Comment by varjag
None of that bans urban fighting. While the Conventions strive to minimize civilian deaths they (even the effectively optional 1977 Conventions) do not ban civilian collateral as it would simply be unrealistic and have the rest of Conventions not taken seriously.
While technically true I think the geneva conventions also address the fact that like, when you target something like a hospital (something that has happened) there’s a high probability of civilian deaths that don’t really fall under “collateral” definitions in the way you’re using it. Surely anyone sane would agree with this, wouldn’t you? The convention addresses this in pretty clear terms. Would you think exploding multiple thousands of devices simultaneously in a densely populated area might hit civilians too? Of course you would. This directly violates geneva convention by any interpretation of what it says, but the amount of propaganda from nearly every major country in this situation makes sane discussions of this impossible, so I’ll probably digress. These threads are cancerous and almost certainly flooded by IDF smurfs, or people unknowlingly spewing smurf propaganda.