Attacks on Soldiers Under Geneva Convention
Further to my posts about the distinction between attacks on soldiers and on civilians, with the former not terrorism though an act of war, Daniel e-mailed as follows:
Attacks purely on border guards, even if not terrorism, would still also be (and is) a violation of "international law" -- which under the Geneva Conventions, requires all combatants in war to be uniformed and clearly identifiable as combatants (i.e., distinguishable from civilians). This is a rule that exists not to help the opposing army, but to protect the civilians or non-combatants -- who should not be endangered by virtue of being suspected of being a combatant.
I agree, though this would apply to actions by Irgun attacks on British soldiers too, so wouldn't distinguish between Palestinian actions and Jewish pre-state actions, which was the subject of my disagreement last week with Mobius.
posted on 8/17/2004
