8 ms·

Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countri

• tptacek 11mo ago
  Another really detailed analysis of what happened and the law-of-war implications was posted downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46227273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46227273
• UltraSane 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  • alexander2002 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    • sysguest 11mo ago
      idk isn't pager operation the textbook example of "trying to avoid civilian deaths" while getting your job done? why is it "genocide"? is becoming hezbollah determined at birth? is hezbollah a race? does average civilian use walkie-talkie? even if hezbollah was a race, after its civilian attack on 2023 (beheading babies, raping and killing even foreigners), I wouldn't even care about what those guys get (also, don't say "humanity" like you represent the whole "humanity") if you ARE talking about palestinian civilians, I don't think israel can do anything more gentlemen-ly to them other than pager-operation: the other option is carpet bombing and direct invasion (which is a completely another topic)
      • alexander2002 11mo ago
        The pager operation is illegal according to international laws. I think you should ask ICJ on way it has designated Isreal response as genocide.
        • sysguest 11mo ago
          well if you know, then you can say here?
        • richardfeynman 11mo ago
          The ICJ has not said Israel's response is a genocide - not in Lebanon, which is what this thread is about, nor in Gaza. “…the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim… it did not decide — and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media — it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.” - ICJ head President Donoghue
        • UltraSane 11mo ago
          So were the many thousands of rockets Hezbollah fired at Israel civilians between Oct 7 2023 and the pager attack but no one cared about those either.
      • lode 11mo ago
        First of all, you are conflating Hamas and Hezbollah. Second of all, the stories about beheading of babies and mass rape on October 7, 2023 have been thoroughly debunked. Third: the pager operation caused indiscriminate explosions at places where non-combattant citizens were present. Not very gentlemen-ly (to use your words), and indeed a war crime. Fourth: What they did in Gaza is arguably worse than carpet bombing.
        • UltraSane 11mo ago
          But the hundreds of concert goers who Hamas killed is very true. Remember how they paraded the broken body of that young German woman around like a disgusting hunting trophy?
    • UltraSane 11mo ago
      screaming "genocide" like this has become a cliched thought terminating cliche.
      • cess11 11mo ago
        Well, if that stops your thinking, maybe ponder the illegality of the israeli occupation of palestinian territory then. The israelis must withdraw their people from palestinian territories occupied in -67 and ought to pay reparations for both the occupation and destruction of property, as well as allow refugees to either return to their homes or pay reparations to them. Unless they do this immediately the international community ought to assemble an international military force and invade the region and put an end to the US-Israeli atrocities. Which is unlikely since they're both expected to use nuclear weapons in response to justice.
        • raxxorraxor 11mo ago
          [flagged]
          • cess11 11mo ago
            And East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. I'd also argue that the occupations of Lebanon and Syria are illegal, and that taking control over the Philadelphi corridor was an act of war against Egypt. If you think such crimes of occupation and aggression are "very much needed", then I'll have to consider you morally impaired beyond the ability to take part in a reasoned discussion.
            • raxxorraxor 11mo ago
              > crimes of occupation and aggression are "very much needed" You intentionally warp statements. At this point I am just here to disagree with you.
            • UltraSane 11mo ago
              Israel Isn't occupying Lebanon Hezbollah is
    • dlubarov 11mo ago
      ICJ has made no such finding. They will probably making a ruling on genocide allegations in the coming years; they certain have not made one yet. The opinions they've issued so far are here https://www.icj-cij.org/decisions https://www.icj-cij.org/decisions
      • cess11 11mo ago
        ICJ found the accusation plausible, and did later in another case conclude that the israeli occupation of palestinian land and apartheid is not lawful and must stop. Whether ICJ had found genocide perpetrated or just plausible does not matter very much since international law demands that even the risk of genocide triggers state action to put an end to that risk. The ICJ judgement regarding plausibility also made demands towards Israel, which that state has refused to comply with. Starving a population of millions and systematically destroying their homes and infrastructure does not become jolly fine and dandy just because some court hasn't yet deemed it genocidal.
        • dlubarov 11mo ago
          > ICJ found the accusation plausible This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly that the plausibility finding was about the existence of these rights, not the occurrence of genocide [1]. Noone is saying things are "jolly fine and dandy", but it's important to stick to facts when making such accusations. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
          • cess11 11mo ago
            What would the implication of this nitpick be, in your opinion? Wasn't a consequence of this conclusion that the court ordered Israel to change its behaviour because it has an obligation to prevent genocide?
            • dlubarov 11mo ago
  • cess11 11mo ago
    The northern settlements were largely evacuated and used by the IDF. The party to this conflict that systematically targets civilians is the state of Israel. One could make the argument that the US and Israel committing genocide makes paramilitary action against them legal, since the US controls the UN security council through their veto power. Right now Israel is an occupying power that systematically destroys civilian infrastructure and threatens an international force in Lebanon, making it permissible to fight back.
    • UltraSane 11mo ago
      "The northern settlements were largely evacuated and used by the IDF." This is a complete and utter lie. Hezbollah's missile attacks throughout 2024 led to the evacuation of over 60,000 Israeli residents from northern Israel. Try to imagine the US response to Mexico shooting that many missiles at a US city. "Israel is an occupying power" Israel isn't occupying Lebanon but Hezbollah is. " making it permissible to fight back." This is exactly what Israel did so brilliantly with the pager attack.
      • cess11 11mo ago
        Close to a hundred thousand israelis were evacuated from the north at the peak of it. Out of thousands of attacks something like 45 israeli civilians were killed, like when the IDF brought civilians to repair power lines and Hezbollah attacked them. More IDF soldiers were killed between October 2023 and the so called ceasefire agreement, which makes it quite clear that Hezbollah practiced restraint in this regard. I still agree with e.g. HRW that Hezbollah did not do enough to protect civilians, but adjacent to the crimes of the IDF it's a rounding error. IDF discplaced something like 1.5 million people in Lebanon, many of whom still aren't allowed to return to their homes and those that try are commonly murdered, and similarly those that try to repair their homes have their equipment destroyed or are killed. Recently Israel bombed a parking lot filled with bulldozers and excavators and the like, to halt reconstruction in Lebanon. Claiming that one of the largest parties in lebanese politics "is an occupying power" is insane. Israel is building military facilities in Lebanon and controlling territory, as well as attacking both Beirut and the Beqaa valley every now and then in violation of the so called ceasefire agreement. Courtney Bonneau has been reporting for a long time from the area, https://xcancel.com/cbonneauimages https://xcancel.com/cbonneauimages .
  • justin66 11mo ago
    > Not a single person criticizing the pager bombs mention the reason for the operation. I'd enter into a conversation like that assuming the other parties in the conversation were aware there was a war going on.
• N19PEDL2 11mo ago
  I have questions about the concept of legality in a war like the one between Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel. The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other, with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give. But does it still make sense to talk about legality and international treaties when on one side there is a terrorist organization whose method of warfare consists of kidnapping or killing civilians? At this point, doesn't complying to international treaties only mean further endangering their own population? Important note: I don't want to spark a debate for or against Israel's actions, but simply to better understand the real sense of applying international treaties and conventions in a war like this.
  • verteu 11mo ago
    Yes, humanitarian law explicitly applies to enemies who do not, themselves, follow it. It's called [non]-reciprocity: "The obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law does not depend on reciprocity" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule140 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule140 Nations who break international law frequently spread misconceptions about this.
    • amitport 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    • tennysont 11mo ago
      My understanding is that this non-reciprocity is why international law often feels so permissive of seemingly bad actions. It generally aims to forbid only strategies that are the highly destructive and non-effective at winning wars. The idea is that such actions are not necessary in warfare in any circumstance, rather than a coordinated and mutual choice to leave effective strategies on the proverbial table. This non-reciprocity is also why many such laws come with large conditional statements. For example, hospitals are typically illegal targets. However, you cannot label a military outpost a hospital as a loophole. There is a gray area in between, where the law is generally more permissive than a layperson might expect. It is unclear if these laws accomplish this goal in all circumstances. A smaller, modern army attempting to hide might not be able to find non-civilian concealment (e.g., the jungle in the Vietnam war), and there is probably a conversation about the (unfortunate) effectiveness of inflecting civilian damage on an enemy's will to fight and economic output. However, the above is my best understanding of what international law sets out to do. Disclaimer: I asked AI to evaluate the above comment before posting, and it made the following (paraphrased) criticisms that you might want to consider: - The primary purpose of IHL (international humanitarian law) is to distinguish civilian from military, not to only ban what doesn't work. Hence, the banning of chemical weapons and landmines. - The hospital example is better framed as a requirement to distinguish between a civilian hospital and a military target - Non-reciprocity has the advantage of being simpler to obey (the legal analysis does not depend on the enemy's past actions)
• NedF 11mo ago
  [dead]
• bjourne 11mo ago
  Another legal analysis on the attack: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/10/15/is-it-cake-on-boobytrapped-pagers-ihl-and-scenario-based-thinking/ https://opiniojuris.org/2024/10/15/is-it-cake-on-boobytrappe...
• raxxorraxor 11mo ago
  International law, as poorly enforced as it is, needs to have answers what to do with organizations that exist for the reason to destroy another country and that is financed through hostile nations. In this case Iran. Lebanon suffers as well here and Israel certainly isn't the main threat. The Geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants in this case and you cannot be more targeted than this operation. You spoiler alter falls rather short on many accounts. The truth is that the veneer of any international law is quite thin and you can pretty safely exist if you don't start aggression against another country. Any law that treats this differently isn't a law that serves justice.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  • Stevvo 11mo ago
    What? Iran is a 2574 years old. Saying Iran exists to "destroy Israel" is absurd as your attitude to International law. Was Iran just sitting there planning how to destroy Israel for 2500 years? Enjoy WW3, because that's where that attitude will take you.
    • raxxorraxor 11mo ago
      I was referring to organizations, in this case Hezbollah. The nation supporting terrorist activities is Iran.
  • justin66 11mo ago
    > you cannot be more targeted than this operation You've posted this in multiple places in this conversation, and it's just sort of strange. A sniper shooting a uniformed enemy is "targeted." A thousand little bombs that blow up a bunch of people including some civilians is... less targeted.
    • raxxorraxor 11mo ago
      Because people repeat the wrong narrative of this being a somehow egregious strategy against an organization which exists to eradicate another nation. This is just an easy sanity-check for a validity of a statement. Name an operation that is more targeted.