The Geneva convention

[yanshuf]

The Geneva convention does not approve attacks from within populated areas, and clearly states that the fact these areas are populated does not render them safe for terrorists.

[FakeViking]

The number of new threads on the Israel/Palestine conflict has gotten out of hand, please don't start any more new topics, abuse of this will result in limitations. Thanks for your understanding.

Can you read?

[Thac0man]

The Geneva convention does not approve attacks from within populated areas, and clearly states that the fact these areas are populated does not render them safe for terrorists.

Where does it say that?

[yanshuf]

Hi, thac0man,

It's in the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armned Conflicts
entry into force 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 95

CHAPTER IV.-PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES
Article 57.-Precautions in attack

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Article 57.-Precautions in attack

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

Article 58.-Precautions against the effects of attacks
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
(a) Without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
(c) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

[yanshuf]

Israel followed the protocol while taking into consideration the fact it was a populated area. We gave warnings, once twice even more, before we attacked.

Hamas, on the other hand, never said where they were going to hit Isreali civilians.

Hamas committed war crimed much more than Israel will ever commit.

[ibis]

Israel followed the protocol while taking into consideration the fact it was a populated area. We gave warnings, once twice even more, before we attacked.

Hamas, on the other hand, never said where they were going to hit Isreali civilians.

Hamas committed war crimed much more than Israel will ever commit.

Only in your own eyes.

[seabhcan]

Israel followed the protocol while taking into consideration the fact it was a populated area. We gave warnings, once twice even more, before we attacked.

Hamas, on the other hand, never said where they were going to hit Isreali civilians.

Hamas committed war crimed much more than Israel will ever commit.

Listen - we all agree Hamas are a bunch of lunatics.


I think most people who criticise Israeli actions do so because they believe Israel should be held to the high standards of a 21st century democracy. When Hamas launches their pathetic rockets we expect nothing better. When Israel kills 300 children we are shocked because we expected you to behave better.


But is Isreal just trying to be a slightly more moral version of Hamas or it is trying to be a proper civilized country? What is the standard you hold Israel to?

[Truth.ie]

Israel followed the protocol while taking into consideration the fact it was a populated area. We gave warnings, once twice even more, before we attacked.

Hamas, on the other hand, never said where they were going to hit Isreali civilians.

Hamas committed war crimed much more than Israel will ever commit.

The Geneva Conventions. The Hague. the U.N are all a ******************************g joke.
The Siege and shelling of Dubrovnik, during the 90's conflict, which was mild, compared to the Gaza massacre, was labelled a war crime, and those responsable were jailed at the Hague. Unless, we see the same with the Zionists it can never be seen as nothing but the Victors Court.

[cHeal]

The Geneva Conventions. The Hague. the U.N are all a ******************************g joke.
The Siege and shelling of Dubrovnik, during the 90's conflict, which was mild, compared to the Gaza massacre, was labelled a war crime, and those responsable were jailed at the Hague. Unless, we see the same with the Zionists it can never be seen as nothing but the Victors Court.

World politics revolves around one essential rule, might makes right.

[yanshuf]

Seabhcan

When Hamas launches their pathetic rockets we expect nothing better. When Israel kills 300 children we are shocked because we expected you to behave better.

I accept that, but I accept also what our military says: there can never be a starile war where civilians don't die.

But is Isreal just trying to be a slightly more moral version of Hamas or it is trying to be a proper civilized country? What is the standard you hold Israel to?

my standard is first make sure you protect your own people. And try damaging the enemy as much as you can, while not targeting civilians, which is a matter they took seriously this war, and any military move was dealt first with the legal department in the IDF.

I know the pictures, but I know the damage for the Israelis too, and I have preference in staying alive.