This is likely to settle out as one of the most surgical non-infantry attacks in the history of modern warfare, and because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague. Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
What you're doing here is establishing yourself as someone who believes a weirdly, ahistorically, spectacularly surgical attack on Hezbollah fighters is a "war crime". Which is fine, but people are going to point that out when you call other things a war crime, and you might care about that, because in those other instances you might actually be right (if it's Israel you're talking about, it's very likely you will be right), and the extra credibility might be helpful.
What I'm saying is that you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
If the Geneva Conventions (among other agreements) which you're so determined to ignore didn't exist, then you may have been right.
But, they do, and you're wrong.
You're also moving goalposts. Are you still standing by your statement that war has no rules/morality?
> you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
Israel set themselves up for that belief, not me.
By doing war crimes. A lot of them. Like this one.
Consider, if you would, that this effort to move the Overton Window on what constitutes war crimes is severely misguided. And you really ought to stop.
> No, it isn't. There's already reports of murdered children, and people as far away as Syria getting injured. The Iranian ambassador to Beirut was reportedly injured, meaning this could precipitate nuclear war.
Why would Israel fire nuclear weapons at Lebanon and Iran, two non-nuclear states?
None of that changes the facts stated, or makes any substantial argument as to how this doesn't constitute a war crime.
> This is likely to settle out as one of the most surgical non-infantry attacks in the history of modern warfare,
No, it isn't. There's already reports of murdered children, and people as far away as Syria getting injured. The Iranian ambassador to Beirut was reportedly injured, meaning this could precipitate nuclear war.
> because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague
No, it isn't. You're literally the only person mentioning the Hague in the whole thread.
But yes, they do. That's where war crimes are prosecuted, and this is a war crime (see above), even if 'just' one of many thousands.
> Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
Huh??
Explain to me, please, how more targeted war crimes excuse completely untargeted war crimes, and war crimes targeted at journalists, aid workers, health workers, teachers, children, families, little old ladies in churches, premature babies, etc.