The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them.
Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations.
>The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities.
This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234...
Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.
Not true.
I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.
That is neither what the laws of war say, nor what the Israeli argument is (or at least, it's a misrepresentation).
The laws of war say that if a medical facility (or any other civilian infrastructure) is used by militants as part of the war effort, then it loses its protected status. Israel's argument, whether you agree or not, is that this occurred, thereby making those targets legal.
Some of us have direct memories of the time and it was very much true...
>I certainly wouldn’t refer..
They weren't even aware they weren't any patients. And it's not the only hospital attacked at Mosul. Most hospitals there were attacked:
https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-r...
If you want the legal brief, see Article 8.2.e.iv. with an explicit carveout ("provided they are not military objectives"):
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=...
Make an argument, not just a contradiction. The fact is that public opinion on the Iraq war was far higher (47-60% in favor) initially than it is now (61% say we should have stayed out).
wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#