• Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    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 ._.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?