- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
the Geneva convention should be modified to define acceptable engagement versus an enemy who engages in illegal guerrilla war.
It seems to me that Israel is being held to an impossible standard, because there is no standard of engagement when your enemy launches attacks from civilian areas, doesn't wear a uniform, etc, etc. These things are illegal under Geneva, but Geneva doesn't exactly spell out any alternatives, other than to sit back and wait to die.
-- Renegade Iconoclast
Actually, the conventions do specify exactly who is to blame for civilian deaths in these circumstances, it's the group neither in uniform and firing from civilian areas.
The real problem isn't what's laid out in the Conventions, it's how they are written. They really only address combat between armies.
While technically by law, Hamas is to blame for any civilian deaths caused by retaliation by their attacks. It's not as if there are non-civilian areas in Gaza either. Plus, if there were, it's not as if in open combat Hamas stands a chance.
The Geneva conventions need to be reworked to address none State actions, but won't be exactly easy, because many States fund non-States groups to further their agenda. They like the status quo.
