7 ms·

This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and ho

This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and how's is quite interesting, keeping international law in mind while talking about the attack seems important. - "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-protocol-ii-1996/article-7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p... [2]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-protocol-ii-1996/state-parties https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p...

orwin 2y ago
Yeah, it's the definition of a terror attack. 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.
- myth_drannon 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tptacek 2y ago
  A terror attack definitionally targets civilian noncombatants, deliberately.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Not necessarily. The attack on USS Cole is considered a terror attack despite its explicitly military target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
  - orwin 2y ago
    No, a terror attack is an attack that create a fear amongst noncombatants in order to push political objectives. 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 https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's the definition of a terror attack 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?
  - orwin 2y ago
    Yes it is, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism > 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.
docdeek 2y ago
[flagged]
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? 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?)
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/394822229 https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 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
rougka 2y ago
This is not "the literal Geneva Convention" but rather a UN convention held in Geneva. Does it apply to unlawful combatants?
underseacables 2y ago
I didn't realize Hamas and Hezbollah were wearing clearly identifiable uniforms. They're terrorists so nothing applies.
- kreyenborgi 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tdeck 2y ago
  Israel is the #1 terrorist in the region by any intellectually honest definition of the term. This article is about a terrorist attack by Israel that injured many civilians. And let's not forget when Israeli soldiers dressed up as doctors to murder someone lying in a hospital bed.
- arp242 2y ago
  > They're terrorists so nothing applies. "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.
sottol 2y ago
Not taking sides on the attack, but, wow, you ommited half the text - important in this context: "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."
- OzFreedom 2y ago
  Why am I not surprised
- CodexArcanum 2y ago
  Please elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Weeks out, with more facts settled, it does appear that this was one of the most (if not the most) precisely targeted attacks in the history of modern warfare, measured either by ratio of combatants to noncombatants injured, or by the measures used to target it (which included creating a fake pager distributor that sold legitimate pagers to legitimate sources and selectively delivered compromised pagers specifically to Hezbollah, which used them on a private military network it fought a civil war in Lebanon to maintain). 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.
    - jjfoooo4 2y ago
      That they are capable of this level of precision but choose not to use it in Gaza seems to imply that destroying and depopulating Gaza is the military goal there.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

orwin 2y ago

Yeah, it's the definition of a terror attack. 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.

myth_drannon 2y ago
[flagged]
tptacek 2y ago
A terror attack definitionally targets civilian noncombatants, deliberately.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Not necessarily. The attack on USS Cole is considered a terror attack despite its explicitly military target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
- orwin 2y ago
  No, a terror attack is an attack that create a fear amongst noncombatants in order to push political objectives. 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 https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism).
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it's the definition of a terror attack 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?
- orwin 2y ago
  Yes it is, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism > 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.

docdeek 2y ago

[flagged]

krisoft 2y ago
> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? 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?)
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/394822229 https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 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

rougka 2y ago

This is not "the literal Geneva Convention" but rather a UN convention held in Geneva. Does it apply to unlawful combatants?

underseacables 2y ago

I didn't realize Hamas and Hezbollah were wearing clearly identifiable uniforms. They're terrorists so nothing applies.

kreyenborgi 2y ago
[flagged]
tdeck 2y ago
Israel is the #1 terrorist in the region by any intellectually honest definition of the term. This article is about a terrorist attack by Israel that injured many civilians. And let's not forget when Israeli soldiers dressed up as doctors to murder someone lying in a hospital bed.
arp242 2y ago
> They're terrorists so nothing applies. "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.

sottol 2y ago

Not taking sides on the attack, but, wow, you ommited half the text - important in this context: "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."

OzFreedom 2y ago
Why am I not surprised
CodexArcanum 2y ago
Please elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Weeks out, with more facts settled, it does appear that this was one of the most (if not the most) precisely targeted attacks in the history of modern warfare, measured either by ratio of combatants to noncombatants injured, or by the measures used to target it (which included creating a fake pager distributor that sold legitimate pagers to legitimate sources and selectively delivered compromised pagers specifically to Hezbollah, which used them on a private military network it fought a civil war in Lebanon to maintain). 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.
  - jjfoooo4 2y ago
    That they are capable of this level of precision but choose not to use it in Gaza seems to imply that destroying and depopulating Gaza is the military goal there.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]