this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
67 points (69.6% liked)

World News

38719 readers
2345 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

To defend that israel does not commit war crimes, I have seen zionists claim that if civilians are used for military purposes (involuntary human shield), they become valid military targets ._.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Could that same argument be applied to army reservists in a country with mandatory military service?

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I'd say that arguement is stronger because they had their whole life to prepare not to serve a genocidal army, instead of being made to participiate in war with no choice or warning. If we evaluate both using the metric of Free and Prior Informed Consent we see one is measurably worse.

[–] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

It's because of the Geneva Convention (origin of the modern concept of war crimes.)

It's designed to be applied mutually, if only one side does then it's basically non-functioning.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Absolutely not. We already had this argument in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. War crimes are war crimes. You can get away with some of the more esoteric ones for not fighting a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, but slaughtering civilians en masse is a crime full stop.

[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I understand that many of the humanitarian safeguards and international law can be disadvantageous when only one side gets things right.
But those are important guarantees, they are even used to differentiate the supposedly "good and civilized", if they are discarded every time they are inconvenient, aren't they just dead letter?

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Oh, war criminal talk. Gotcha.