going as far as smashing up medical equipment left behind and setting fire to evacuated buildings 5. The IDF itself has illegally set up bases of military operations inside Gazan hospitals it's decommissioned 6. The IDF has been embarking on a campaign of genocide, purposely destroying civilian infrastructure, such as water facilities, power plants, banks etc 7. The IDF recently tried the exact same thing in Lebanon, where they have been destroying civilian other infrastructure, and then made false claims to "justify" bombing a hospital - but they failed, as they were unable to control the media in Lebanon and they showed it was just a regular hospital 8. We've seen IDF soldiers, in their own words on social media, talk about "exterminating" Palestinians for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation 9. We've seen IDF war crimes with our own eyes and ears almost daily for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation 10. We've seen Israeli politicians and TV personalities spread hatred and racism, and issue clearly genocidal statements almost daily for over a year - so the state of Israel, also an aparheid state, isn't exactly a credible organisation