" Geneva Conventions...distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians.
If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law,"
1. Doesn`t that mean then that an army can use civilians to their advantage, Falk is saying that if a military takes over a civilian area and uses the civilian area for military purposes it is still off limits for the opposing military. This is an absurd idea becasue when extrapolated universally for the obvious reason, that every military stronghold on both sides of a conlflict would fill its area with Civilians so that the opposing army couldn`t discern civilian from military and therefore would not be able to attack.
2. Why is that Hamas war crimes are only being discussed now?
Where does Geneva convention apply to siege can someone/Haaretz post more info about that one. |
|
