Indeed the Geneva Convention doesn't apply which means lots of things are on the table that otherwise wouldn't be. This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
I'm guessing these Catholics from Northern Ireland were British citizens, right?
This is something between separatism and civil war (although much closer to the former than the latter).
A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons, similarly to what Egypt did when they controlled Gaza.
A significant portion of Gaza's population today is descended from Egypt, they even speak with the Egyptian accent.
And majority of the advanced weapons were smuggled via Egypt.
But I would say two things: First, not only Catholics were targeted during the Troubles. If tear gas is used to dispel a riot then it not only those involved on both sides but also anyone down wind from it. My mother lost her eyesight from tear gas related injuries because she had to walk past a flash point daily on her return from work.
Secondly, while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
no need to point obvious things
> not only Catholics were targeted
In case everyone were targets, and not just separatists - then it's closer to civil war. It only shows how cruel Brittish were (or still are), and all the double standards with regards to Israel.
> while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
Granting citizenship to people in breakaway separatists regions is the strategy employed by Putin. Russia first grant them citizenship, and then uses this as a pretext for military invasion in order to protect their newly acquired "citizens".
Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic, but granting citizenship to foreign people in confict areas is still problematic.
> A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons,
This did actually happen, but the other way around. The British settled citizens en masse in Ireland and provided them with weapons. This was called the Ulster Plantation. Even today many people in the North of Ireland speak with a dialect derived from the Scots language.
Interestingly, Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor in Jerusalem, was recorded to have said that the Balfour Declaration’s purpose was to form a “little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” [0]
> Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic
No, and I think the comparison is a little unfair. It's true that these things can be abused tactically but it's not always the case.
0: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/winston-churchill-s...
Interestingly, while in some western/highland parts of Britain, Celts kept their language, but adopted Anglicanism as a religion, in most of the Ireland they kept their Catholic religion, but adopted English language, and only in some western parts of Ireland kept both.
Anyway, if we go back to medieval times, then we can also talk about Arab and Ottoman colonization of Israel.
---
[1]. Israel condemns London's Ulster plantation project after private colonisation contract was awarded by the Queen
And to further this, historical and current Israeli restrictions on West Bank Palestinians and authorization and promotion of Israeli settlers seem like exactly the playbook one would run for crypto-annexation.
I think if we want to make comparisons, an important difference is that Gaza has been existing in a limbo where Israel insists it's a sovereign territory because Israel withdrew from it but also insists it's part of Israel because they want to control its borders and what goes in and comes out of it.
Also, in addition to everything that happens in Gaza, Palestinian Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank have also been targeted by Israel despite Hamas being largely confined to Gaza.
The Geneva Convention is (currently) humanity's best attempt at codifying ethical aspects of war. Unfortunately, it is not some lofty goal to aspire to. Oh no. It is the result of discussion and compromise. In other words, it literally is the lowest possible ethical standard we agreed to hold each other to. We should strive to do better, not worse.
Therefore: all of the Geneva Convention applies, always, to everyone.
Taking your line of thought to the ad absurdum will result in: "No one should ever be punished nevermind atrocities they have committed."
The Convention clearly states to whom it applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Application
So-called "international law" is not really a law, but only a set of political treaties. In addition, the jihadists and other bad actors do not recognize it.
Japan killed 2403 Americans at Pearl Harbor, to which the US retaliated by killing over 2 million Japanese, with more than 100 thousands in a single day.
So don't tell me about "conventions" that apply to some and don't apply to others. It's not some Law of Physics. It's a man-made stuff, invented by corrupt politicians.
If the international treaties do not work - they shouldn't be treated as written in stone - instead they should be changed and adapted to the realities of the modern assymetric wars. And also everyone should be treated the same - no double standards, otherwise nobody should recognize them.
We program the world through incentives, positive and negative. Malicious agents must be disintensivized/punished, and if that doesn't work - destroyed.
Except it only applies in certain circumstances, and doesn't apply in the current conflict.
Most of them are illegal combatants and none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them.
Also, there is documented evidence that even their "civilian civilians" participated in atrocities, not to mention that a significant portion of them elected and supported terrorist "government".
I'm guessing that the so-called "civilian combatants" in these reports are people who are on the payroll of a terrorist organization, such as police officers, security guards, tunnel builders, etc. - anyone who helps/supports the terrorist "government", but may not be 100% militants by themselves. I.e. like the difference between a regular support soldier and a special forces.