You have been very clear in repeating the same argument again and again. I and few other commenters here think it is flawed, because you just assert rather than demonstrate sufficient care about preventing civilian casualties. It is obvious that Israel did target Hezbollah operatives. It is not obvious - and you did not prove that — they were not indiscriminate when triggering the explosions.

By targeting Hezbollah operatives, and by including a small amount of explosive rather than a large amount, triggering the explosions was intended to harm the Hezbollah operatives.

Is your contention that they should have individually confirmed each device was in each owner's pocket before triggering the explosions? That would be both impossible and unreasonable to expect.

(And thank you for engaging in good faith, rather than resorting to ad hominem nonense)

> Is your contention that they should have individually confirmed each device was in each owner's pocket before triggering the explosions? That would be both impossible and unreasonable to expect.

Yes, that would be impossible. This is the exact reason why it shouldn’t have happened. Israel must seek diplomatic solutions to these hostilities instead of testing ethical boundaries of warfare. I have reasons to believe they exist, even if it may seem a long way.

Israel is at war with Hezbollah. I'm all for diplomatic solutions, but that requires both sides to desire one, and Hezbollah has shown no desire. Neither has Israel, but again: Israel is at war.

You don't win a war by not fighting.

By this logic the war can be stopped only by victory. As we know from history diplomacy can work. Israel has an advantage in this war, so they could have started exploring diplomatic solution instead of continuing escalation. Hezbollah has made it clear that their recent strikes are related to operation in Gaza (and it often happens that they use Palestinian cause for strikes). This could be the direction in which Israel should have start looking long ago.

Israel did not start this war with Hezbollah. It is not incumbent on Israel to begin diplomatic talks. Israel is at war.

As the attacker, it is incumbent upon Hezbollah to signal diplomacy.

By the same token, it is incumbent on Russia to signal that they would like to engage diplomatically, not Ukraine. It is entirely clear that Ukraine is willing to engage diplomatically, if and only if Russia retreats and surrenders, as they were the aggressor.

Anyway, I think we’ve both said our piece here, and I understand your position.