Supporters of Israel's actions in Gaza - why do you think the Geneva convention should not apply? - eviltoast

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

  • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In the interest of moderation transparency, we’ve had a couple of reports about this post.

    Here’s my thinking about it:


    Community purpose

    • This post is more political that would ordinarily be seen on AskLemmy, ⬇️
    • it is an open-ended thought provoking question, ⬆️
    • it is generating healthy and informative discussion and debate. ⬆️

    Rule 1:

    • the post is not trolling, sealioning, racist or toxic, ⬆️
    • the topic is contentious but seems to be worded politely, ⬆️
    • the author has voluntarily amended the question to be more sensitive in their framing. ⬆️

    Rule 3:

    • it does not fit the definition of spam or astroturfing ⬆️

    On balance, I’m going to let the post remain up.

    • frazw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.