Comment by gwervc 3 days ago
> More than 1,000 people, including Hezbollah fighters and medics
The CNN title implies that only Hezbollah members were targeted were reality seems different. It's crazy a country is capable of doing a "special security operation" on civilians of another country without any international sanctions.
If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's military wing then yeah, kind of justified. But Hezbollah is bigger than that, and seems this attack targeted the whole organization, not just the one that is commonly designed a terrorist organization.
I guess for an American comparison it's a bit like attacking all republicans for the actions of the Proud Boys or any other militia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl...
No one serious disputes that Hezbollah opened a new conflict with Israel in 2023. This is occurring simultaneously with the Hamas-initiated conflict.
> it would be justified, no?
It's never justified to trigger explosives when you have no idea where said explosives are.
What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ?
What if he's picking up his kids from school, visiting the local food market, &c.
What if he's driving and end up crashing in a bunch of people walking on the sidewalk
When you drop a bomb you at least know where it's going, here you have no idea.
Look at what's going on in Ukraine, if you can't tell a good from a bad shit you have to get your eyes checked. Hitting a column of tank isn't the same as targeting a civilian building
Wars are always bad and there will always be war crimes on all sides, it doesn't mean that everything is equal
Somebody shared videos: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1836041245996584983/vid... Looks like bystanders are fine.
> What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ?
Then they also die/get injured. Being in close contact with a terrorist is a dangerous pass-time, and armies targeting foreign threats need to accept some level of collateral damage. In this case, we have thousands of injured terrorists, with hundreds dead, and an additional fraction of those numbers being non-military targets (civilians). It's certainly unfortunate and unpleasant, but this is an excellent ratio.
Let’s assume you accurately determine which thousand pagers are going to which people, and that you accurately determine which thousand are Evil Hezbollah Members and definitely not someone’s cousin or whatever.
Regardless of these (tenuous) assumptions, if you detonate a thousand small bombs, it seems fair to also assume that some of them might not be on the bodies of their intended targets, but rather outside on the counter by the shower or over by the car keys or something.
So no, I’d say this is a pretty tough sort of operation to justify.
It's war. Much worse things have been happening in this war already (e.g. Hezbollah explicitly targeting Israeli residential areas and killing civilians). By contrast this action seems much more targeted and justifiable.
If your bar for taking action is "there can't even be a chance of hurting a civilian", then your army can't do anything, and your entire civilian populace is slaughtered when it's taken over by the enemy intent on destroying your country.
Would it be moral to make people who work in israeli army explode even when not in uniform?
Yes, they are belligerents in a battle.
I am more pro-Israel in these conflicts, but you are a military target or you aren't, you don’t leave the military when you remove the uniform, only when you agree to leave the military.
In fact it is a common tactic of Hamas, when it is discovered they have passionately murdered civilians, that they immediately claim that it was an IDF soldier. Such as the case with Shanni Louk
I admire the clarity of your moral compass. But consequently if that is ok, then targeting reservists is also ok, right? And since almost everyone in Israel is a reservist there are really no civilians in Israel only military targets, right? So, Hamas an Hezbollah blindly firing rockets are actually striking military targets with surgical precision
That's a weird question. It's war. There's no morality involved. But if your question is "is it within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform", then the answer is emphatically "yes".
> It's war. There's no morality involved.
There's a little.
That's why countries make agreements such as the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, etc. There are (meant to be) strict consequences for breaking these rules. (I noticed you change your wording from 'rules' to 'morality' - still wrong.) Breaking these rules is why we have the concept of 'war crimes'.
The word 'war' also implies two armies battling, rather than an invasion following occupation. In any case, the Geneva Conventions apply in all armed conflicts.
Since the Geneva convention still exists*, no, it is not "within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform". See Protocol I.
Targeting off-duty or non-uniformed service members violates both international law and the core moral principles of warfare, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements. Denying this isn't just factually wrong, it's deeply immoral.
* Along with the Principle of Distinction, Proportionality, Non-Combatant Immunity and Civilian Impact, etc.
I would argue that this attack is more targeted than firing rockets over the border into civilian population
Hezbollah would nuke Israel if they could. You think they're above pager bombs? They just cant execute
Hezbollah is a political organization with a paramilitary wing. The wing is designated as a terrorist group in many countries, the organization as a whole is designated as a terrorist group by not as many countries. France or EU as a whole, for example, consider Hezbollah a political organization and only the paramilitary arm as the terrorist group.
I think this willfully ignores the fact that Israel did occupy southern Lebanon for 15 years, never built a civilian settlement, and unilaterally withdrew from there under assurance from the UN that it would enforce an agreement to keep Hezbollah north of the Litani river, which the UN manifestly does not enforce.
From the article you linked to:
>> every policy expert I spoke with agreed that the chance that Israel would actually establish settlements in southern Lebanon is very low. Natasha Roth-Rowland, a scholar of the Israeli far right, explained that there simply isn’t the political will to advance settlements in Lebanon
> This is the third comment on this thread you've written prosecuting the idea that Israel is on the eve of invading Lebanon. That's not very plausible.
Jerusalem Post, one of the major newspapers in Israel also believes that:
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-820399
Ynet as well says Netanyahu wants the IDF to prepare for military campaign in Lebanon:
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bje3pjv60
Times of Israel also says the IDF is pushing for a ground invasion now:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-general-said-pushing-for-g...
"Maj. Gen. Ori Gordin, the head of the Israel Defense Force’s Northern Command, is pressuring decision-makers to launch a large-scale incursion into Lebanon, while Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi have expressed doubts over launching a war against Hezbollah"
The internal politics is that Gallant doesn't want to, he wants a ceasefire in Gaza and a hostage deal, but Netanyahu is currently looking to replace him and Netanyahu doesn't want a ceasefire/hostage deal in Gaza:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-preparing-to-fi...
If Gallant goes, chance of war with Lebanon increases dramatically.
> Israel isn't mobilized to invade Lebanon and lacks the capacity to do so while engaged in Gaza.
Israel actually has almost no forces in Gaza right now - that isn't the problem. The IDF is much more committed militarily to the West Bank.
It is true there isn't yet a full scale mobilization of ground forces yet, but these wars usually start with air attacks while the ground mobilization occurs.
If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's internal communication then it would be justified, no?