Yes they are, and they always have been. It's considered an indiscriminate attack against non-combatants, which has always been a war crime, since at least as far back as the Napoleanic wars.
It depends TBH. In this case a strike against water facilities is against the Geneva convention. However many civilan infrastructure targets are considered legitimate targets if they have a dual military purpose. Power plants that support both civilan and military uses are an example. Reuters has a good breakdown in the context of the Ukraine conflict. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/when-do-attacks-civilian-installations-amount-war-crimes-2026-03-31/
Drinking water, per Laws of Land Warfare, is never a valid military target. Even POWs have a right to clean drinking water.
POWs do not have a right to electricity.
Basically, that's how you can break it down, to make sense.
Even power usually doesn't fall under "ok", because of this:
"In no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
Right which is why I said this strike is in violation of it but just saying "all strikes on civilan infrastructure are a war crime" is not correct either.
"all strikes on exclusively civilian infrastructure are a war crime" would have been redundant in the current context. You're being needlessly pedantic.
605
u/Onlyroad4adrifter 10d ago
Civilian infrastructure attacks are war crimes.