World News

Not unconditionally though. From your own linked source:

Before carrying out an attack on a medical establishment or unit that has lost its protected status, a warning must be given. Where appropriate, this should include a time limit, which must go unheeded before an attack is permitted. The purpose of issuing a warning is to allow those committing an "act harmful to the enemy" to terminate such act, or – if they persist – to ultimately allow for safe evacuation of the wounded and sick who are not responsible for such conduct and who should not become the victims of it.

Where such a warning has remained unheeded, the enemy is no longer obliged to refrain from interfering with the work of a medical establishment or unit, or to take positive measures to assist it in its work. Even then, humanitarian considerations relating to the welfare of the wounded and sick being cared for in the facility may not be disregarded. They must be spared and, as far as possible, active measures for their safety taken.

This derives from the obligation to respect and protect the wounded and sick as well as the general rules on the conduct of hostilities that apply to attacks on any military objective. Notably, an attacking party remains bound by the principle of proportionality. The military advantage likely to be gained from attacking medical establishments or units that have lost their protected status should be carefully weighed against the humanitarian consequences likely to result from the damage or destruction caused to those facilities: such an attack may have significant incidental second- and third-order effects on the delivery of health care in the short, middle and long-term.

An attacking party remains also bound by the obligation to take precautions in attack, in particular to do everything feasible to avoid or at least minimize harm to patients and medical personnel who may have nothing to do with those acts and for whom the humanitarian consequences will be especially dire.

So leveling an entire hospital because a single rocket is fired from one by terrorists isn't exactly justified by the law, even if firing rockets from a hospital is a war crime and justifies some degree of proportional reaction assuming humanitarian concerns can be justified.

As for why Hamas does this, it's because it's a win win for them. Either they reduce the capabilities of retaliation when humanitarian concerns are factored in, or they harm Israel's image when engaging in disproportionate retaliation that isn't adequately factoring in humanitarian concerns.

But the whole point of the Geneva convention and regulation regarding conduct in war is that even if your enemy is the literal worst, that stooping to their level is not what modern nations should do, and concern for the civilians even in enemy territory is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of the disregard for those laws by your own enemies.

I can't regard Hamas as anything but disgusting terrorists and it's troubling how much I see apologist rationalization for their terrorist acts on here.

But that doesn't justify the IDF throwing the Geneva convention out the window and bombing civilian infrastructure to rubble any more than ISIL's activities in Syria justified Assad's bombing civilian areas where they were present to rubble.

I'm not talking about the law. Laws change over time. Not all laws are just. Not everything just is a law.

Hamas knows they can and will retaliate so they form their strategy to leverage this. And Israel thinks they can get away with bombing hospitals by dumping shit tons of money on pr. What should be done is it should be made illegal according to international humanitarian laws, god knows why it isn't.

The law says its OK so it must be OK!