5 ms·

If it was not a terrorist attack and a war crime but a targeted operation against the militants, why wouldn't Israel claim responsibility for the successful ope

If it was not a terrorist attack and a war crime but a targeted operation against the militants, why wouldn't Israel claim responsibility for the successful operation?

olalonde 2y ago
What incentive would they have for doing so?
- sim7c00 2y ago
  countries i think don't comit acts of war randomly without annoucement or claim. This in itself would be borderline criminal, though i'm not sure if it's an actual thing noted in the geneva conventions. Those do state that any act of war should give an opportunity for retaliation. So in essence this is just as criminal as bombing people using armed drones, because these fighters did not have any opportunity to strike back.
  - flyinglizard 2y ago
    You're throwing "criminal" around without, I suspect, understanding the laws of warfare. Blowing enemy operatives isn't criminal (even if some civilians get hurt - within reason; here's the ratio of militants to civilians hurt is virtually unheard of, in a positive way). Bombing militants from above, whether by airplane or drone isn't criminal, and nothing in the laws of warfare claims you need to let the enemy an opportunity to strike back.
    - abalone 2y ago
      There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda. If an enemy had exploded small remote controlled bombs in American supermarkets and homes there is no question we would characterize it as a terrorist attack.
    - kombine 2y ago
      And my question stands, if this is legitimate warfare, why wouldn't Israel admit it carried out the attack? US does not hide that they eliminated Bin Laden. The answer is pretty obvious here.
      - olalonde 2y ago
        Do you believe that the attacks that Israel did claim responsibility for (e.g. attacks in Gaza) are legitimate warfare?
      - flyinglizard 2y ago
        Because that provides international legitimacy for retaliation by Hezbollah, even though everyone knows who did what. Same as the assassination of Ismail Hanyeh in Tehran.
  - olalonde 2y ago
    It's not random: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting for a while[0] and Hezbollah's mission is to eliminate the state of Israel[1]. I'm sure no member of Hezbollah is surprised that Israel would attack them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah
    - danbruc 2y ago
      Let's mention both sides, Israel wants the State of Palestine gone.
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        I would dispute that but also don't see the relevance to the conflict with Hezbollah.
        danbruc 2y ago
        This is all one conflict, it does not make sense to treat this as an isolated conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And it is dishonest [1] to portray the conflict as Israel resisting various groups that want Israel removed from the map and not mention that the Israel similarly wants Palestine removed from the map. And I am not sure how one can dispute this as the Israelis themselves say it. When the State of Israel was established, Ben-Gurion was hoping that Israel will eventually encompass all of Mandatory Palestine and today Netanyahu says in no uncertain terms that there is no room for an independent Palestinian state. And the actions in between do not paint a different picture either, whether it is the construction of settlements to further fracture the land or to support of Hamas in order to weaken the PLO. [1] This is not necessarily an accusation of the commenter I replied to, maybe they just deemed it unnecessary to mention. I think it is worth mentioning to not create a skewed image for people unfamiliar with the conflict, that is why I wrote my comment. However reading it again I have to admit that the wording is far from perfect.
      - Beefin 2y ago
charbroiled 2y ago
Israel has had a “no comment” policy for many years. Why? I can think of a few reasons. One is that some operations, if acknowledged by Israel, would trigger a proportionate response by the target, but if not acknowledged would allow the target to save face by downplaying what happened, if neither side actually wants war. That probably doesn’t apply to this case, but has occurred in the past. And no-comment policies are more effective when applied unconditionally.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
It seems to be just some sensible policy, but maybe also to let frivolous accusations, such as yours, hanging for bit.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hajile 2y ago
If a car bomb went off next to an IDF post killing a bunch of IDF soldiers and one 10-year-old kid, it would be declared a terrorist attack immediately. If this involved China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, or Russia planting bombs on Ukrainian soldiers, nobody would be debating whether it was a terrorist attack.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  It’s certainly a relief when polite society can recognize it that way. So, that ends one discussion but starts another. When foreign intelligence is tasked with, say, breaking laws and moral codes in Lebanon; it lives in the shade because we cannot distinguish it from terrorism or organized crime or a financial scam. It’s been this way for a long time and the debate nowadays is whether or not, on balance, we’re prevailing over evil.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Sometime in the 20th century, hot war killed more combatants than civilians and that’s mostly changed with drastic disproportionality. So, intelligence agencies have been forgiven because they describe themselves as non-combatants killing non-combatants to prevent civilian massacres. This explains a change in ideals mid-century.
ryaneager 2y ago
Because it was a terrorist attack and a war crime.

If it was not a terrorist attack and a war crime but a targeted operation against the militants, why wouldn't Israel claim responsibility for the successful operation?

olalonde 2y ago

What incentive would they have for doing so?

sim7c00 2y ago
countries i think don't comit acts of war randomly without annoucement or claim. This in itself would be borderline criminal, though i'm not sure if it's an actual thing noted in the geneva conventions. Those do state that any act of war should give an opportunity for retaliation. So in essence this is just as criminal as bombing people using armed drones, because these fighters did not have any opportunity to strike back.
- flyinglizard 2y ago
  You're throwing "criminal" around without, I suspect, understanding the laws of warfare. Blowing enemy operatives isn't criminal (even if some civilians get hurt - within reason; here's the ratio of militants to civilians hurt is virtually unheard of, in a positive way). Bombing militants from above, whether by airplane or drone isn't criminal, and nothing in the laws of warfare claims you need to let the enemy an opportunity to strike back.
  - abalone 2y ago
    There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda. If an enemy had exploded small remote controlled bombs in American supermarkets and homes there is no question we would characterize it as a terrorist attack.
  - kombine 2y ago
    And my question stands, if this is legitimate warfare, why wouldn't Israel admit it carried out the attack? US does not hide that they eliminated Bin Laden. The answer is pretty obvious here.
    - olalonde 2y ago
      Do you believe that the attacks that Israel did claim responsibility for (e.g. attacks in Gaza) are legitimate warfare?
    - flyinglizard 2y ago
      Because that provides international legitimacy for retaliation by Hezbollah, even though everyone knows who did what. Same as the assassination of Ismail Hanyeh in Tehran.
- olalonde 2y ago
  It's not random: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting for a while[0] and Hezbollah's mission is to eliminate the state of Israel[1]. I'm sure no member of Hezbollah is surprised that Israel would attack them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah
  - danbruc 2y ago
    Let's mention both sides, Israel wants the State of Palestine gone.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      I would dispute that but also don't see the relevance to the conflict with Hezbollah.
      - danbruc 2y ago
        This is all one conflict, it does not make sense to treat this as an isolated conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And it is dishonest [1] to portray the conflict as Israel resisting various groups that want Israel removed from the map and not mention that the Israel similarly wants Palestine removed from the map. And I am not sure how one can dispute this as the Israelis themselves say it. When the State of Israel was established, Ben-Gurion was hoping that Israel will eventually encompass all of Mandatory Palestine and today Netanyahu says in no uncertain terms that there is no room for an independent Palestinian state. And the actions in between do not paint a different picture either, whether it is the construction of settlements to further fracture the land or to support of Hamas in order to weaken the PLO. [1] This is not necessarily an accusation of the commenter I replied to, maybe they just deemed it unnecessary to mention. I think it is worth mentioning to not create a skewed image for people unfamiliar with the conflict, that is why I wrote my comment. However reading it again I have to admit that the wording is far from perfect.
    - Beefin 2y ago

charbroiled 2y ago

Israel has had a “no comment” policy for many years. Why? I can think of a few reasons. One is that some operations, if acknowledged by Israel, would trigger a proportionate response by the target, but if not acknowledged would allow the target to save face by downplaying what happened, if neither side actually wants war. That probably doesn’t apply to this case, but has occurred in the past. And no-comment policies are more effective when applied unconditionally.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

It seems to be just some sensible policy, but maybe also to let frivolous accusations, such as yours, hanging for bit.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hajile 2y ago

If a car bomb went off next to an IDF post killing a bunch of IDF soldiers and one 10-year-old kid, it would be declared a terrorist attack immediately. If this involved China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, or Russia planting bombs on Ukrainian soldiers, nobody would be debating whether it was a terrorist attack.

ttyprintk 2y ago
It’s certainly a relief when polite society can recognize it that way. So, that ends one discussion but starts another. When foreign intelligence is tasked with, say, breaking laws and moral codes in Lebanon; it lives in the shade because we cannot distinguish it from terrorism or organized crime or a financial scam. It’s been this way for a long time and the debate nowadays is whether or not, on balance, we’re prevailing over evil.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Sometime in the 20th century, hot war killed more combatants than civilians and that’s mostly changed with drastic disproportionality. So, intelligence agencies have been forgiven because they describe themselves as non-combatants killing non-combatants to prevent civilian massacres. This explains a change in ideals mid-century.

ryaneager 2y ago

Because it was a terrorist attack and a war crime.