this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
140 points (80.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26270 readers
1593 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

(page 2) 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hamas was using Al Shifa hospital as a base, tunnel entrance, and torture site.

Using human shields is war crime. Torture is a war crime. Killing your hostages is a war crime. Raping prisoners is a war crime.

It basically turns into "who is committing less serious war crimes" and attacking the place where they torture prisoners and use them as human shields, imo, is a valid military attack.

load more comments (1 replies)

Im in no way a supporter but I am voting for the choice that is less worse for them but still is supporting the country dut to complex tangle of history that created the damn country with our help along with a recent historical terrorist attack that the israeli current situation match is reminiscent of. Anyway I wish countries would follow it regularly rather than when it suits them.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because they are fascists, and dictators think they can do what ever they want.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Which side are you referring to there? Both of them?

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

there was no side in question chump.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Some kind of a supporter here, I guess. Or let's say that I'm so much anti-Hamas that it's logical to be a bit anti-Palestine and pro-Israel.

Legality of Israeli settlements

Some of those settlements are not legal and israelis should leave those areas.

Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside.

It's questionable if this applies when the other side violates other Geneva conventions by using the hospitals for military activity.

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I'll just add that according to modern Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) the current definition of a military target may include schools, hospitals, religious sites and culturally relevent monuments should they be used by enemy forces.

Even in WW1 and WW2 when these rules were being written, if your enemy was hiding in a church, that was okay. But if they stored munitions or fired from the church, it and everyone in it would be considered valid military targets.

It was designed that way in order to stop soldiers from hiding in hospitals and schools saying "You can't shoot us, there are women, children and the sick in here" while they used that amnesty to kill countless others.

Just a distinction a lot of people tend to miss when they talk about "The Geneva Convention."

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not really questionable - hospitals explicitly lose their protection if they are used for military activity.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xdr@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Geneva convention is anti semetic.

Things have gone so far south now.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago

As South as Iran one might say.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

From a strategic standpoint, they have no choice. What Hamas is doing is by the book insurgent strategy, that's been observed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to lesser extents in WW2 and Vietnam.

Commit an atrocity akin to 9/11 to provoke an enemy attack and hide your forces amongst the population. The initial victim (usa, and in this case, israel) must retaliate against such an atrocity, but their only strategic targets are civilian in nature (as all militants are using them as a meat shield).

Once civilian targets are struck Hamas makes pleas to the international community, for aid, sanctions or isolation of Israel. They pander to civilians, as they'll die whether or not they join the insurgency. This balloons their numbers and combat strength.

On top of that, all forces begin engaging in brutal urban warfare with costly casualties for the enemy.

Israel (to their voters and population) can't just "let" Hamas get away for the October attacks so they press their advance, civilians be damned. I believe Hamas are as responsible as Israel for civilian casualties and deaths.

No sides are truly right here, it's merely a brutal dilemma. Not a problem, those have answers, but a dilemma with no good solutions. Potentially be overthrown by an outraged population or slaughter a bunch of civs. You know what all regimes will do.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›