this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
131 points (91.2% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2475 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My source is https://ihl-databasrs.icrc.org and https://www.icrc.org (international red cross).

And naturally some wikipedia to help, but I only quote from the red cross. Feel free to check the links.

Hamas is in clear violation of all the articles of the 3rd common article of the Geneva convention. Every single section. However, the law doesn't apply since they never agreed to be bound by them or sign the accord.

I did not see any article that states that if your enemy isn't bound by the Geneva convention, then it means you aren't too.

The 1987 additional to the Geneva protocol at 1977 also states in article 3 section 1 that "nothing in this protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a state or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the state or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the state."

This would explain the repeating political statement: "Israel has the right to defend itself", as it matches this section.

Also, during the original signing of the Geneva article 3, France and Britain inserted section C paragraph 1 "Scope of the application of common article".

And this states verbatim - "Common article 3 does not provide a detailed definition of its scope of application, nor does it contain a list of criteria for identifying the situations in which it is meant to apply. It merely stipulates that '[I]n the cas of armed conflict not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties', certain provisions must be respected by the parties of the conflict.

So this is quite the rabbit hole in terms of the law.

I will read further into this, but it seems that saying the city is dense makes them guilty is a claim for court, and a guess, not a ruling. It doesn't also clearly let's Israel off the hook, as definitions can sway the lettering.

Also, maybe I'm missing some addendums. Don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

Laws aside though, this is still an awful situation.