this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
72 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38921 readers
2275 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrived at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan on Oct. 22, despite criticism from Ukraine, Voice of America reported.

The BRICS group, a bloc of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, is convening in Kazan for a three-day summit from Oct. 22-24. According to Moscow, 36 world leaders are participating in the conference.

Guterres is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event on Oct. 24, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry criticized the U.N. secretary general's visit.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

I assure you, I don't know what exact rules you mean, and suspect they don't exist. (No shade on you, though)

As far as I know, proportionality is vague, but applies on every scale, in every situation. The actual lawyers for Israel have argued that their overall response has been proportional. (Because Hamas is hiding in the Gaza strip, and so it's all a legitimate target to vapourise. By that standard, they're right, and they've actually been generous, but it's a dumb standard)

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it's a vague term and international laws of war don't exist?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Vague insofar as it's totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That's why there's a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it's recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.

I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions?

The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:

  1. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:

The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.

The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I'm now pretty certain there isn't a loophole based on what you're doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You can't cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here's a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I did read the entire thing - it's not long. Yes, you can unintentionally harm civilians, proportionately.

It's not intrinsic to urban warfare to do it this way, either. Compare any of the American operations of this millennium.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

US operations have killed a lot of civilians. But there is no theater of war quite like Gaza, which is what makes the numbers that much more impressive.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Gaza is denser than a typical Arab area (gee, I wonder why) but the construction and customs are pretty much the same. Nothing about it morally, legally or tactically justifies flattening it any more than Fallujah or Kandahar.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)