Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 247

On March 27 2024 10:30 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Sorry it took me a while to respond. I've been swamped at work lately.


Sure. I wasn't entering myself into that side of the topic at the moment. Although I agree with all the things RvB said on it recently if you want to know my general stance.


I was saying that someone who felt morally opposed to something should use moral language instead of legal language. I was trying to make that statement in as detached a manner as possible so it applies to everyone here, rather than weighing in with my personal feelings on who/what was good/bad/legal/illegal.


Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages or the law against having regular combat forces fight in civilian garb. There is the option to focus on the more concrete laws if you feel the more nebulous ones are too complex.

Secondly, many of the remaining laws aren't so much open to multiple opinions, as they are necessitating sufficient evidence/information. (Hence why experts often say "there may have been war crimes." I.e. depending on what the facts on the ground turn out to be after the fog of war lifts.)

Finally, any interpretations of whether these laws apply, is done by experts in international law (with consultation with military experts for things like "proportionality"). No one is seeking guidance from their spiritual leaders on if something is moral enough to consider a "war crime." It's a clear legal question with a legal answer.

There is a moral reason to have the laws, which JimmiC addressed very nicely about a dozen pages back (in short, they aren't to stop wars, they are just meant to lessen civilian suffering compared to what it would look like in a no-holds-barred type of fight), but in practice, they are laws that hold actors accountable for breaking the letter of those laws, not for otherwise being bad people.


This point of yours just suggests that we should abandon considering war crimes at all for this sort of conflict.

I hear that. Although I personally feel that the exceptions written in to the Geneva Conventions themselves adequately address most of the issues at play in this conflict and we therefore shouldn't abandon them altogether.

On March 29 2024 06:13 Cerebrate1 wrote:

I apologize. It seems I inadvertently lead you to believe that international law was more simplistic, and less nuanced, than it is.

The Geneva Conventions make a clear distinction between Taking Hostages (prohibited) and taking Prisoners of War (POWs)(permitted [perhaps even encouraged since the alternatives in war are generally worse]).

Capturing a bunch of 5 year olds is a pretty clear cut case of hostage taking without any interpretation necessary.

Capturing 20 year old men (or even the oft mentioned 17 year old "children") who actively engaged in hostilities against soldiers in a time of war, generally lands pretty neatly in the POW camp. Although, they may not actually get the benefits of Privileged Combatants if the people were engaging in typical combat activities out of uniform, they may be designated as Unlawful Combatants instead. Additionally, if they are part of a Non-State Armed Group (like PIJ or the like), they may be held for insurrection under domestic law (instead of international law).

I'd also add that the Geneva Conventions definition of "combatant" is also much broader than you might think. Someone could have never touched a gun and still be considered a "combatant." For instance, if they were involved in planning an attack or if they were storing rockets on their premises.

I can't say I know the details of every specific case in this conflict, but suffice to say, prisoners detained by Israel are categorically different than hostages abducted by Hamas. And international law reflects this point.