re: #40 Randall Gross

Same paper, different article justifying the IDF skirting of the Geneva convention.

[Link: www.jpost.com…]

They seem to have become quite a bit more sanguine than I recall from previous conflicts.

Uuh, I see an article making the point that a civilian installation, appropriated for military purposes, becomes a military target.
That’s not wingnuttery, that’s a generally accepted doctrine.
See art 52 of that very protocol mentioned, just for example:

…military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

What exactly about the article you’re quoting is so objectionable?
As far as I can see it aligns pretty well with what I was taught in intl. law classes.