6 ms·

It's downvoted because it's the definition of proportional. 3g of explosives personally handed to the most senior leadership of your enemy and with enough expl

by dijit 2y ago

It's downvoted because it's the definition of proportional. 3g of explosives personally handed to the most senior leadership of your enemy and with enough explosive force that 98% of people who had them attached to their person survived is the very definition of restrained and targeted. Certainly not "indiscriminate".

ibejoeb 2y ago
Am I misinformed, or was 3,000? They are the most senior 3,000? When you send out 3,000 explosive into the general population, how do you mitigate the collateral damage? I truly don't know the answers here. I'm under the impression that they all detonated simultaneously, so I'm keen to infer that there was very little thought given to civilians unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. Man. Blasting off fingers and genitals is really something...
- dijit 2y ago
  Were they not hand-delivered to Hezbollah? All the information I have seen indicates that they were handed to Hezbollah and distributed by Hezbollah for the intent purpose of avoiding Israeli intelligence services.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.
    - dijit 2y ago
      And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?
      - lm28469 2y ago
        You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
        dijit 2y ago
        Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
        dijit 2y ago
        Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).
cultureswitch 2y ago
Stuffing explosives into civilian appliances is the definition of indiscriminate. If doing this isn't already banned by the Geneva Conventions, it is only because it wasn't practical to do. But then again, very little that has happened in this region during the last 80 years has been following any international law.
- dijit 2y ago
  hardly, pagers might be accessible by the population, but hand delivered pagers distributed by a terror organisation are not exactly the same. Panasonic Toughbooks are technically available to the civilian population, but booby trapping a shipment of them that would be delivered to the US military would be a pretty sophisticated military strike. Hardly indiscriminite even if people took them home.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > hardly, pagers might be accessible by the population, but hand delivered pagers distributed by a terror organisation are not exactly the same. Over god knows how many months you don't think they would spread ? You don't think a dad would gift a pager to his kids or wife to stay in touch ?
    - dijit 2y ago
      No, I don't. If the US military gives you a laptop, you don't give it to your kids for schoolwork.
      - scbrg 2y ago
        Not all organizations work as the US military. Or even as a US company. I know nothing about Hezbollah, but there's a widespread opinion on HN that any equipment you get from "work" can absolutely only be used by yourself in said work environment. That's really not the case in all cultures, everywhere. At my previous job, management clearly told us that we could use computers & printers for any personal activity, including paid side jobs, as long as we didn't compete with the company and didn't go completely overboard with the printers (personal judgement). Not every organization is hostile to its employees/members. I'm guessing Hezbollah is not comparable to the US military in many respects, and assumptions that hold true for the US military may not hold true for any other military or paramilitary group. That said, I don't have particularly strong opinions about this attack, and I certainly do not support Hezbollah in any way. But this "it works like this here, therefore it works like this everywhere" mentality is a hindrance to understanding the situation - any situation.
lm28469 2y ago
> It's downvoted because it's the definition of proportional. Two wrongs don't make a right... are we really at that level of brain activity on HN of all places ? this is schoolyard level You can have proportional terrorism, proportional war crimes, proportional crimes against humanity. Proportionality doesn't tell you much, it certainly doesn't tell you anything about it being indiscriminate or not > Certainly not "indiscriminate". Cool, go tell that to the two kids who died: https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0918/1470609-hezbollah-israel/ https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0918/1470609-hezbollah-israel/ Also feel free to read the actual texts defining these things, detonating explosives in supermarkets is indiscriminate by nature, there is just no way around it if you're in good faith : https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 Both sides are clearly operating out of the boundaries we defined for conventional wars, is it really that hard to accept ? They're not even trying to hide it really... such a strange allergic reaction to these basic facts
- nahumfarchi 2y ago
  Proportionality is at the center of defining a war crime. "The principle of proportionality (Article 51(5) (b) API) states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage." https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanitarian-law/ihl-principle-proportionality/ https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanita... So, the case that Israel has to make here is that the expected millitary advantage from the operation exceeds the collateral damage. The fact that civilians died doesn't automatically make it a war crime from an international law point of view.
  - mempko 2y ago
    I don't believe those children who died care about definitions. In fact they don't care much about anything anymore since they are dead.
    - dijit 2y ago

by dijit 2y ago

ibejoeb 2y ago

Am I misinformed, or was 3,000? They are the most senior 3,000? When you send out 3,000 explosive into the general population, how do you mitigate the collateral damage? I truly don't know the answers here. I'm under the impression that they all detonated simultaneously, so I'm keen to infer that there was very little thought given to civilians unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. Man. Blasting off fingers and genitals is really something...

dijit 2y ago
Were they not hand-delivered to Hezbollah? All the information I have seen indicates that they were handed to Hezbollah and distributed by Hezbollah for the intent purpose of avoiding Israeli intelligence services.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.
  - dijit 2y ago
    And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?
    - lm28469 2y ago
      You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
      - dijit 2y ago
        Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
        dijit 2y ago
        Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).

cultureswitch 2y ago

Stuffing explosives into civilian appliances is the definition of indiscriminate. If doing this isn't already banned by the Geneva Conventions, it is only because it wasn't practical to do. But then again, very little that has happened in this region during the last 80 years has been following any international law.

dijit 2y ago
hardly, pagers might be accessible by the population, but hand delivered pagers distributed by a terror organisation are not exactly the same. Panasonic Toughbooks are technically available to the civilian population, but booby trapping a shipment of them that would be delivered to the US military would be a pretty sophisticated military strike. Hardly indiscriminite even if people took them home.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > hardly, pagers might be accessible by the population, but hand delivered pagers distributed by a terror organisation are not exactly the same. Over god knows how many months you don't think they would spread ? You don't think a dad would gift a pager to his kids or wife to stay in touch ?
  - dijit 2y ago
    No, I don't. If the US military gives you a laptop, you don't give it to your kids for schoolwork.
    - scbrg 2y ago
      Not all organizations work as the US military. Or even as a US company. I know nothing about Hezbollah, but there's a widespread opinion on HN that any equipment you get from "work" can absolutely only be used by yourself in said work environment. That's really not the case in all cultures, everywhere. At my previous job, management clearly told us that we could use computers & printers for any personal activity, including paid side jobs, as long as we didn't compete with the company and didn't go completely overboard with the printers (personal judgement). Not every organization is hostile to its employees/members. I'm guessing Hezbollah is not comparable to the US military in many respects, and assumptions that hold true for the US military may not hold true for any other military or paramilitary group. That said, I don't have particularly strong opinions about this attack, and I certainly do not support Hezbollah in any way. But this "it works like this here, therefore it works like this everywhere" mentality is a hindrance to understanding the situation - any situation.

lm28469 2y ago

> It's downvoted because it's the definition of proportional. Two wrongs don't make a right... are we really at that level of brain activity on HN of all places ? this is schoolyard level You can have proportional terrorism, proportional war crimes, proportional crimes against humanity. Proportionality doesn't tell you much, it certainly doesn't tell you anything about it being indiscriminate or not > Certainly not "indiscriminate". Cool, go tell that to the two kids who died: https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0918/1470609-hezbollah-israel/ https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0918/1470609-hezbollah-israel/ Also feel free to read the actual texts defining these things, detonating explosives in supermarkets is indiscriminate by nature, there is just no way around it if you're in good faith : https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 Both sides are clearly operating out of the boundaries we defined for conventional wars, is it really that hard to accept ? They're not even trying to hide it really... such a strange allergic reaction to these basic facts

nahumfarchi 2y ago
Proportionality is at the center of defining a war crime. "The principle of proportionality (Article 51(5) (b) API) states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage." https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanitarian-law/ihl-principle-proportionality/ https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanita... So, the case that Israel has to make here is that the expected millitary advantage from the operation exceeds the collateral damage. The fact that civilians died doesn't automatically make it a war crime from an international law point of view.
- mempko 2y ago
  I don't believe those children who died care about definitions. In fact they don't care much about anything anymore since they are dead.
  - dijit 2y ago