With all respect, no. As you will see from a brief look at Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Convention III, the only “parties” to the agreement are the “High Contracting Parties” that have actually executed and ratified the document. The use of the phrase “High Contracting Parties” with three capitalized letters indicates that it has a specific definition limited to those nation-states that have signed it. There is no serious debate about the fact that Hezbollah as an entity is not a party to the Geneva Conventions. That puts us back to the analysis in my last comment.

Israel is attacking the sovereign territory of Lebanon. Hizbullah is recognized by parliament as a military force (regardless of what everyone knows) of the government. Even though you and I know that this dispute is between Israel and Hizbullah, not Israel and Lebanon (per se) isn’t the international community for purposes of the Convention forced to see Hizbullah as a “party” to the agreement?

Sorry - you are certainly incorrect. Spock said it to Kirk immediately after the briefing about the peace initiative at the beginning of the film long before Chaing entered the picture. Since I just saw the movie again about a week ago, I am absolutely sure about it.

As for the rest of your critique, I am not disagreeing with your analysis. Everything you say is true. It troubles me however that most of the commenters here don’t recognize the moral trap they’ve set for themselves. Should it really matter what others do? I would prefer being true to my own self, my own moral code rather than going against that code just because no one else follows it.

You are incorrect. I think there are at least two problems with your analysis.

First, Article 2 of Convention III sets forth the situations in which the Convention applies. It states, in relevant part, as follows:

“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

Of course, Hezbollah is not a party to the Convention. Thus, Israel would only be bound by the Convention with respect to Hezbollah “if [Hezbollah] accepts and applies the provision thereof.” I think we can all agree without going into the truly gory details that Hezbollah has never accepted or applied any provisions of the Geneva Convetion. Thus, it is clear from Article 2 alone that Convention III does not apply with respect to captured Hezbollah terrorists.

Second, you misapply Article 4 Section 1. Lebanon is not a “Party to the conflict.” Thus, it is irrelevant whether they consider Hezbollah to be a legitimate militia forming “part of [the Lebanese] armed forces.” Moreover, even if Lebanon did become a “Party to the conflict,” I don’t think it is credible to suggest that Hezbollah is a militia that is “part of [the Lebanese] armed forces.” That would fly in the face of the fact that the Lebanese armed forces have been totally unwilling or unable to control the southern part of Lebanon. If Hezbollah were truly part of the Lebanese armed forces, such a situation would not exist. Simply because Lebanon might say that Hezbollah is a militia that is part of the Lebanese armed forces does not make it so. Such a conclusion would also fly in the face of the U.N. resolution stating that Hezbollah must be disarmed. Further, it flies in the face of the details of the most recent proposals by the Lebanese prime minister, which included an offer to send in Lebanese troops to serve as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel.

Comments please.

The Geneva Convention allows such captured illegal combatants to be summarily executed in the field.

It is by the grace of the Jewish G-d that they were allowed to live.

The Geneva Convention is a document much quoted but read by almost no one. It is very long. It is detailed. I have read it. Israel had the right to kill every captured terrorist.

Rick Moran Said:
6:28 pm

There’s an old Vulcan proverb:

“Only Nixon could go to China…”

Ummmm, not to be a jerk, but that line was uttered by Christopher Plummer as the Klingon bird-of-prey commander General Chang in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Other than that, I am not sure I agree with you about Israel’s decision to parade the captives. No one else will play by the rules, and when Israel does, she’s still pilloried. Whether it is stooping down to the level of savages may be debated, but my take on this is that Israel has decided to dispense with the niceties and play hard-ball. This is Israel’s signal that they too can as ruthless, and that maybe the time has come to be so.
In the ST episode “Mirror Mirror”, Spock remonds Kirk that he was able to discern the differences between the Kirk of his universe from the other was because “Civilized men can act like savages, but savages can never act like civilized men.”

Gotta say I’m disappointed in your analysis. Any prisoners the muzzies take are kept alive only as long as they meet the demands of enemy propaganda. After they’ve served their purpose, they’re dead.

The CP has informed his brother - who is scheduled to deploy to the sandbox next month - to keep a grenade handy at all times. And in the event he’s taken prisoner, pull the pin and take out as many of the enemy as possible.

Regards,

-the Canine Pundit

http://caninepundit.blogspot.com/

It is unfortunately true that Israel will be damned no matter what, and I would also think that they understand their opponents and the locale better than us. Remember how stupid we all thought it was that Saddam claimed he won the Gulf War when he got his clock cleaned? And yet his ridiculous claim to be a lion was largely accepted in the area because he had stood up to the Great Satan and survived.

Maybe we should be asking them for advice instead of criticizing them.