• Muehe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

    Wrong, see Article 2.

    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Yes it triggers article 51

      an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

      • Muehe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn’t a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

        And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn’t apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

        Also note that I’m not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          You are right I confused the Geneva Convention for international law there i will correct it.

          Edit: apparently the other poster switched trom international law to Geneva Convention which caused my confusion.