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."
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.
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.
FYI I disagree that this necessarily means that in Gaza.
Israel has spent 18 years fairly convinced that Hamas isn't a major threat and that Hezbollah is, so most resources were spent on preparing for war with Hezbollah. This is maybe even mostly correct.
That means Israel was far more prepared to attack Hezbollah, and it shows.
If the US were ever attacked by Russia, it has battle plans in place. If it were attacked by Argentina, I don't think it has nearly as many plans/assets/intelligence/etc. So a counterattack on Argentina would have to look very different.
(Though of course this mostly explains the initial response, and as you say, is far less convincing one year in!)
Israel spent 18 years willfully not addressing Hamas the way it did Hezbollah, as a mechanism to prevent a 2-state solution. Israel is responsible for the fact that it did not have the level of seriousness and preparation for Hamas that it did for Hezbollah, knowing full well that it would ultimately end up fighting Hezbollah in the sparsely populated hills of southern Lebanon, and Hamas in dense urban areas. It is culpable for the civilian toll in Gaza that resulted.
What Israel's leadership did here goes beyond not caring about civilian lives in Gaza. They cynically abetted Hamas's strategy to sacrifice those lives in a bid to start a world war that would bring on the end times, knowing that Hamas was absolutely batshit crazy and would thus keep Palestinians permanently destabilized.
Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
> Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
That's fair enough, many Israelis feel likewise. You shouldn't mistake me for liking the Israeli leadership either.
That said - Hamas played a game of pretending to be appeased, and it worked. I agree that Israel has been absolutely immoral over the last 18 years, though I think the bigger problem was closing off avenues for peace and not (as Israel should've done as the stronger party) aggressively pushing for peace.
That said - I do wonder what you think Israel should've done differently. Because to address Hamas earlier would've meant invading Gaza years ago. Certainly Israelis can and are upset that its leaders let Hamas build up so much strength, but do you think anyone in the world would've had any sympathy for Israel had it done a ground invasion to root out Hamas fifteen years ago? Even after October 7th there was barely sympathy to root out Hamas.
This is like, imagine David Koresh's Branch Davidian cult took over Waco, and then the entirely of Texas CD17, and the Republican governor of Texas deliberately made space for the cult for electoral reasons. Later, Koresh starts a march towards Austin, making it as far as Temple, which he sacks before being turned back; the ensuing effort to apprehend him in Waco kills 5% of the its entire civilian population.
Who do I blame for this situation? There's a lot to go around. Certainly, I do not come out thinking Koresh's Branch Davidians were the victims. I am also not so much interested in the percentage of blame allocated to each culpable party; they're all awful.
Well, I agree, the current government of Israel is awful, as is Hamas.
But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
In your scenario, if the governor of Texas had decided not to make space for the cult, and had instead rooted them out, I don't think anyone would've been upset. But do you honestly think that if, after Hamas won the elections in Gaza and kicked out the PA, that Israel had decided to invade Gaza and fought with Hamas - without direct provocation - do you think in that scenario people wouldn't be just as upset at Israel?
I say this as a Netanyahu-hating leftist "peace-advocate" (mostly). I think most of us would've been upset at the "war-mongering" Netanyahu in that situation. That's why I hard on this - it's a self-criticism as much as it is a criticsm of others. The truth is, pre-emptive war might've been the correct move against Hezbollah and against Hamas, but I honestly don't think anyone would've been ok with Israel doing it. Do you think otherwise?
> But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
They could have not actively worked to foster the networks in Gaza that became Hamas in order to both split Palestinian opposition and have a less sympathetic, more extremist, more Islamic opposition to deflect international pressure to make peace with the Palestinians.
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.
The pagers were sold to Hezbollah. The military objectives achieved were:
a) to prevent the combatants holding the pagers from being able to attack Israel in the future
b) to disrupt the communications of Hezbollah, therefore, making it more difficult for them to coordinate attacks Israel.
Also, the explosives used were weak such that most people near them were maimed rather than killed. Meaning, it is reasonable to assume that alternative methods of eliminating the Hezbollah operatives, such as airstrikes or a ground invasion, would end up with a significantly higher civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio than what we saw with the pager attack.
The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero. The recent terrorist attack committed by Israel in Lebanon and Syria breaks every respectable moral compass. Innocent people, including children, were harmed and continue to be harmed by Israel's ongoing war campaign. And I can't believe I have to say this, but "maiming" children is not any less morally bankrupt than killing them.
> The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero.
A lot of German civilians were killed during World War 2. Would you have preferred handing the Germans all of Europe to prevent that? As others have noted, reality is significantly more complex than theoretical ethics. Often times your choice is not between right and wrong, but between wrong and somewhat less wrong.
> Israel is attempting to stop further attacks on the only place that Jews are allowed to protect themselves.
We have the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Jews are quite able to protect themselves there. Israel isn't the only place. I liked Ari Shaffir's light-hearted retorts to Howie Mandell on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNieyWrZ0c (Jimmy Dore commentary on their segment)
> 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
This paragraph doesn't require proactive measures be taken to protect civilians. It just suspends its own restriction on booby-trapped items if there is a military objective.
There is a sleigh of hand expression change in many texts where “operative” becomes “combatant” therefore all locations become military and all assassinations legitimate. There is no way anyone could claim they knew where they would go off and towards what kind of casualties military combatants or civilian authority or anybody standing by. Also nobody claimed there were warmings to civilians as per the text quoted, not even the standard “Every person not leaving is considered a combatant” which has been the standard public announcement during the forced relocations and refugee areas bombings.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in the race so I might be missing many details and nuances
Hold on a second. That's not the second half of what they quoted. It is in a separate section. I'm having trouble figuring out what it actually applies to, because Article 7 is written in a very confusing fashion.
It has 3 sections. Section 1 looks like this:
> 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:
and then lists 10 categories that include a wide variety of things, such as internationally recognized protective signs, dead people, children's toys, kitchen utensils (not in military locations), animals, and several others.
Then there is section 2, which the person above quoted:
> 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.
That is the entirety of section 2. Finally there is section 3, which I'm going to quote in full:
> 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, 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.
So..., #1 and #2 both prohibit a bunch of booby traps. Then #3 says that it is prohibited to use weapons covered by this Article (so everything in #1 and #2?) in places with a lot of civilians unless certain precautions are taken.
If this means that the #2 items can be used in civilian areas if those precautions are taken, does it mean the same for the #1 items? With #3 being a separate section I'm not seeing how it can be limited to just modifying #2. It does say "weapons to which this Article applies".
That would result in some truly weird restrictions. It would mean for example that I cannot booby trap a corpse except in the case where I'm placing it in a place with civilians and have either placed it close to a military objective or taken measures to keep civilians from tripping it. If I wanted to place that booby trap in some remote area where only military is around I'd run afoul of #1 without the #3 exception to allow it.
It would make sense if it is an additive thing. If I say booby trap a corpse I might be charged with a violation of #1. If I do that in a civilian area I might additionally be charged with a violation of #3 unless I took the precautions listed in #3.
"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."