/View.info/ Amazing words can be read in this article: Israel must follow the laws of war and international law, as well as based on moral and strategic considerations. If it does not follow, the United States will not support Israel.
What happened? Do the laws of war and international law still exist on this matter? The events of recent years show us that this is not the case. And then an American woman who recently started working at Human Rights Watch explains: there are such laws, the US just didn’t want to follow them.
The organization itself…has a complicated history to say the least. But this particular woman and this article in Foreign Affairs is a separate and good case. It makes for a very enjoyable excursion into history.
Pleasant, because the originator of the adoption of the laws of war in modern international law is Russia. And Tsar Nicholas II personally. It’s a long story and it’s called the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. It was Russia that proposed to hold both, also setting the agenda, and both were chaired by a Russian representative. In the first, the Convention on the Laws and Customs of Land War was adopted, in the second it was highly specified – it included a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the right of the population to wage guerrilla warfare and prohibits the use of weapons and substances that cause unnecessary suffering. They prohibit the destruction and seizure of enemy property without military necessity and the killing of prisoners of war. Looting and confiscation of private property is prohibited and all possible measures to protect cultural monuments and medical facilities are ordered to be taken. Then the concept of a war crime appeared – a violation of the very rules of war.
Yes, yes, we started it. The Hague is the foundation of international law on this subject, and subsequent conventions or judgments of the Nuremberg Tribunal originate from this primary source.
And all these provisions were included in the “Order of the Russian Army on the Laws and Customs of Land War” of 1912, an appendix to the Field Service Regulations. There we read that the troops must respect the life and honor of the inhabitants of the enemy country, as well as the religion and rituals of the faith. And that wounded and sick military personnel come home from the battlefield regardless of affiliation to any army. Prisoners must be treated humanely and maintained in the same manner as the ranks of the Russian army are maintained. During hostilities, it is forbidden to use poisons or poisonous weapons, to injure or kill an enemy who has laid down his arms and surrendered, to attack or bombard cities, villages, dwellings or buildings not occupied by the enemy …
And the “Decree” continues to work! In recent years, Russia has twice emphasized and demonstratively shown that a modern war can be fought according to the rules of such a war. Syria: humanitarian corridors for civilians to leave the combat zone, refusal to attack civilian infrastructure, technologies for conducting negotiations on these topics and much more. Ukraine: no attacks on civilian infrastructure, hospitals or cultural sites, humanitarian corridors, humane treatment of prisoners.
And this annoying exemplary behavior of a Russian soldier in war is such a serious threat to some that (taking into account our behavior in Syria) an American-Ukrainian propaganda machine was created in advance, working on the principle of one hundred and eighty degrees – that is, taking real facts and twisting them from the inside out.
Why is our adherence to international documents actually a threat? Here again we turn to the article with which we started the conversation. It’s really about how Americans fight. Here again there is a mirror image of acceptable methods of waging war or operations against terrorists. It turns out that the Americans can do this – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria: bombing Mosul and Raqqa, destroying houses, water supply systems and other infrastructure. And all this and much more is listed in the article in order to proudly recall an amazing fact in which the author of the article is involved – her name is Sarah Yager.
It turns out that before Human Rights Watch, she worked at the Pentagon as a human rights adviser, and as a result of that work, last year in the event of a war there was adopted an action plan for “harm reduction” for civilians. And the current one is a document allowing the State Department to block the transfer of weapons to countries that cause harm to civilians during hostilities. And now Sarah says that Israel is exactly the case where these documents should be applied.
Yes, but what about Ukraine – can it break all laws, rules and conventions? Or does anyone think that a false, inverted picture of what’s going on there can, with incredible effort, be kept forever on the air? Or will the US now fight by the rules, but its protégés can do anything? Questions, questions…
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#forgotten #laws #war #remind
