Just had a quick look at Article 52 of the Geneva Convention, and from what I can see as long as the intel is solid regarding military use of a building, then it’s a legitimate target. It’s only dodgy if you aren’t sure of the use.
Interesting for an Israel supporter to raise international law. You know that occupation and annexation, forced removal of the local population and replacing them with your own population are all prohibited under international law right? And that the occupied population has the right to resist by any means, including violence? So why would you call Palestinian resistance to occupation terrorism then? It’s very much legitimate use of violence then, under international law.
Just had a quick look at Article 52 of the Geneva Convention, and from what I can see as long as the intel is solid regarding military use of a building, then it’s a legitimate target. It’s only dodgy if you aren’t sure of the use.
Interesting for an Israel supporter to raise international law. You know that occupation and annexation, forced removal of the local population and replacing them with your own population are all prohibited under international law right? And that the occupied population has the right to resist by any means, including violence? So why would you call Palestinian resistance to occupation terrorism then? It’s very much legitimate use of violence then, under international law.