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
"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."