Israel breaches its international treaty obligations AGAIN

[Jamiet99uk]

The use of booby-trapped devices to kill or injure is against international law.

Specifically, Protocol II to the Conventional Weapons Convention (CCW), Article 7, paragraph 2 of which stipulates:

“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.”

Israel is a signatory to this convention.

Israel's latest activities in Lebanon directly violates the convention.

As usual Israel doesn't give a shit.

Israel is a rogue state which should face concerted international intervention.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

In general, I wish the world upheld these sorts of rules. But since we often don't, the bar has been set so low that, among all the war crimes committed during this current conflict, exploding pagers seems like a non-issue.

Yes, Israel resorted to some Looney Toons-style tactics that violate international law. But the context that it was an attack against an Iran-sponsored militant group that fires rockets indiscriminately at Israeli citizens seem relevant - as this is another war crime that the UN/international community doesn't do much about

In some hypothetical world where we genuinely punished these transgressions, I agree that Israel / those who approved this attack would deserve serious criminal penalties. But even in such a world we would first want to dismantle Hezbollah, sanction Iran into the ground, and punish Israel for its much worse human rights abuses in Gaza.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am not a fan of Hezbollah but let's not forget that they were founded in 1982 in direct response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, itself an unjust act of aggression.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

We both know you're glossing over some relevant details about why Israel now occupies its northern territories. The UN stations peacekeepers in the Golan Heights who just watch as the rockets fly into Israel. It's obviously an untenable situation and it's clear to me it would not be solved if Israel simply ceded that land to the failed state of Lebanon, which happily hosts a militant group with genocidal intentions against Israelis. You'd have rocket attacks on downtown Tel Aviv within a week.

The Arabs indigenous to modern day Israel obviously have a right to be profoundly opposed to Israel, but that doesn't mean everything they do in response is legitimate resistance. At a certain point, being a jihadist group financed by Iran for the explicit purpose of de-Jewing the middle east makes you the bad guy. I really don't buy into the bigotry-of-low-expectations argument that everything bad done to Israel is Israel's own fault — the actions of groups like Hezbollah at least partly reflect decisions made by folks who could have chosen otherwise.

It just seems silly to think that Hezbollah can fire rockets at Israel indefinitely without a response. Israel choosing to respond with its own war crimes is hugely problematic, but exploding pagers is probably preferable to their other options, many of which could spark a wider conflict that would ultimately kill even more non-combatants.

[CaptainFritz28]

Notably, this was a genius move by Israel. Disable communication, cause a great deal of psychological damage, cause very few innocent casualties, and send thousands of combatants, at least temporarily, out of commission.

This is by far a better response than missiles, air strikes, special operations, and strikes directly into the heart of the terrorism.

[kingofthepirates]

the world seems to have devolved to the meme "geneva convention? more like geneva suggestion". at this rate I might have to join pengwinja on the moon ;-;

Isreal is ofc guilty and SHOULD (though it is unlikely it WILL) be punished, but I agree with esquire bertissimmo here. there are crimes occurring on both sides, and I believe both sides should be punished for those crimes. probably won't happen though. smth smth to the victor go the spoils ig...

[CaptainFritz28]

the world seems to have devolved to the meme "geneva convention? more like geneva suggestion". at this rate I might have to join pengwinja on the moon ;-;

Isreal is ofc guilty and SHOULD (though it is unlikely it WILL) be punished, but I agree with esquire bertissimmo here. there are crimes occurring on both sides, and I believe both sides should be punished for those crimes. probably won't happen though. smth smth to the victor go the spoils ig...

I agree with this, as I believe that a nation that signs itself to contractual obligations should be held to those. Israel should be held to account for their violation of their agreement. That said, this instance is one which calls into question the particular obligation violated. If the most effective, least innocents-harming option is a booby trap, should that not at least be considered? After Israel is held to account for their breaking of their word, I think a reconsideration of the rule in breach is warranted.

There are likely incredibly good arguments for keeping it as it is that I simply haven't thought of (I've had a busy and tiring day, I apologize if my ideas sound half-baked), so take this with a grain of salt, and if you have such incredibly good arguments yourself, I ask that y'all present them or direct me to them, because I, as anyone else, don't know everything and am open to learning on a subject that I have not studied the particulars of.

[learnedSloth]

the world seems to have devolved to the meme "geneva convention? more like geneva suggestion". at this rate I might have to join pengwinja on the moon ;-;

Why settle for the moon? I follow Jesus to the everlasting life. He is the new ark.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

the world seems to have devolved to the meme "geneva convention? more like geneva suggestion". at this rate I might have to join pengwinja on the moon ;-;

Why settle for the moon? I follow Jesus to the everlasting life. He is the new ark.

I'm sure the J-man and big G still love lunar folk, let the kid have his cosmic adventure

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There are likely incredibly good arguments for keeping it as it is that I simply haven't thought of (I've had a busy and tiring day, I apologize if my ideas sound half-baked), so take this with a grain of salt, and if you have such incredibly good arguments yourself, I ask that y'all present them or direct me to them

If the world somehow enforced the whole suite of war crime prohibitions then we would probably also want to enforce the booby trap one. In such a world war would be formally declared before hostilities started, war would be limited to direct conflict with conventional weapons between active combatants, and both sides would respect their duty of care for injured soldiers and POWs.

Booby traps in this context would be unconscionable. In this case, the pagers killed folks without a declaration of war. The aggressor in a booby trap attack cannot uphold their duty of care for those they injure. They leave dangerous traps that might persist after the war and in civilian spaces. And, worst of all, they establish a precedent that normalizes a style of warfare that could be extremely damaging for civilians (even though this particular attack wasn't).

I imagine there are all sorts of instances where fudging a war crime rule looks like it would prevent more suffering. Maybe more civilian lives could be saved if one side just gassed a particular group of soldiers, tortured this one POW, displaced this one group of citizens, etc. But would you trust your enemy to only commit these war crimes in some utility maximizing manner? And if your side suffered a nerve gas attack, wouldn't you be compelled to retaliate in kind regardless of your enemy's rationale?

[CaptainFritz28]

Good points, I agree with your cocnlusions. I guess the question really should be not what I brought up, but more how to go about honorable warfare with a dishonorable enemy.

[Jamiet99uk]

Esquire Bert is correct that one of the key reasons such things are banned is that the aggressor cannot control the impact on non-combatants, and this danger may persist long after the conflict in which the booby traps are laid.

It is for the same reason there are significant restrictions in international law regarding the use of landmines.

[Pengwinja]

the world seems to have devolved to the meme "geneva convention? more like geneva suggestion". at this rate I might have to join pengwinja on the moon ;-;

Why settle for the moon? I follow Jesus to the everlasting life. He is the new ark.

I'm sure the J-man and big G still love lunar folk, let the kid have his cosmic adventure

Please let Kingofthepirates up here… I only have Jeff the moon man with me as emotional support…

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess the question really should be not what I brought up, but more how to go about honorable warfare with a dishonorable enemy.

I generally agree with Jamie when he expresses outrage about Israel's war crimes. However, it seems one-sided to criticize Israel for its pager attack on Hezbollah—an act that, while illegal under international law, was highly targeted—without first acknowledging that Hezbollah is a genocidal organization that indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel. The pager attacks strikes me as being very different from Israel's many war crimes in Gaza, which I am much more comfortable condemning in the strongest terms.

I can see why some Israelis feel put upon when folks appear to indulge a double standard that basically asks them to suffer terror attacks indefinitely. It's worth asking, if the pager attack was unconscionable, what legitimate self defense could Israel pursue against Hezbollah? I suspect many of Israel's critics would take issue with basically any conceivable retaliation, which to me is identical to arguing in favour of dismantling Israel (and, de facto, expelling Jews from the middle east).

And yet I would not want to view the conflict as some race-to-the-bottom where morally reprehensible actions by one side excuse outrageous behaviour from the other. I think fairness requires that this principle be applied in both directions: Israel's many historic crimes (and the particularly counter-productive and toxic policies of the Bibi government) don't justify Hamas- and Hezbollah-style terrorism, and terror attacks against Israel do not excuse its war crimes.

[Jamiet99uk]

Fair question.

Israel could support the legitimate Lebanese government and help them to establish a stable state with a military that is more competent and powerful than Hezbollah, I'd be strongly in favour of that.

In the meantime if Israel can target individual Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon, it's curious that their first strategy in Gaza is to blow up hospitals and bomb refugee camps where they know civilians are going to die.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Fair question.

Israel could support the legitimate Lebanese government and help them to establish a stable state with a military that is more competent and powerful than Hezbollah, I'd be strongly in favour of that.

In the meantime if Israel can target individual Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon, it's curious that their first strategy in Gaza is to blow up hospitals and bomb refugee camps where they know civilians are going to die.

If these are the options, I can see why Israel might resort to clandestine attacks on Hezbollah.

Lebanon is a failed state with a large Sunni population that hates Israel. Regardless of whether these facts are partly Israel's own fault, it is extremely unlikely that Israel could play a productive role in Lebanon in 2024. It's probably worth noting that this type of cooperation would also be violently opposed by Iran and, even if it weren't, reviving a failed state is extraordinarily unlikely to work.

If I lived next door to a failed state that launched rockets at me, I would view it as unfair for the international community to say "suffer these rocket attacks until you somehow fix the economy and governance of a mostly-hostile neighboring country".

And Hezbollah and Hamas are quite different as military targets targets. Lebanon tolerates Hezbollah, but they did not allow them to build 500km of tunnels under civilian infrastructure in Beirut. I don't mean to excuse the obvious excesses of the current Gaza conflict, I'm just saying it's not really meaningful to compare the two.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It's very sad to see that the conflict is rapidly escalating as we speak. Truly terrifying.

[Jamiet99uk]

Israel is deliberately escalating it.

Nobody is willing or able to stop them.

They can murder as many civilians as they like with complete impunity.

[kingofthepirates]

what happened this time (I've been out of the loop overall for quite a while, the pager thing made super big news so I heard that but haven't gotten much else)?

[Octavious]

As far as I can work out Israel finally lost patience with Hamas firing Iranian missiles at them and, after sowing chaos and panic with the pager attacks have managed to blow up the leadership.

It's all rather impressive, truth be told. If it was us and the Yanks doing this we would have required an invasion force of at least 100,000 and a decade long occupation to achieve the same results. A magnificent display of intelligence lead military operations.