You are right in tha aspect that terrorism doesn't care about excuses (at least externally, it needs to justify its actions to its "follower base" though).

I have an intuition that the grandparent tried to express someting like:

Now Hezbollah has a motivation to attack Hungarian interest in the EU.

Which I'd simplify as something more concerning for me, as a Hungarian: Now Hazbollah has motivation to attack Hungarians.

The terrorists didn't need an excuse to put bombs in pagers. The person you were responding was talking about the Hezbollah, though.

Mr Nasralla, sign off.

Please just leave the site if you're going to attempt to drive discourse this way.

You might not enjoy this, but Hezbollah are classified as a terror organisation by the EU and the Arab League; the IDF have certainly acted deplorably in many scenarios and the situation with Israel is tense, however they are classified as a legitimate sovereign military, they wear military uniforms as would be expected by the Geneva conventions and identify themselves.

I think "needing an excuse" flies out the window when we're discussing the most sophisticated, targeted attack ever conducted in any kind of warfare.

Attacking senior leadership of an organisation that is a threat to your existence, has been carpet bombing sections of your country, does not identify itself as an active military via uniforms and hides in the population- while simultaneously minimising civilian casualties to 1-- is pretty much the definition of "reason" and "restraint".

Lest not forget that these devices were hand-delivered to terrorists, it's about as targeted as it gets.

This is definitely not the hill to die on when discussing Israels crimes.

EDIT: Downvoting without commenting? You know you have indefensible positions, cowards.

> Hezbollah are classified as a terror organisation by the UN

That is not true. Lots of countries and organizations consider them a terrorist organization, but the UN isn’t one of them.

Ah, quite right, I mean the EU, apologies.

> As of October 2020, Hezbollah or its military wing are considered terrorist organizations by at least 26 countries, as well as by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party.[374]

> The countries that have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization include: the Gulf Cooperation Council,[375] and their members Saudi Arabia,[376] Bahrain,[377] United Arab Emirates,[376] as well as Argentina,[378] Canada,[379] Colombia,[380] Estonia,[381] Germany,[382] Honduras,[383] Israel,[384] Kosovo,[385] Lithuania,[386] Malaysia,[387] Paraguay,[388] Serbia,[381] Slovenia,[389] United Kingdom,[390] United States,[391] and Guatemala.[392]

The EU doesn’t consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization either — only its military wing. Much like people who considered the Provisional IRA to be terrorists but not Sinn Féin.

It's a shame that Hezbollah do not wear uniforms, a war crime[0]; because then it would be clear that these are military officers, and thus terrorists by that definition.

Or is your statement that the people targeted were not military? Or... what's your point with this comment?

[0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65

Pretty bold to cry about war crimes while defending the actions of Israel.

Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.

I'll tell you now: I'm becoming more radicalised the more I see the absolute state of discourse here; it's not only polarised: it's completely asymmetric.

It seems that it's not even possible for people to consider that the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening, and to condemn both parties for the actions that they take, understanding that it's not equivalent in all areas.

> Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Israel is an ally we supply with munitions and the other side is acknowledged to be a terrorist militia and therefore we support their destruction. Of course we expect Israel to adhere to a much higher standard than Hezbollah, right?

I think (hope) you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Hezbollah members shouldn't be held accountable for violations of the law of armed conflict. It's just that nobody believes the problem of Hezbollah is going to be solved in a court or with diplomacy at this stage.

> the Islamic side

If you feel the need to worry about the religious angle you really ought to differentiate between Sunni and Shia when talking about Lebanon in particular, given the unique characteristics of their demography and politics. Although I don't know where you're going with that.

> I'm becoming more radicalised

Fantastic.

> Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.

If you look at it binary then both sides committed atrocities, war crimes, and generally acts of terror. If you look at the magnitude though one stands out.

> the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening

Attempts to defend either are weak, nether is defensible really. But defending the side that took it orders of magnitude further with explanations like well the other side "had a part" are absolutely gross and reminiscent of explanations for certain atrocities a certain European country committed 80 years ago because "they" knew what they did to deserve it right? "They" also had a part to play.

I agree with this sentiment, actually; it's not binary, there's no "both sides", we have to take each atrocity in the context in which it's presented and dispassionately dole out justice. Ideally based on an even field of understanding about what the rules are and without taking personal preferences into account.

But I think we disagree on a core tenet: that magnitude is a precursor to understanding who belligerents are.

If that was the case then during all history, the winning side would always have to be the bad guy, no matter who initiated hostilities or how warfare was conducted.

Sure bud.

Truly a scathing intellectual response.

I will never recover.

I didn't have any point other than pointing out that your claims were incorrect.

Separately, I do think it's funny when people try to justify Israel's actions by reference to international laws or norms, as if Israel cares. They would still have done this even if they were the only country in the world that considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Just like they're (practically) the only country in the world that considers the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem to be legitimately part of their territory, their occupation of the West Bank to be legal, their permanent air and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal, and so on. They don't appear to care about international norms at all.

It's harder to hold them to account when their combatants aren't held to similar standards.

It's a very solid defense to say "well, if we're being attacked by a non-military force that breaks the rules, then what choice do we have".

If they were being attacked by a military force that followed the Geneva conventions it would be easier to drum up anti-Israel support internationally for an intervention.

So, sorry to say it; but it's a fair criticism to say that one side is even more flagrant of the rules: why should Israel even bother trying to abide them?

Remind me, what actions by their enemy combatants force Israel to allow civilian Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank?

None, that's an easy condemn act.

Here I am to condemn it, I have even written to my MEP regarding that topic.

I wasn't asking you to condemn it, I was using it as an example of my claim that Israel doesn't care about international law or norms, even in cases where you can't possibly use "but our enemy violates them too" as a justification.

It doesn't matter if they care or not truthfully, because international relations are supposed to hold them to account.

Thats why we sanction Russia and Iran.

Israel needs to be friendly with the west because it is surrounded by hostile nations. But those nations are making things harder for the rest of the world to intervene.

"EU and the Arab League"

EU does not classify Hezbollah as a terror organisation, only its military wing.

Who was attacked?

My understanding was that it was exclusively military leaders and that the pagers were handed out specifically to combat Israeli surveillance.

Israel is the terrorist here

Please keep the conversation somewhat technology related. Seething about Israel making a dunk on Hisbollah is more suited for Reddit or similar.

Good reminder about avoiding low quality posting but also we aren't supposed to compare hn posts to reddit. I've done that too, and been reminded not to.

Its called war. Traditionally militaries have always despised spies but the results speak for themselves. No standard operation could ever have been so discriminatory or so effectively minimised the risk of collateral damage. Nor could they have disabled so many enemy soldiers so cheaply and most importantly of all, without putting a single troop at risk.

So nasty but effective. I think Israel should at least get some credit for minimising the risk of innocent bystanders getting injured. They could have made a bigger bomb.

Didn't a child die in these explosions?

That doesn't invalidate any of my points. A 10:1 ratio of militant to civilian deaths would be impossible to acheive using any conventional method. Unless you are arguing the acceptable number of civilian deaths in war is zero i'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.