Masoud, let me try to explain this clearly.
Doctors Without Borders isn’t a political institution it’s a humanitarian organization. Its entire purpose is to provide medical care to people caught in war, regardless of who they are. It was founded during the crisis in Biafra, precisely because governments at the time acting very much like yours refused to respect the neutrality of healthcare and allowed civilians to suffer.
You should understand this principle: medical spaces are meant to be protected. When they’re respected, civilians live. When they’re politicized or militarized, they become part of the conflict.
And that’s the issue. When a government or an armed group uses medical facilities for military purposes, whether by storing equipment, operating from them, or taking control of them, those places stop being purely civilian. That’s not a matter of opinion; it’s how the laws of war are interpreted in practice.
So when you speak about legitimacy or morality, you can’t ignore that reality. Actions have consequences. If medical infrastructure is used in ways that blur the line between civilian and military, it changes how it is perceived and treated in conflict.
If you’re serious about protecting civilians, then the focus should be simple: keep medical care neutral, keep it separate from military use, and respect the principles that organizations like Doctors Without Borders were built on.
Anything less undermines the very people you claim to defend.
English
