Microblog Memes

8148 readers

2837 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

271

German confusion (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

This section of ~~the Geneva Convention~~ international law. does not apply to a belligerent occupying force. Which is what Israel is.

The line "Israel has the right to defend itself" legally does not apply to Gaza or the West Bank.

Also, quoting someone to illustrate what they actually said does in no way mean that one agrees.

Well the Greens are still voting to send weapons to the genocide. So it really doesn't sound like they disagree with Israel to me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

Wrong, see Article 2.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Yes it triggers article 51

an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn't a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn't apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

Also note that I'm not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You are right I confused the Geneva Convention for international law there i will correct it.

Edit: apparently the other poster switched trom international law to Geneva Convention which caused my confusion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There are different coventions and signatures. There's the Geneva Convention, ICC, UN Charter and much more.

Here's a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law..

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-legal-study2023/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Second%2C+where+a+belligerent+occupation+follows+from%2Cproportionality%2C+the+resulting+occupation+may+become+illegal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.

Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.

Hence my confusion about your confusion.

Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…

TL;DR.

Again, I wasn't agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn't a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)