Israel, Hamas, War Crimes and the Geneva Suggestions

[Abhorsen]

That you think the Geneva Conventions actually does hold to terrorists and the like is the real moronic thing here.

Then again you consider taxes 'theft', and pretend Wagner shooting Ukrainian who are surrendering to Wagner and getting executed is the same as what the IDF faces in Gaza with Hamas and jihadi's who use suicide belts.

This was a tragic friendly fire incident due to battlefield conditions.

Article 3, convention 4, "armed conflict not of an international character." It's right there in black and white. You aren't allowed to kill someone hors de combat (which includes someone surrendering), even if nothing else from the conventions is in effect, and the other side doesn't hold to them.

It's literally the worlds barest bones human rights law, it applies to all parties to the treaty regardless of who they are fighting, and Israel failed.

See, you'd know this, if you did actual research, and didn't spend all your time talking out of your ass. I understand that's where your head is located, but I've heard that you can look up extraction methods on the internet. Maybe look those up?

The Geneva Conventions rules aren't quite that simple -- it's a war crime to *knowingly* fire on surrendering troops. This is not a strict liability offense, so it would not necessarily apply to situations where persons were fired upon as a snap decision and it was not recognized that they were attempting to surrender. Or more accurately, attempting to offer parley.

In other words -- it's a war crime if they did it *knowingly* and *on purpose*. It is more grey area if they were quick on the trigger finger in a tense situation; intent has to be proven.

Eh, making no hostile motions and waving a white flag? That's pretty far from knowingly. Maybe it was an accident, but my guess is war crime. You're alone, you know no one's going to prosecute it this time, so you want to take revenge. At a minimum, a prosecution is necessary here.

 

[Bacle]

Article 3, convention 4, "armed conflict not of an international character." It's right there in black and white. You aren't allowed to kill someone hors de combat (which includes someone surrendering), even if nothing else from the conventions is in effect, and the other side doesn't hold to them.

It's literally the worlds barest bones human rights law, it applies to all parties to the treaty regardless of who they are fighting, and Israel failed.

See, you'd know this, if you did actual research, and didn't spend all your time talking out of your ass. I understand that's where your head is located, but I've heard that you can look up extraction methods on the internet. Maybe look those up?

See, you are still acting like the Geneva Conventions applies to Hamas, when they have not signed it, and in fact have broken it's laws pretty much on a daily basis.

The Geneva Convention only applies to states that have signed and ratified the document and to uniformed personnel, no amount of 'they haven't signed, but it still applies' changes that and Hamas are not uniformed combatants either.

But this sort of pedantic and bad faith bullshit by westerners who huff their own moralistic farts is what Hamas and friends have counted on for years, and what Israel paid for with over 1300 dead on Oct 7th.

 

[Abhorsen]

See, you are still acting like the Geneva Conventions applies to Hamas, when they have not signed it, and in fact have broken it's laws pretty much on a daily basis.

Again, you are admitting to not reading or doing basic research. HAMAS DOESN'T NEED TO SIGN IT. That's what Article 3, convention 4 is for. It's for "What rules do I need to follow when my opponent hasn't signed anything, because as a non-state actor, they aren't allowed to?"

There's a very limited set of rules. One of them is "don't shoot surrendering soldiers or civilians".

 

[Bacle]

Again, you are admitting to not reading or doing basic research. HAMAS DOESN'T NEED TO SIGN IT. That's what Article 3, convention 4 is for. It's for "What rules do I need to follow when my opponent hasn't signed anything, because as a non-state actor, they aren't allowed to?"

There's a very limited set of rules. One of them is "don't shoot surrendering soldiers or civilians".

That was written with things like the French Foreign Legion in mind, or Volunteer Units not officially part of any nation. You know, uniformed combatants with international presence's.

It was not written with things like terrorist groups, criminal gangs, or pirates in mind.

So unless you want to count Hamas terrorists as a units of Iranian personnel, which there is an argument for and which is pretty close to reality, they are to be treated as terrorists, not uniformed combatants

 

[Abhorsen]

That was written with things like the French Foreign Legion in mind, or Volunteer Units not officially part of any nation. You know, uniformed combatants with international presence's.

No. Again, do basic research before talking out of your ass. Again, it's for:

"armed conflict not of an international character."

That text is exactly copied from the source.

The FFL are just treated as regular French Troops as far as Geneva is concerned.

This was here because the Allies had just fought Germany with the help of a number of partisan forces, such as the French Resistance, and they knew that more non-international fights were going to happen. It was designed for groups like the Viet Cong, or the Tamil Tigers, the Spear of the Nation, the IRA, Hamas, etc.

Here's the text in full:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
   • violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
   • taking of hostages;
   • outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
   • the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

See, you could have looked this up. But you refuse to do basic research even when handed the sources. It's pathetic, but expected for you.

I'm guessing there will be a court martial involved.

Good.

Congratulations, by that logic you would not have supported the Allies in WW2 then. After all, some of their soldiers committed war crimes, and i'm not talking meme war crimes like strategic bombings and other controversies, i mean war crimes they themselves convicted own soldiers for. Which is what is expected of countries to remain in good standing even when such things happen, as it is unrealistic to expect countries to not have any stupid or crazy people end up among 6-7 figure armies.

By prosecuting those who did violate these rules, the Allies did, and Israel is showing that it is worthy of support. The moral high ground needs to be earned, not just taken for granted. In fact, that the USSR didn't should have been another sign that they were barbarous.

But Bacle here is calling for Israel to act in an unjust manner by not prosecuting. That's the issue.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Hamas are barbarians at the gate. They will not rest until Israel is destroyed, so for their own survival the Israelis must destroy them first. This is a way of war we, in our arrogant naivety, have forgotten.

 

[Bacle]

104 Israeli troops killed since fighting began, IDF says

Live updates on the Israel-Hamas war.

abcnews.go.com

I'm guessing there will be a court martial involved.

Hmm, if ROE was broken, then yeah, inquiry into it is going to happen.

No. Again, do basic research before talking out of your ass. Again, it's for:

That text is exactly copied from the source.

The FFL are just treated as regular French Troops as far as Geneva is concerned.

This was here because the Allies had just fought Germany with the help of a number of partisan forces, such as the French Resistance, and they knew that more non-international fights were going to happen. It was designed for groups like the Viet Cong, or the Tamil Tigers, the Spear of the Nation, the IRA, Hamas, etc.

Here's the text in full:


See, you could have looked this up. But you refuse to do basic research even when handed the sources. It's pathetic, but expected for you.



Good.

By prosecuting those who did violate these rules, the Allies did, and Israel is showing that it is worthy of support. The moral high ground needs to be earned, not just taken for granted. In fact, that the USSR didn't should have been another sign that they were barbarous.

But Bacle here is calling for Israel to act in an unjust manner by not prosecuting. That's the issue.

There was nothing about the ROE being broken before now, and Israeli ROE isn't the Geneva Convention.

Also, the issue of fake surrenders is something that is historically documented.

Edit: Also, suicide belts weren't really considered or factored into that section, but are realities on the modern battlefield Israel finds itself on.

 

[Abhorsen]

There was nothing about the ROE being broken before now, and Israeli ROE isn't the Geneva Convention.

The ROE is one way a side implements the rules of war.

Also, the issue of fake surrenders is something that is historically documented.

Duh. The conventions were signed after a war with Japan, you think they didn't realize that, yeah, one side might break the rules, but it's still important to follow them anyway? In fact, they wrote that into the Convention also.

This whole thread has been you talking nonsense about things you don't know. Like the FFL somehow not being a part of the Geneva conventions, or them not applying because of totally irrelevant things, things that were specifically outlined in the rules. Next time, just don't talk out of your ass please.

 

[Bacle]

The ROE is one way a side implements the rules of war.



Duh. The conventions were signed after a war with Japan, you think they didn't realize that, yeah, one side might break the rules, but it's still important to follow them anyway? In fact, they wrote that into the Convention also.

This whole thread has been you talking nonsense about things you don't know. Like the FFL somehow not being a part of the Geneva conventions, or them not applying because of totally irrelevant things, things that were specifically outlined in the rules. Next time, just don't talk out of your ass please.

This is you misrepresenting the conventions and how old they are.

Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols

www.law.cornell.edu

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Conventions originate in 1864, but were updated in 1929 and then in 1949, so to say they were written after WW2, rather than 'updated', is you trying to spin bullshit.

 

[Zachowon]

I should point out that revenge killings are not technically war crimes.
Iirc reading the conventions.

 

[Marduk]

Eh, making no hostile motions and waving a white flag? That's pretty far from knowingly. Maybe it was an accident, but my guess is war crime. You're alone, you know no one's going to prosecute it this time, so you want to take revenge. At a minimum, a prosecution is necessary here.

This for one is very much gray area when regarding a fight with common use of perfidy.
Say, a classic of many wars, faking surrender while hiding a grenade with intent to suicide bomb the captors, or a classic of this one, suicide vests.
It is very much a case of "you better be right about making the call". But if you are right and the would be surrendered enemy goes up in a secondary explosion, obviously that's not a war crime. And if it happens regularly, it goes into very complicated and controversial territory.

The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law | Israel Law Review | Cambridge Core

The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law - Volume 51 Issue 1

www.cambridge.org

That was written with things like the French Foreign Legion in mind, or Volunteer Units not officially part of any nation. You know, uniformed combatants with international presence's.

It was not written with things like terrorist groups, criminal gangs, or pirates in mind.

So unless you want to count Hamas terrorists as a units of Iranian personnel, which there is an argument for and which is pretty close to reality, they are to be treated as terrorists, not uniformed combatants

You are half right.
Things like French Resistance in WW2 would generally be protected by that.
However, groups like Hamas, who regularly ignore laws of war, would have more limited legal status as unlawful combatants, which if you remember, was a term thrown around in many controversies in GWOT:

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Abhorsen]

The Conventions originate in 1864, but were updated in 1929 and then in 1949, so to say they were written after WW2, rather than 'updated', is you trying to spin bullshit.

You are the embodiment of Dunning-Kruger.

While yes, the first two conventions were written in 1929, Article 3, Convention 4, the relevant part, is obviously part of the fourth Convention. When was that written? 1949.

You are half right.
Things like French Resistance in WW2 would generally be protected by that.
However, groups like Hamas, who regularly ignore laws of war, would have more limited legal status as unlawful combatants, which if you remember, was a term thrown around in many controversies in GWOT:

Eh, but there is a section in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on how you can deal with an enemy that violates the rules of war. Basically, they get to surrender, but don't become a prisoner of war, just a prisoner (hence why Israel doesn't have to release Hamas prisoners post war, but Ukraine and Russia more or less will be required to once thats done).

 

[Zachowon]

You are the embodiment of Dunning-Kruger.

While yes, the first two conventions were written in 1929, Article 3, Convention 4, the relevant part, is obviously part of the fourth Convention. When was that written? 1949.



Eh, but there is a section in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on how you can deal with an enemy that violates the rules of war. Basically, they get to surrender, but don't become a prisoner of war, just a prisoner (hence why Israel doesn't have to release Hamas prisoners post war, but Ukraine and Russia more or less will be required to once thats done).

I mean, should I mention the vast amounts of war crimes the US has committed in regular war?
In GWOT things had a lot more video evidence so it is too hard to get away with and caused us to lose more people to fake suicides rhen anything else.

 

[Marduk]

Eh, but there is a section in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on how you can deal with an enemy that violates the rules of war. Basically, they get to surrender, but don't become a prisoner of war, just a prisoner (hence why Israel doesn't have to release Hamas prisoners post war, but Ukraine and Russia more or less will be required to once thats done).

They get to surrender, ideally, but...
And as the link from previous post demonstrated, there's a whole lot of potential ifs and buts to consider when determining if a surrender is valid or not, and probably some controversies about these rules to be found too.

Hypothetically, this situation could have been merely a tragic misunderstanding if the soldiers told the hostages to stay at a distance or go to a certain place to be safely checked for explosives, but they didn't listen, and they didn't listen because the soldiers said it in Arabic and didn't expect anyone who doesn't understand it to be encountered, and a surrender does not count if the surrendered do not obey the commands of the captors.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

By prosecuting those who did violate these rules, the Allies did, and Israel is showing that it is worthy of support. The moral high ground needs to be earned, not just taken for granted. In fact, that the USSR didn't should have been another sign that they were barbarous.

I would point out that Israel is prosecuting this as a rules of engagement violation, not a Geneva Convention war crime. Which is exactly in line with my argument -- an individual snap judgement shooting might not necessarily be a war crime, but a military whose rules of engagement permitted or encouraged such actions *would be*.

 

[willdelve4beer]

"Muh context" If we add context, Israelis breaking war crimes caused them to kill their own side.

Also, there's actually a clause in the Geneva conventions about applying the rules to people who break the rules (you've gotta still accept surrender, but then the person becomes a prisoner, not a prisoner of war), and also about how rules of war apply to non-state actors, including people in rebellion, etc.

Maybe next time crack open a book before shouting your rank ignorance to the world.

Also, again, the bolded part is irrelevant until it's known that these Hamas were committing perfidy. If they were so concerned, they could have demanded they strip.

The bolded part is completely irrelevant. The US didn't violate warcrimes when we fished kamikaze pilots out of the water. Israel can do the same.

Minor note, the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties, not a single document. As treaties are only binding upon signatories who have completed any domestically required ratification procedures, whether the treatment of irregular combatants, unlawful combatants clauses apply to Israel depends entirely on whether Israel signed and ratified that iteration of the underlying set of treaties.

Now, I don't know if they did or did not, but that should be something relatively simple to determine for those who are interested.

 

[Abhorsen]

I mean, should I mention the vast amounts of war crimes the US has committed in regular war?
In GWOT things had a lot more video evidence so it is too hard to get away with and caused us to lose more people to fake suicides rhen anything else.

Trust me, I'm no fan of the US behavior in the war on Terror either. The Abu Grahib people should have been executed, and probably caused the killing of more US soldiers than any terrorist post 9/11.

They get to surrender, ideally, but...
And as the link from previous post demonstrated, there's a whole lot of potential ifs and buts before its considered to decide whether a surrender is valid or not, and probably some controversies about these rules to be found too.

Yeah, this could end up being an accident as you described, I don't know at this stage. But Bacles position is completely untenable. It's not okay "because they thought it was Hamas". Them thinking it was Hamas is what makes it a possible war crime and not a regular homicide, in fact. That's my point.

Minor note, the Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties, not a single document. As treaties are only binding upon signatories who have completed any domestically required ratification procedures, whether the treatment of irregular combatants, unlawful combatants clauses apply to Israel depends entirely on whether Israel signed and ratified that iteration of the underlying set of treaties.

Now, I don't know if they did or did not, but that should be something relatively simple to determine for those who are interested.

Practically ever country, including Israel, has signed and ratified the 4 Geneva Conventions. Generally, the Geneva Protocols is where it differs. The part about accepting surrender of rebel soldiers who haven't signed the Geneva Conventions is in Convention 4.

 

[willdelve4beer]

Trust me, I'm no fan of the US behavior in the war on Terror either. The Abu Grahib people should have been executed, and probably caused the killing of more US soldiers than any terrorist post 9/11.

Yeah, this could end up being an accident as you described, I don't know at this stage. But Bacles position is completely untenable. It's not okay "because they thought it was Hamas". Them thinking it was Hamas is what makes it a possible war crime and not a regular homicide, in fact. That's my point.

Practically ever country, including Israel, has signed and ratified the 4 Geneva Conventions. Generally, the Geneva Protocols is where it differs. The part about accepting surrender of rebel soldiers who haven't signed the Geneva Conventions is in Convention 4.

Last I checked, a rebel soldier is required to be uniformed, have a recognized command structure, and be part of an organized military that demonstrates will and capability to adhere to the conventions themselves.

Near as I can tell, the Hamas folks fail at least two points of that test. Meaning that they are not rebels, but rather unlawful combatants. That doesn't mean that they have no rights under the conventions, but it does mean that the rules of engagement and right granted are looser and lesser, respectively, than those accorded to lawful combatants. I would presume that making reasonable efforts to accept genuine* surrenders fall within those required ROE.

All of which, is, from a practical/pragmatic sense, irrelevant.

The real issue for IDF/Israel is not the conventions themselves, which are globally honored more in the breach than in practice, but the optics. Shooting surrendering enemies reduces incentives to surrender. Shooting your own people / former enemy hostages, outright conflicts with one of the IDF's stated war goals. It makes their troops look sloppy, scared, and amateurish. Friendly fire incidents always reduce troop and home morale, and are taken as prima-facie evidence of incompetence. Given the environment the IDF is operating in, they, like Ceasar's wife, need to be beyond reproach, because they exist in a world which self-evidently will be happy to take any possible excuse to allow their enemies to succeed where Hitler failed. While the Samson option will ensure that the the IDF can enact vengeance against their murderers in this scenario, the isn't the goal. It is called the IDF, no the IVF for a reason.

*false surrenders are a warcrime too. As are attacks deliberately targeting civilians. As is hiding forces at civilians/medical facilities. As is using medical facilities to stage military supplies. As is torture. As is rape. As is stealing from civilians. etc.

 

[Abhorsen]

Last I checked, a rebel soldier is required to be uniformed, have a recognized command structure, and be part of an organized military that demonstrates will and capability to adhere to the conventions themselves.

Soldiers are required to do this. But rebel soldiers? Not so much. They also don't get most of the protections either though, but they do get a few.

Here's the relevant part:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
   • violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
   • taking of hostages;
   • outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
   • the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Basically, Hamas qualifies here. Crucially, there's a lack of obligation on Hamas to do basically anything, but note also, the complete lack of protection that Hamas gets. It's basically, "don't torture, don't summarily execute, don't take hostages." There's absolutely zero obligation to provide any medical care, and you can, in fact, execute the captured people after a trial (and the trial can be as simple as "Were you in Hamas? And if so, that's the death penalty.") Not quite a Kangaroo court but more an easy conviction and execution.

If Hamas were to actually go full Geneva Conventions (and there are ways to actually do this as a rebel group), they'd get far more rights and protections, but Hamas isn't interested in doing this.

And it's really important militarily to be known as accepting surrenders. It saves a ton of your own side's lives. And Israel knows how to safely accept a surrender as well, by ordering Hamas to strip so there aren't suicide vests. Quite frankly, you don't want people fighting until the bitter end. The ideal win is a massive Hamas wide surrender.

 

[Zachowon]

Trust me, I'm no fan of the US behavior in the war on Terror either. The Abu Grahib people should have been executed, and probably caused the killing of more US soldiers than any terrorist post 9/11.

Yeah, this could end up being an accident as you described, I don't know at this stage. But Bacles position is completely untenable. It's not okay "because they thought it was Hamas". Them thinking it was Hamas is what makes it a possible war crime and not a regular homicide, in fact. That's my point.

Practically ever country, including Israel, has signed and ratified the 4 Geneva Conventions. Generally, the Geneva Protocols is where it differs. The part about accepting surrender of rebel soldiers who haven't signed the Geneva Conventions is in Convention 4.

They are facing and enemy who does not care for laws of war and will do what evr to kill them.
Only way to win is to do the same