The Geneva Conventions laws were built around the idea that while War is hell, War is also inevitable. The purpose was to provide a framework around the way war can be waged while trying to limit the atrocities committed while it is happening. Providing protections to prisoners of war and civilians in combat zones is beneficial to both sides because without those protections in place, it leads to an circle of escalation by both sides’ armies against those not actively engaged in combat against you (i.e. army A kills civilians, army B kills civilians asl retaliation, army A’s soldiers mistreat POWs as retaliation, army B’s soldiers no longer accept surrender from Army A in battles and executes those surrendering, etc)
So yes, admitting war is inherently barbaric and uncivilized. But that doesn’t do anything to help prevent the fact that war crimes happen in war. The goal of defining war crimes isn’t to make them something other that barbaric and uncivilized. It’s simply to try and set a soft limit on the level of crap an organized military can and/or should do to non combatants in order to facilitate a quicker end to the conflict instead of needing to eliminate every last living member of the other side in order to declare victory.
Those same conventions also have clauses around the usage of civilians to defend military targets. These same clauses make Israel’s strikes in fact not war crimes by the same Geneva Convention that people love quoting.
Also, another thing you have wrong. The Geneva convention isn’t as much laws as an agreement between countries, and more of a suggestion to other countries not part of it.
The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.
It’s the first line of the Wikipedia page. They’re laws because they are enforceable, and you have a trial for those that have violated those laws.
The Geneva Conventions laws were built around the idea that while War is hell, War is also inevitable. The purpose was to provide a framework around the way war can be waged while trying to limit the atrocities committed while it is happening. Providing protections to prisoners of war and civilians in combat zones is beneficial to both sides because without those protections in place, it leads to an circle of escalation by both sides’ armies against those not actively engaged in combat against you (i.e. army A kills civilians, army B kills civilians asl retaliation, army A’s soldiers mistreat POWs as retaliation, army B’s soldiers no longer accept surrender from Army A in battles and executes those surrendering, etc)
So yes, admitting war is inherently barbaric and uncivilized. But that doesn’t do anything to help prevent the fact that war crimes happen in war. The goal of defining war crimes isn’t to make them something other that barbaric and uncivilized. It’s simply to try and set a soft limit on the level of crap an organized military can and/or should do to non combatants in order to facilitate a quicker end to the conflict instead of needing to eliminate every last living member of the other side in order to declare victory.
Those same conventions also have clauses around the usage of civilians to defend military targets. These same clauses make Israel’s strikes in fact not war crimes by the same Geneva Convention that people love quoting.
Also, another thing you have wrong. The Geneva convention isn’t as much laws as an agreement between countries, and more of a suggestion to other countries not part of it.
It’s the first line of the Wikipedia page. They’re laws because they are enforceable, and you have a trial for those that have violated those laws.