They sort of do in this case. The reason the strike would be a war crime is that a refugee camp is explicitly civilian infrastructure. Under the conventions of war, explicitly civilian infrastructure is suppose to be spared from attack. And attacking it is a war crime.
When you co-locate military infrastructure there it loses it’s protections as it’s no longer explicitly civilian infrastructure. And a strike against it ceases to be a war crime.
On the part of Hamas right? For placing valid military targets inside of otherwise protected Civilian areas.
On the part of Hamas and Israel. War crimes don’t stop being war crimes just because you’re fighting war criminals.
They sort of do in this case. The reason the strike would be a war crime is that a refugee camp is explicitly civilian infrastructure. Under the conventions of war, explicitly civilian infrastructure is suppose to be spared from attack. And attacking it is a war crime.
When you co-locate military infrastructure there it loses it’s protections as it’s no longer explicitly civilian infrastructure. And a strike against it ceases to be a war crime.