Comment by bawolff
2 years ago
> I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1]
I don't think anything in the grandparent post suggested that. If someone used to be a combatant and then ceased fighting, usually they then become a civilian. They don't stay a combatant for life. Reserve forces not on duty are not generally combatants. You have to be in the fight to be a combatant.
Things get more complicated with combatants who don't fully wear uniforms, which is why failing to wear a uniform is a war crime.
It should be noted this isn't so much the grandparent's personal opinion as they are just paraphrasing what the geneva convention says. However there is of course a lot more details to it then that and the devil is in the details.
[Edit: i think i read the post too quickly. The grandparent is incorrect when saying "[Civilians] also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.". If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian. It doesn't matter whether you are formally part of the armed forces. Civilians get protected because we want to protect the innocents stuck in the middle. People who are taking part in a war dont get that protection]
>If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian.
You're not a civilian while you're holding the gun, but you are once you stop shooting again: you lose your protection as a civilian during your period of direct participation. Should have been more clear on that.
It's probably also worth saying that -- while there's a degree of subtlety and complexity when considering the legal and moral position of Israel's armed forces -- there's very little to debate when it comes to actions like the Re'im music festival attack. That kind of action is obviously illegal and morally repugnant.
> while there's a degree of subtlety and complexity when considering the legal and moral position of Israel's armed forces
No, there is no such complexity. There are very obviously undebatable incidents of war crimes by the IDF. Like this footage from a drone who deliberately killed civilians in plain sight and trying to cover the bodies[1] and the IDF targeting aid workers in a location they knew about [2]. Also, there are widespread videos by IDF soldiers committing atrocities and crimes in Gaza and posting it on social media. That is hardly self-defense. This is obvious war crimes against civilians. Not to mention the mass starvation and carpet bombing of civilians. There is very little to debate, and denying them is immoral. You are just using a very old tactic of trying to minimize IDF crimes by claiming their position is complex. Remember the old say "Middle East is complex mess, let's just ignore what is happening there"
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/3/22/gaza-dr...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-world-kitchen-aid-worke...
The aid worker one is probably the most undebatable one, but it also just happened. How to judge it depends on what happens next. Part of the assumption of war is that it involves people, some of whom are going to be bad - The expectation isn't that a country is perfect, but that it takes steps to prevent war crimes and punish the perpetrators when it happens. We don't know yet whether or not Israel will charge the people involved in the aid worker bombing.
Some of the other things you mention have a lot of grey area, because whether or not they are a war crime don't necessarily depend solely on what happened, but on what Israel's intent was and what they knew at various points in time. Which is information that's hard to know from our vantage point. Some of them could be, but there is also potential that they might not be. Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
3 replies →
>No, there is no such complexity. There are very obviously undebatable incidents of war crimes by the IDF. Like this footage from a drone who deliberately killed civilians in plain sight
I don't think these things are as unequivocal as you suggest. I mean, you're assuming those people are civilians. Maybe they're not. Almost certainly we will never know for sure, and if you can't acknowledge that then you're not being objective.
1 reply →
Dropping the gun is not sufficient to claim civilian status. Military bases are full of soldiers that may not be armed, or even awake. That lack of a gun does not suddenly grant them civilian status.
That's not what I said: I said that civilians who engage in fighting lose protection as civilians. Members of armed forces, whether currently armed or not, are legitimate targets (with certain exceptions; like the wounded, those who have surrendered etc).