Comment by tptacek

Comment by tptacek 3 days ago

25 replies

That depends on who the 2700 people are, right? If it's 2700 random people, I agree. If it's 2600 Hezbollah operatives, not so much. If Hezbollah managed to surgically strike 2600 IDF soldiers, injuring and killing an additional 100 bystanders, I promise you I would offer the same analysis.

I'm measuring this against the standard of military operations conducted by western countries, the state of the art of which is Hellfire missiles fired into cars and apartment buildings.

I'm trying to be hedge-y as I write this stuff. We could absolutely learn things that would change my take on this!

bjourne 3 days ago

[flagged]

  • tptacek 3 days ago

    No. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.

    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3

    • bjourne 3 days ago

      Yes. The term you used was "operative" and it is not synonymous with "member of armed force".

      • tptacek 3 days ago

        It indeed does. Unless you are a medic or a chaplain, if you are even under the effective command of Hezbollah, let alone employed by it, you're a valid combatant target. Uniforms and current participation in combat operations has nothing to do with it.

        If you want to make the claim that Hezbollah operates schools and hospitals and that employment at those institutions doesn't designate somebody as a combatant, I will absolutely agree with you. But it's very unlikely, to me, that those people are carrying Hezbollah military command and control telecoms devices. We could learn otherwise, and if we do, I'll acknowledge that. But from what we're learning now, it's not looking likely.

    • kasey_junk 3 days ago

      These pagers almost certainly went off on n the hands of doctors and clerics.

      But again, this isn’t about some sort of ethical counting and categorizing of the injured. What can the intent of this attack be other than to spread terror? To say to the broad populace we will harm you when you least suspect it, independent of the military status between our countries and we will do it in surprising and asymmetric ways.

      • tptacek 3 days ago

        It eliminated their entire command and control network, hospitalized hundreds of their officers and command staff, put the IRGC on notice that it has been comprehensively infiltrated, and will force months of internal investigations and purges.

        Further, it comes during a time where Iran has been publicly messaging about retaliation for the killing of Ismael Haniyeh, so there's a geopolitical angle to it as well: "we can do this, think about what we'll do next if you try launching another 300 drones at us".

        I don't think it's very hard to make a military validity argument here (of course, it's easy for me to do that, since I'm shoplifting an argument from Noga Tarnopolsky and Oz Katerji here).

  • dralley 3 days ago

    >That is, they were not uniformed soldiers engaged in combat. Hence, they were not legitimate targets. They may not even have touched a gun if they served in Hizbollah's civil administration.

    Had precision strikes existed in 1944, nobody would complain if a Nazi office party got hit with a missile just because "they were civil administrators, not soldiers"

    • tptacek 3 days ago

      It wouldn't matter. They would have been considered combatants then, and are explicitly designated so under the Geneva Conventions now. Unless you're a medic or a chaplain, you cannot safely work for (or, really, even be "under the effective command of") Lebanese Hezbollah under the laws of armed combat.

      To Kasey's point, the reciprocal is true, too! The laws of armed combat permit Hezbollah strikes on Israeli command and administrative staff.