I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.

One of the users in unpopularopinion thread was complaining about someone calling him a “fascist”

https://feddit.uk/comment/17531487

In response I did paste a screenshot of his comment claiming IDF are not using human shields, it is Hamas who do that:

https://feddit.uk/comment/17529782

… And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.

  • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    Geneva:

    to render […] military forces immune from military operations

    With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.

    The source you are discussing:

    […] to make sure they were clear of bombs and gunmen

    It is a human shield walking into a house in case there are bombs or gunmen in the house, in order to render the military forces outside immune from military operations.

    They either force the bombs to explode or gunmen in the house to open fire on the civilian, thereby exposing the gunmen to counter-fire with minimized risk to the military personnel, or they force gunmen to avoid opening fire at all.

    Just because you dress the civilian in military fatigues does not change this. They are human shields.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      My understanding is that the correct interpretation of that is you’re not allowed to, for example, strike military targets with missiles if there are civilians around. If one then doesn’t fight fair, they can abuse this by intentionally placing military infrastructure near civilian buildings - even schools and hospitals - knowing that this will, at least to some extent, deter the enemy from striking. In other words, using civilians as human shields.

      In my view, what’s being described here is a violation of Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” - which, let’s not forget, is equally evil and indefensible.

      • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        Rendering immune from military operations also involves posing civilians as military personnel for the purpose of distracting enemy combatants and drawing their fire. Think the Joker’s plan from the Dark Knight - if you put fake guns and fake uniforms on civilians for the purpose of having the enemy attack them instead of the real target that is a human shield.

        They are not serving. That is conscription, and would involve arming the personnel or otherwise having them perform the expected duties of military personnel. They are being placed unarmed intentionally in the line of fire in a way that military personnel would never be used, so they are not being forced to serve.

        • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          They are not serving.

          Fair point - can’t really argue with that. I guess it counts then. I was wrong.