Association for the Defense of Victims of Terrorism – Legal Advisor to Human Rights Watch in London, Clive Baldwin, explains to Al Jazeera Net that according to the International Geneva Conventions of International Humanitarian Law, the occupier has duties that he cannot shirk, such as bearing the responsibility to protect civilians, and therefore, even if Israel adopts a different criminal narrative for the bombing. Baptist Hospital will remain primarily responsible for protecting civilians, according to what is known internationally as “the occupier’s responsibilities.”
Counselor Baldwin confirms – despite the fact that investigations into the criminal process of the Baptist Hospital bombing incident in Gaza have not begun – that there is a responsibility related to the occupation, which is to protect all civilians and that it is considered an absolute duty, and the occupation is obligated to restore the hospital, provide Gaza with urgent medical supplies, and establish basic civilian life in Gaza, including This includes developing the police system in Gaza and the West Bank.
It is assumed that if there is suspicion that an individual or building has a civilian status, it is protected, and the deliberate targeting of medical care personnel, journalists, and civilians is a flagrant violation of the law.
Palestine joined the International Court of Justice about 10 years ago, while Israel has not yet joined. However, the Court has jurisdiction over the events and war crimes that occurred in the West Bank and Gaza, and currently the International Court of Justice is considering cases arising from the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Human Rights Watch submitted a request to the Attorney General to investigate crimes against humanity, apartheid and persecution that observers found in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Baldwin described Western countries with “double standards when it comes to comparing different government responses between Palestine and Ukraine,” citing Western leaders’ condemnation of the crimes committed against the Ukrainians, and immediately considering them a violation of the laws of conflict, while they did not apply the same standards to Israel, or provide equivalent support either. Financial or military for Palestine. Baldwin considered the matter hypocritical, and stressed that protecting people would only be achieved through a strong law that is objectively applied to everyone with the same standards. According to international law, there is nothing that constitutes a difference between Ukraine and Palestine, according to his analysis.
The international jurist added that the laws of conflict in all the Geneva Conventions call on all parties to balance and summon any party that committed murders against civilians, or committed the crime of collective punishment against them. Any party that violates the law must be summoned and condemned.