If we're gonna have a curious conversation I must say that I don't understand the distinction between civlians and non-civilians (combatants?).
Isn't the whole point of war to kill the enemy's civilians and destroy their infrastructure, so that their nation can't support a standing army to defend whatever natural resources the attacker wants in the first place?
I wonder if there is any example from history, modern and not, where an invading army simply disabled the inveded nation's standing army and then just ... turned around left.
Or if there is any example where a nation was occupied and the civilian population did _not_ take arms, meaning that at least some of the civilians turned into combatants.
In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants, in war. If it's illegal to kill enemy civilians, then it should be illegal to kill enemy combatants, too. After all, why should we value the combatants' lives less?
Of course, making it illegal to kill enemy combatants would effectively make war illegal. Well, yes. I can't see how war can still be legal in the current stage of our civilisation. I don't understand how we can still accept that some of us will kill others, destroy their homes and take their stuff. I don't understand how that can be seen as ethical, let alone legal.
"Dispense with the war, learn from the past" - Sodom, Ausgebombt.
There is some point at which a nation's "self-defense" is pertinent, although in reality that self is both composed of many people and nebulous to reason about. If people unjustly attack, it's not like saying "Hey! Stop violating international law!" is going to work. Of course, the supposed good actors should try their best to not cause war (in this case, Israel is not so innocent), but if war arrives unbidden on your doorstep, don't let them destroy your house and kill you.
> In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants
The morale of the fighting force is a big reason. Most people have souls. Most people fighting in modern offensive wars are not doing so by choice.
Can you not imagine yourself being conscripted and forced to fight in a war? Do you seriously believe that in that position, you would not distinguish between an enemy combatant with a weapon and a parent fleeing with their child?
Isn't the whole point of war to kill the enemy's civilians and destroy their infrastructure, so that their nation can't support a standing army to defend whatever natural resources the attacker wants in the first place?
I wonder if there is any example from history, modern and not, where an invading army simply disabled the inveded nation's standing army and then just ... turned around left.
Or if there is any example where a nation was occupied and the civilian population did _not_ take arms, meaning that at least some of the civilians turned into combatants.
In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants, in war. If it's illegal to kill enemy civilians, then it should be illegal to kill enemy combatants, too. After all, why should we value the combatants' lives less?
Of course, making it illegal to kill enemy combatants would effectively make war illegal. Well, yes. I can't see how war can still be legal in the current stage of our civilisation. I don't understand how we can still accept that some of us will kill others, destroy their homes and take their stuff. I don't understand how that can be seen as ethical, let alone legal.
"Dispense with the war, learn from the past" - Sodom, Ausgebombt.