Israel rightly condemned Iran's strike on one of its hospitals, but what about the ones it struck in Gaza?
On Thursday morning, Israel 's Soroka Hospital in Beersheba was hit by Iranian missiles, sustaining 'extensive damage'.
Israeli officials understandably condemned the attack. But they appeared to be shocked – as if they had not seen a hospital being struck in the past two years when, in fact, Israel had struck all of Gaza's hospitals, sustaining complete or partial damage.
The healthcare system in the Palestinian enclave is collapsing, with more deaths and injuries mounting every day. As things stand, at least 55,700 people have been killed and 130,100 wounded since October 7, 2023.
Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sharren Haskel, called for 'the world to speak out' about Iran's attack. 'Deliberate. Criminal. Civilian target,' she said.
She is right. It was, after all, a civilian target.
But Israel did not hold itself to the same standard when it struck Al Shifa hospital in April last year, Al Ahli Arab hospital in April this year, the European hospital in May and Al Nasser hospital in February 2024, to name a few examples. On every occasion, it claimed to have evidence that the facilities were being used by Hamas or other armed groups in Gaza.
So, what would happen if Iran did the same – claiming that the Soroka hospital was housing people who posed a threat to it? Would that be considered enough to justify its attack? Would the West suddenly support Iran's 'right to defend itself', regardless of how it does it?
All hospitals are protected under international humanitarian law and should never be attacked. The wounded and the sick inside the facilities, as well as their medical staff, employees and ambulances all fall under protected status.
From Sudan to Palestine and Israel – everybody should be held to the same standard under IHL and be guided by the collective global moral compass that bans harm to civilians, keeps hospitals out of harm's way and restricts war to within the confines of international law.
Unfortunately, however, that is not how Israel has taught the world it could be done.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
srael's attack on Iran: The violent new world being born is going to horrify you
Twenty years ago, the US warned prematurely of the 'birth pangs' of a new Middle East. Now they have arrived in full force - and they will not end in Iran. Ultimately this is about more than redrawing the map of the Middle East. And it is about more than toppling the rulers in Tehran. Just as Israel needed to take out Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria before it could consider clearing a path to Iran's destruction, the US and its western allies needs the axis of resistance eradicated, as well as Russia bogged down in an interminable war in Ukraine, before it can consider taking on China. Or as the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted this week, in one of those quiet-part-out-loud moments: "This [the attack on Iran] is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us." This is a key moment in the Pentagon's 20-year plan for 'global full-spectrum dominance': a unipolar world in which the US is unconstrained by military rivals or the imposition of international law. A world in which a tiny, unaccountable elite, enriched by wars, dictate terms to the rest of us. If all this sounds like a sociopath's approach to foreign relations, that is because it is. Years of impunity for Israel and the US have brought us to this point. Both feel entitled to destroy what remains of an international order that does not let them get precisely what they want. The current birth pangs will grow. If you believe in human rights, in limits on the power of government, in the use of diplomacy before military aggression, in the freedoms you grew up with, the new world being born is going to horrify you. You can read more here.
Khaleej Times
4 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump resumes visa applications for international students, but with increased vetting
The State Department announced on Wednesday that it is ending the pause on visa applications for foreign students. However, the process, which has been suspended since May, will include intensive online vetting, including requiring applicants to set all of their social media privacy settings to 'public'. The State Department said it needed to 'ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests'. The announcement also asserted that applicants needed to prove that they would 'engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission', which is being seen as an attempt to deter students from participating in pro-Palestine activism on university campuses in the US. On 25 March, the Trump administration arrested Tufts graduate Rumeysa Ozturk after her profile was posted on a pro-Israel doxxing website. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Ozturk had been targeted for writing an opinion article in a student newspaper the year before, criticising Tufts University's response to a pro-divestment vote from the student senate. Ozturk was released from detention in May, but her detention set a precedent for a larger crackdown by the Trump administration on foreign students. In April, the visas of thousands of international students were revoked seemingly indiscriminately. Several students went into hiding or self-deported over fears that they would be arrested. The Trump administration abruptly backtracked on the decision to revoke visas weeks later. Wednesday's move to review the social media accounts of foreign students is also not the first time the Trump administration has used social media vetting to monitor international students. On 9 April, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be screening the social media accounts of international students at universities affiliated with 'antisemitic activity'. The State Department also reportedly told consulates to prioritise applicants hoping to attend a college where less than 15 percent of the student body were international students. On 28 May, US President Donald Trump asserted that Harvard University should cap international enrollment at 15 percent. Chinese international students Chinese international students have come under particular scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months. The 270,000 Chinese international students studying in the US make up around a quarter of the 1.1 million international students in the country. On 28 May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the DHS would be working closely with the State Department to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students'. Rubio's statement singled out students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. It reflects accusations from the Trump administration that Chinese international students pose a national security risk. On 11 June, Trump backtracked on the plan to revoke visas for Chinese students. He posted that the presence of Chinese international students 'has always been good with me'.
