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

  • SkyNTP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Well put.

    I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a “homeland” out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn’t call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.

    And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.

    Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can’t underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.

    In summary, I think Israel’s actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.