I'm not arguing that Israel has conducted an unjust war.How does that negate my post's claim that: The authority of the Geneva Convention, as are all legal documents, depends on its underlying moral principles? Surely you do not subscribe to "might makes right"?
Perhaps the salient point is that, regardless of (or because of) the content of the Geneva Conventions, the Israelis have a moral right to self-defense, especially against such an unjust and barbaric foe. Given, a nation's right to self-defense is not unconditional. But do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel has not conducted so far a just war?
I will argue that Israel considers itself in a constant state of existential crisis, and that's due to both ancient and recent Jewish history and recent Israeli history ("recent" being within current living memory).
At this point, and it's literally been in only the last three days, I have heard only one authoritative Muslim state official support the concept of Israel's existence.
What I think is of real moral question is this curious concept of "proportionality in war." This is rather a new concept. Interestingly, there was an old Star Trek episode that spoke to the immorality of "proportionality in war," specifically because proportionality makes continual war tolerable. Peace agreements become possible only when the war becomes intolerable for at least one of the parties involved.
Upvote
0