Comment by kombine
Comment by kombine 2 days ago
If it was not a terrorist attack and a war crime but a targeted operation against the militants, why wouldn't Israel claim responsibility for the successful operation?
Comment by kombine 2 days ago
If it was not a terrorist attack and a war crime but a targeted operation against the militants, why wouldn't Israel claim responsibility for the successful operation?
If a car bomb went off next to an IDF post killing a bunch of IDF soldiers and one 10-year-old kid, it would be declared a terrorist attack immediately.
If this involved China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, or Russia planting bombs on Ukrainian soldiers, nobody would be debating whether it was a terrorist attack.
It’s certainly a relief when polite society can recognize it that way. So, that ends one discussion but starts another. When foreign intelligence is tasked with, say, breaking laws and moral codes in Lebanon; it lives in the shade because we cannot distinguish it from terrorism or organized crime or a financial scam. It’s been this way for a long time and the debate nowadays is whether or not, on balance, we’re prevailing over evil.
Sometime in the 20th century, hot war killed more combatants than civilians and that’s mostly changed with drastic disproportionality. So, intelligence agencies have been forgiven because they describe themselves as non-combatants killing non-combatants to prevent civilian massacres. This explains a change in ideals mid-century.
countries i think don't comit acts of war randomly without annoucement or claim. This in itself would be borderline criminal, though i'm not sure if it's an actual thing noted in the geneva conventions. Those do state that any act of war should give an opportunity for retaliation. So in essence this is just as criminal as bombing people using armed drones, because these fighters did not have any opportunity to strike back.
It's not random: Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting for a while[0] and Hezbollah's mission is to eliminate the state of Israel[1]. I'm sure no member of Hezbollah is surprised that Israel would attack them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl...
You're throwing "criminal" around without, I suspect, understanding the laws of warfare. Blowing enemy operatives isn't criminal (even if some civilians get hurt - within reason; here's the ratio of militants to civilians hurt is virtually unheard of, in a positive way). Bombing militants from above, whether by airplane or drone isn't criminal, and nothing in the laws of warfare claims you need to let the enemy an opportunity to strike back.
There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda. If an enemy had exploded small remote controlled bombs in American supermarkets and homes there is no question we would characterize it as a terrorist attack.
It seems to be just some sensible policy, but maybe also to let frivolous accusations, such as yours, hanging for bit.
Israel has had a “no comment” policy for many years. Why? I can think of a few reasons. One is that some operations, if acknowledged by Israel, would trigger a proportionate response by the target, but if not acknowledged would allow the target to save face by downplaying what happened, if neither side actually wants war.
That probably doesn’t apply to this case, but has occurred in the past. And no-comment policies are more effective when applied unconditionally.