Comment by pdabbadabba
Comment by pdabbadabba 2 days ago
You've posted several paragraphs. It would be helpful if you'd identify the part of this you think Israel has violated, because I see none.
Broadly speaking, the Geneva Convention calls for the use of "all feasible precautions" to be taken in protecting civilians, but does not require perfection in doing so. In the context of a world where wars are normally fought with missiles and bombs, I would have thought that Israel's decision to instead target Hezbollah via tiny explosives hidden in devices known to be sold to Hezbollah members would be an extreme way of complying with this rule. If not even this is good enough, how else would you advise a nation to defend itself without violating this principle? Surely any use of conventional weaponry must also be out of the question.
Hang on, you've jumped on my response without the context. I'm specifically responding to someone who stated there isn't law or customs of war surrounding this, when infact there clearly are.
Beyond that, you are projecting a view or thing I haven't done.
EDIT: You've ninja edited your comment to something very different now.
Originally it said,
> This is wild to me. Wars are fought in cities all the time, by countries across the globe, with civilians killed by the thousands. But when Israel chooses to take a different path and attacks Hezbollah with small explosives hidden in devices known to have been sold to Hezbollah members people start citing the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention calls for the use of "all feasible precautions" to be taken in protecting civilians, but does not requirer perfection. How else would you advise a nation to defend itself without violating this principle?