Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, 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 spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just 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:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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.
Some of those settlements are not legal and israelis should leave those areas.
It's questionable if this applies when the other side violates other Geneva conventions by using the hospitals for military activity.
Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.
If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.
I mean yeah if both conventions revolve around the same thing, like for instance if the same hospital is both a sanctuary for civilians but also being used by soldiers. A more general whataboutism is another thing.
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."
Not really questionable - hospitals explicitly lose their protection if they are used for military activity.
They explicitly lose their protection if used for offensive military activity.
If soldiers are being treated in a hospital, it very much does NOT become a valid target. If soldiers are merely hiding in a hospital, it explicitly does NOT become a valid target.