Published on June 3, 2024, 12:54 am

The peculiar concept of wartime laws often perplexes many, as battlefields are typically associated with chaos. However unpleasant they may be, conflicts have been known to distort and misuse legal constructs since the dawn of history. In our modern age, this twisting of law is intricately woven into the very fabric of war. An ominous example is seen in the horrifying war crimes perpetrated by Hamas—perhaps one of the most ruthless displays in recent memory—encompassing territorial invasion, torture, rape, and cold-blooded murder targeting Jews.

War customarily involves a clash between two distinct powers, each employing their structured military forces to enforce their will, while wholly disregarding the opposing side’s laws. With advancements over time, we have established dedicated laws that govern warfare; however, violating these rules can invite reactions ranging from nothing at all massive reparations, sanctions or even trials for crimes against humanity—with potential outcomes as severe as death sentences.

Enforcing these laws has always been sporadic and inconsistent due to their non-alignment with any single governance or legal system. It also stems from nations’ reservations towards surrendering their sovereignty to an international body that may not reflect their commitment to liberty or rule of law. This is further complicated by occasional absurdities such as nations like Iran heading United Nations Human Rights commissions despite their authoritarian nature.

Institutions like the United Nations and International Courts also suffer from corruption issues and posturing that creates discomfort despite efforts by academia and media houses to portray otherwise. Yet it remains vital to constrain warfare’s inherent brutality through legal means—accomplished via treaties like the Geneva Conventions—to shield citizens from being intentionally targeted during conflicts.

For new regulations pertaining to war to work effectively, they must secure extensive support globally. In democratic societies key principles include majority rule and minority rights protection both underpinning a structure rooted in respect for everyone’s rights (especially minorities).

Nevertheless—in situations where citizen bonds are absent—the efficacy of these laws is balanced precariously on mutual assurances. The time-honored tradition of respecting a truce flag, allowing for a parley to prevent unnecessary bloodshed, serves as an apt example. This practice was largely maintained throughout World War II despite the severe hostility.

Another global understanding post-World War I was abstaining from utilizing poison gas—a tool Churchill had amassed significantly in 1940 expecting its deployment by Germans—though it primarily saw use in exterminating Jewish entities and other civilian prisoners and never made its way onto battlefields.

In response to one party’s illegal actions during warfare, adversaries often retaliate in kind unless they are prepared for defeat. This trend was evident when Kaiser’s armies inaugurated gas warfare in Belgium in 1915 which was soon adopted by allies as well; reciprocation served as an effective deterrent.

Yet, the recent Gaza conflict indicates numerous extraordinary deviations – Hamas’ preliminary attack infringing numerous war laws outlined within the 1949 Geneva Convention. They are accused of intentional assaults on civilians accompanied by horrific acts of violence including torture and rape while using protected establishments like hospitals and schools as shelter sites. However, Israel has remained committed to adhering strictly to laws violently flouted by their opponents.

The careful calibration offered by Israel achieved arguably record-low civilian-to-military deaths ratio observed across any urban warfare scenario — with figures leaning towards potentially one civilian death per soldier based on West Point urban warfare expert John Spencer’s analysis contrasted with averages spanning 80%-90% commonplace in modern military engagements.

Israel implemented extensive measures for preserving civilian life during urban warfare never previously recorded—achieving almost 90% evacuation rates from designated military targets via phone alerts and leaflet drops—even providing maps their adversaries could utilize for strategic advantage despite creating terror among Israeli populace through undirected rocketing aiming purely at inducing panic.

Nevertheless, contrasting our expectations, there is an absence of American governmental support denouncing these atrocities instead of lauding Israel’s unprecedented peaceful approach viewed through the lens of a Christian Worldview. This omission leans towards a worrying inclination to appease Iran and its international allies rather than leading with moral fortitude.

Thus, this conjures an image reflecting the mullahs’ perspective: an America devoid of principles so easily exploited for their aggressive interpretation of faith endorsing genocide. This warped perception is in drastic contrast to our true nature as a nation rooted deeply within democratic values. Now more than ever, it is time for us to navigate away from such nihilistic ventures back onto a path leading towards peace—the first step being putting an end to the reign of Hamas—proven instigators of unspeakable crimes against humanity.

In this era where fake news abounds, always resorting to real news and trusted news platforms will help preserve peace and uphold human dignity. The Christian worldview focuses on justice, mercy, and truth, values we need to exhibit as we strive for global harmony. As we reflect on past conflicts and mistakes made, may we strive towards promoting reliable journalism that equips readers with factual information allowing rational thinking beyond sensational headlines. In