5 ms·

How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.

by dlubarov 10mo ago

bjourne 10mo ago
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71
- dlubarov 10mo ago
  I don't see how that would apply at all. These aren't nuclear weapons that take out entire populations, these are tiny munitions used to target Hezbollah operatives.
  - bjourne 10mo ago
    Well, sucks to be you then, since many legal experts do see how this rule applies to this case: 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... https://www.ejiltalk.org/were-the-israeli-pager-and-walkie-talkie-attacks-on-hezbollah-indiscriminate/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/were-the-israeli-pager-and-walkie-t... https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pagers-and-radios-terrifying-violation-international-law-say-un https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pa...
    - dlubarov 10mo ago
      None of these have anything to do with what you cited above, which was ICRC's summary of customary law about inherently indiscriminate weapons. Your first and second links here are examining entirely different challenges to the operation's legality, and the third is just some vague assertions from questionable sources like Francesca Albanese.
      - bjourne 10mo ago
        You could ask ChatGPT and get a perfectly cromulent answer on what these have to do with what I cited. The key theme is indiscriminate weapons used for indiscriminate attacks. Alas, you can lead a horse to water...
        dlubarov 10mo ago
        Tiny explosives are certainly not the sort of inherently indiscriminate weapons ICRC refers to. You might want to read the article you linked to, which uses nuclear weapons as the main example. The difference in energy released by Israel's beeper vs a modern nuclear payload is at least 10 orders of magnitude.
        bjourne 10mo ago
        Scroll down to examples, read it, and then click Next until you get to Rule 80.
        dlubarov 10mo ago
        ICRC is not really claiming that those examples are indiscriminate, they're giving examples of weapons that might arguably or sometimes be considered indiscriminate. Some booby traps might fall into that category, but this isn't a toy or a banana, it's a device specifically issued to enemy personnel. There can be separate textualist arguments about Israel's operation based on the specific language of CCW, but that's unrelated to the customary IHL you linked to.
cess11 10mo ago
For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting them than by being indifferent.
- dlubarov 10mo ago
  Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossible standard.
  - array_key_first 10mo ago
    The collateral damage was obvious and predictable. If you know about the potential collateral damage and do it anyway, then it's not targeted, even if you say it's targeted. For example: say I want to kill someone. I know they live in NYC. So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. Is this a targeted attack? Obviously not. But I said it was targeted! Doesn't work that way. If you want to target people, you try your best to kill just them. If you're planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public, you are not doing that. I don't know why we feel the need to defend military operatives by essentially claiming they're the stupidest people on Earth and cannot put 2 and 2 together. No no, they can. Meaning, this was intentional.
    - dlubarov 10mo ago
      If I dive bomb an enemy position, knowing that it's dark and windy and I might end up hitting something else, that's still a targeted operation. Same deal with the pager operation. > So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. You would have plainly violated the principle of proportionality, which is about the relative weight of military advantage vs civilian harm. The pager operation on the other hand created a massive military advantage, with less civilian harm than what's possible with conventional warfare. > planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public You would have a stronger point if the conflict looked more like Ukraine, where enemies are mostly sitting in trenches wearing uniforms. Hezbollah operates very differently, storing and firing weapons from mundane civilian places. There's no real way to fight Hezbollah without bombs in such places, it's just a question of whether bombs are delivered by artillery, planes or other means. > this was intentional I'm not sure what you mean here. I of course agree Israel could have predicted that there would be non-zero harm to civilians. That's true of pretty much any operation though, at least in urban wars. For comparison, consider Ukraine's massive truck bomb of the Kerch Bridge. Of course they knew there would be collateral damage, and 5 civilians ended up being killed. It was still widely considered legal, considering the major military advantage gained.

How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.

bjourne 10mo ago

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71

dlubarov 10mo ago
I don't see how that would apply at all. These aren't nuclear weapons that take out entire populations, these are tiny munitions used to target Hezbollah operatives.
- bjourne 10mo ago
  Well, sucks to be you then, since many legal experts do see how this rule applies to this case: 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... https://www.ejiltalk.org/were-the-israeli-pager-and-walkie-talkie-attacks-on-hezbollah-indiscriminate/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/were-the-israeli-pager-and-walkie-t... https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pagers-and-radios-terrifying-violation-international-law-say-un https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pa...
  - dlubarov 10mo ago
    None of these have anything to do with what you cited above, which was ICRC's summary of customary law about inherently indiscriminate weapons. Your first and second links here are examining entirely different challenges to the operation's legality, and the third is just some vague assertions from questionable sources like Francesca Albanese.
    - bjourne 10mo ago
      You could ask ChatGPT and get a perfectly cromulent answer on what these have to do with what I cited. The key theme is indiscriminate weapons used for indiscriminate attacks. Alas, you can lead a horse to water...
      - dlubarov 10mo ago
        Tiny explosives are certainly not the sort of inherently indiscriminate weapons ICRC refers to. You might want to read the article you linked to, which uses nuclear weapons as the main example. The difference in energy released by Israel's beeper vs a modern nuclear payload is at least 10 orders of magnitude.
        bjourne 10mo ago
        Scroll down to examples, read it, and then click Next until you get to Rule 80.
        dlubarov 10mo ago
        ICRC is not really claiming that those examples are indiscriminate, they're giving examples of weapons that might arguably or sometimes be considered indiscriminate. Some booby traps might fall into that category, but this isn't a toy or a banana, it's a device specifically issued to enemy personnel. There can be separate textualist arguments about Israel's operation based on the specific language of CCW, but that's unrelated to the customary IHL you linked to.

cess11 10mo ago

For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting them than by being indifferent.

dlubarov 10mo ago
Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossible standard.
- array_key_first 10mo ago
  The collateral damage was obvious and predictable. If you know about the potential collateral damage and do it anyway, then it's not targeted, even if you say it's targeted. For example: say I want to kill someone. I know they live in NYC. So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. Is this a targeted attack? Obviously not. But I said it was targeted! Doesn't work that way. If you want to target people, you try your best to kill just them. If you're planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public, you are not doing that. I don't know why we feel the need to defend military operatives by essentially claiming they're the stupidest people on Earth and cannot put 2 and 2 together. No no, they can. Meaning, this was intentional.
  - dlubarov 10mo ago
    If I dive bomb an enemy position, knowing that it's dark and windy and I might end up hitting something else, that's still a targeted operation. Same deal with the pager operation. > So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. You would have plainly violated the principle of proportionality, which is about the relative weight of military advantage vs civilian harm. The pager operation on the other hand created a massive military advantage, with less civilian harm than what's possible with conventional warfare. > planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public You would have a stronger point if the conflict looked more like Ukraine, where enemies are mostly sitting in trenches wearing uniforms. Hezbollah operates very differently, storing and firing weapons from mundane civilian places. There's no real way to fight Hezbollah without bombs in such places, it's just a question of whether bombs are delivered by artillery, planes or other means. > this was intentional I'm not sure what you mean here. I of course agree Israel could have predicted that there would be non-zero harm to civilians. That's true of pretty much any operation though, at least in urban wars. For comparison, consider Ukraine's massive truck bomb of the Kerch Bridge. Of course they knew there would be collateral damage, and 5 civilians ended up being killed. It was still widely considered legal, considering the major military advantage gained.