"unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences."
What isn't captured in these threads but should be obvious to anyone looking 150 miles south is that conventional warfare, as conducted by every military power in the world, kills children and noncombatants in vastly higher numbers.
Use this attack to disqualify Israel's reckless and militarily pointless continued campaign in Gaza. Clearly, they had the capability not to conduct warfare the way they are there. Or, if you like, to condemn all warfare worldwide. But the attempt to single out the pager/radio attack as distinctively amoral is unpersuasive.
Israel has spent 18 years fairly convinced that Hamas isn't a major threat and that Hezbollah is, so most resources were spent on preparing for war with Hezbollah. This is maybe even mostly correct.
That means Israel was far more prepared to attack Hezbollah, and it shows.
If the US were ever attacked by Russia, it has battle plans in place. If it were attacked by Argentina, I don't think it has nearly as many plans/assets/intelligence/etc. So a counterattack on Argentina would have to look very different.
(Though of course this mostly explains the initial response, and as you say, is far less convincing one year in!)
What Israel's leadership did here goes beyond not caring about civilian lives in Gaza. They cynically abetted Hamas's strategy to sacrifice those lives in a bid to start a world war that would bring on the end times, knowing that Hamas was absolutely batshit crazy and would thus keep Palestinians permanently destabilized.
Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
That's fair enough, many Israelis feel likewise. You shouldn't mistake me for liking the Israeli leadership either.
That said - Hamas played a game of pretending to be appeased, and it worked. I agree that Israel has been absolutely immoral over the last 18 years, though I think the bigger problem was closing off avenues for peace and not (as Israel should've done as the stronger party) aggressively pushing for peace.
That said - I do wonder what you think Israel should've done differently. Because to address Hamas earlier would've meant invading Gaza years ago. Certainly Israelis can and are upset that its leaders let Hamas build up so much strength, but do you think anyone in the world would've had any sympathy for Israel had it done a ground invasion to root out Hamas fifteen years ago? Even after October 7th there was barely sympathy to root out Hamas.
Who do I blame for this situation? There's a lot to go around. Certainly, I do not come out thinking Koresh's Branch Davidians were the victims. I am also not so much interested in the percentage of blame allocated to each culpable party; they're all awful.
But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
In your scenario, if the governor of Texas had decided not to make space for the cult, and had instead rooted them out, I don't think anyone would've been upset. But do you honestly think that if, after Hamas won the elections in Gaza and kicked out the PA, that Israel had decided to invade Gaza and fought with Hamas - without direct provocation - do you think in that scenario people wouldn't be just as upset at Israel?
I say this as a Netanyahu-hating leftist "peace-advocate" (mostly). I think most of us would've been upset at the "war-mongering" Netanyahu in that situation. That's why I hard on this - it's a self-criticism as much as it is a criticsm of others. The truth is, pre-emptive war might've been the correct move against Hezbollah and against Hamas, but I honestly don't think anyone would've been ok with Israel doing it. Do you think otherwise?
They could have not actively worked to foster the networks in Gaza that became Hamas in order to both split Palestinian opposition and have a less sympathetic, more extremist, more Islamic opposition to deflect international pressure to make peace with the Palestinians.
Also, the explosives used were weak such that most people near them were maimed rather than killed. Meaning, it is reasonable to assume that alternative methods of eliminating the Hezbollah operatives, such as airstrikes or a ground invasion, would end up with a significantly higher civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio than what we saw with the pager attack.
A lot of German civilians were killed during World War 2. Would you have preferred handing the Germans all of Europe to prevent that? As others have noted, reality is significantly more complex than theoretical ethics. Often times your choice is not between right and wrong, but between wrong and somewhat less wrong.
Actually, it's the other way around. This is covered by very rudimentary theoretical ethics. [0] The trolley problem has never been justification to cause harm to innocent people. It focuses on "impossible" binary choices in which either decision leads to innocent people being harmed. But reality is not a false dilemma. There exists a spectrum of choices that can be made, not just two. It's not "kill innocent Palestinians" vs "allow Jews to be killed".
Israel is a colonial apartheid state. The entire conflict has been manufactured from the beginning in order to establish Western supremacy in the Middle East. Now the colonial imperialist US government is supporting Israel in a genocide in order to secure its colonial presence. Tim Walz literally let it slip during the VP debate that this is about "the expansion of Israel". The UN is by and large condemning Israel for its role in this genocide, the ICC prosecutor considers Netanyahu a war criminal. [1] There is absolutely no moral justification for this, and I urge you to not be a victim to the Western military industrial complex's propaganda machine. This is a modern-day Holocaust and if we're lucky, history will remember it as such.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
We have the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Jews are quite able to protect themselves there. Israel isn't the only place. I liked Ari Shaffir's light-hearted retorts to Howie Mandell on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNieyWrZ0c (Jimmy Dore commentary on their segment)
> I consider them righteous.
This is arguably why Israel exists at all: "righteous" Christian fundamentalists including Harry Truman himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elQGTyqx2x8
This paragraph doesn't require proactive measures be taken to protect civilians. It just suspends its own restriction on booby-trapped items if there is a military objective.
It has 3 sections. Section 1 looks like this:
> 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:
and then lists 10 categories that include a wide variety of things, such as internationally recognized protective signs, dead people, children's toys, kitchen utensils (not in military locations), animals, and several others.
Then there is section 2, which the person above quoted:
> 2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.
That is the entirety of section 2. Finally there is section 3, which I'm going to quote in full:
> 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
> (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
> (b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences.
So..., #1 and #2 both prohibit a bunch of booby traps. Then #3 says that it is prohibited to use weapons covered by this Article (so everything in #1 and #2?) in places with a lot of civilians unless certain precautions are taken.
If this means that the #2 items can be used in civilian areas if those precautions are taken, does it mean the same for the #1 items? With #3 being a separate section I'm not seeing how it can be limited to just modifying #2. It does say "weapons to which this Article applies".
That would result in some truly weird restrictions. It would mean for example that I cannot booby trap a corpse except in the case where I'm placing it in a place with civilians and have either placed it close to a military objective or taken measures to keep civilians from tripping it. If I wanted to place that booby trap in some remote area where only military is around I'd run afoul of #1 without the #3 exception to allow it.
It would make sense if it is an additive thing. If I say booby trap a corpse I might be charged with a violation of #1. If I do that in a civilian area I might additionally be charged with a violation of #3 unless I took the precautions listed in #3.
Regarding anything Israel/Palestine related, nuance and good faith left the chat a long time ago.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in the race so I might be missing many details and nuances
If Israel boobytrapped military equipment to be used by the uniformed soldiers of the Iranian military, that might fit the section you highlight. Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it.
You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition.
> Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it.
That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases where this was argued it was about the rights granted to prisoners of war. (That is, do the members of these organisations when captured count as prisoners of war? Should they be granted the same kind of protections?)
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003
> This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity.
Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, The Regular Armed Forces, Uniforms, and Prisoner of War Status In: Prisoners of War in Contemporary Conflict. Edited by: Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003
His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield.
This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org.
I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege...
That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/
> Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.
I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.
In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
> The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis.
Both above quotes from the West Point link.
Another view:
https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t...
> Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties).
Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.
Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?
I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article.
https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/
> Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934
> Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced.
What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.
Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
I can see why many may not care about that. I can also see that you do care about this topic and appreciate the discussion.
I am glad we aren't using mustard gas today, like we did in World War I. America caught some flak for using shotguns versus Nazi Germany in trench warfare in World War II, which was apparently outlawed at the time. Did the ends justify the means? I don't really like that framing because it denies combatants dignity, whether or not we agree or disagree about whether or not a specific law of war should apply in a given circumstance.
Laws of war such as these are not likely enforceable given the limited targeted use of the pagers, but that doesn't mean that laws weren't violated. Furthermore, it represents an escalation of sorts on the Israeli side.
I guess I'm trying to reason about your position. Do you find that the pagers don't constitute booby traps, or that Israel isn't bound regardless of whether or not they are booby traps? Or do you find that due to the international non-state actor target of the pager strike, that it logically follows that Israel is not violating any applicable law or treaty because the target isn't themselves party to the same laws? Help me understand your view and position.
> He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
> Friedrich Nietzsche
Per these links, Israel and Lebanon are bound to Amended Protocol II to my reading:
https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conv...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Tra...
(If you want to reply and find that the 'reply' button is missing, click the timestamp of this comment to reply directly.)
1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention.
2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces
3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition.
If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative
2. Intelligence agencies don't get POW protections, so that point is not really relevant. Treaties bind you, even if your enemy is not similarly bound.
3. If the targeted assassinations with booby trapped pagers didn't have civilian casualties, I might agree, but in this case, I don't.
I tend to agree with you that the outcome was about as good as could be expected, and likely much better than could be achieved with traditional munitions. However, the escalatory effect of using booby traps, legal usage/legal target or not, is not ideal.
2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex
3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.
About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.
Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation
2. I linked why both Israel and Lebanon are both bound? Not sure why it would matter whether it's international or not, but it crossed borders, so to me it seems clear.
3. I agree, it was an amazing feat, and minimal casualties considering the impact. Also, due to suspected/impending exposure of pager operation, there was no time to delay without exposing the operation for no impact. It was a massive military/intel win for Israel, and I can't think of a more deserving target. I don't take any joy in the civilian casualties, but I'm not sure that was even a factor due to the potential imminent exposure to the operation, and they already decided to put the operation in motion. At that point, no real compelling reason not to follow through.
I agree with you that it was entirely unsurprising that something would happen involving disrupting continued strikes. I'm more surprised that we found out as much as we have in the original post than I am surprised that it happened.
While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)
The POW rights issues do have considerations for the actions of you and your enemy, and whether either are non-state organizations or members of such, etc.
The booby trap clause is simply equally binding against all signatories, regardless of who you are employing booby traps against, and regardless of whether or not you or the target is or isn’t a non-state organization or member thereof.
I honestly feel like this whole conflict has been on a repeated loop since second intifada in 80s, mostly due to Israel not wanting a one or two state solution on Israel’s side, Palestinian government or representatives not wanting their trade or money to have to flow through Israel, and everyone else trying to keep the current 40 year loop on repeat because it is a useful wedge issue for political bargaining. It’s like Henry Kissinger knew that the delicate balance of terror was the least-bad outcome, and now we are unable to break free of adversarial approaches to the conflict due to the continuing hostilities on all sides.
The status quo sucks for all involved, but all involved think that it would be worse for their team if there were peace in the Mid East, so no one is interested in broader peace process beyond immediate Palestine-Israel conflict, which itself is a covert proxy war between Israel and rest of Mid East, which itself is the overt proxy war proper between Israel and rest of Mid East.
Does it apply to unlawful combatants?
can afford clearly identifiable uniform -> soldier, treat like any other Polo opponent
scruffy-looking -> terrorist, treat like vermin
"Nothing"? So not even basic human rights? Or what are you saying?
Also both Hamas is de-facto the government of Gaza, and Hezbollah is kind of a "state within a state". They do terror attacks, yes, but a lot is also just about the boring business of running a bureaucracy.
The really bad part is how lauded the Mossad was for it's 'precision' by the western media. Geneva convention violations, random children killed because Hezbollah militant were shopping/walking nearby, really 'precise'...
On the other hand killing only 5 children for two hundred opposants, and not at least twice as much is proof that Mossad is a hundred of time more precise than tsahal. But maybe that's a low bar.
Easy example: Attacking a hospital that healed an enemy combatant is a terror attack, even if you missile is very precise and only kill the combatant and people sharing his room. You didn't aim for civilians, but your goal with this attack is to coerce civilians (doctors and nurses here) into refusing to heal combatant again, using fear. That's the definition. In both the French dictionary, and britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism).
No, it's not. We don't have to twist the definitions of prohibited acts of war for a war to be deplorable. Legal warfare is still horrendous.
> random children killed because Hezbollah militant were shopping/walking nearby, really 'precise'
To be clear, if those same targets were hit conventionally--by air-launched missile, for instance--that would somehow be better?
> terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
They want to push the non-Chia in Lebanon against the Chia, probably hoping for an organisation like "Phalanges Libanaises" to come back and restart the civil war. If a new civil war start, it will be the second Israel deliberatly started in lebanon (yeah, the "Phalangistes" did the massacre, but the Mossad actually planned it and gave the target (mostly palestinians btw). This time it will be harder though.
- "2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material."
[1]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p...
[2]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p...