The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add “do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?”

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

  • superkret@feddit.org
    22·
    14 days ago

    This is a loaded question. It pretends every supporter of Israel also supports the current government, the illegal occupation, the ongoing war, and throwing the Geneva convention out.

    I support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state and a homeland for the Jewish people.

    But I support none of the above.

    And no, I don’t have a good solution for this age-old conflict either.

    • frazw@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      6·
      14 days ago

      I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel’s right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.

    • frazw@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      5·
      14 days ago

      P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two

    • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      14 days ago

      So as an alternative question so someone who sounds reasonable (it is the Internet after all!), what are your thoughts on a 2-state solution, or Israel’s expansion into the West Bank?

      Ignoring of course the fact that a 2-state solution will never ever happen.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        2·
        14 days ago

        The most optimistic resolution to this conflict would be the German/French model. 2 states that have been arch-enemies for over a millennium forged a close bond and lasting partnership within just one generation after WW2.
        But I don’t think this is possible before both countries are completely exhausted or destroyed by the war, and a strong party from outside (likely the US again) steps in and forces them into a pact.

        A one-state solution would be unthinkable and completely without historical precedent, unless Israel either declares Palestine to be dissolved and rules over the land with an iron fist, or is itself wiped off the map.