Comment by tptacek
Comment by tptacek 2 days ago
Under International Humanitarian Law it absolutely does make it OK if the owner of the phone is a militant. This is black letter Law of Armed Combat.
Comment by tptacek 2 days ago
Under International Humanitarian Law it absolutely does make it OK if the owner of the phone is a militant. This is black letter Law of Armed Combat.
still: The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction
>device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate
Nope, artillery shells are not illegal and you can even miss where you are aiming! We once obliterated an entire French coastal village with naval gunfire on D-Day because information in war is imperfect.
Accidentally killing civilians is not illegal in war! If you have a "valid military target" who takes a cab from the airport, you can airstrike that cab and not violate the Geneva Conventions.
Consider that a nuke that you detonate in the center of a military base that also "just happens" to wipe out the entire city that base is in is not a war crime!
According to that definition they are:
"booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use"
That would hold true for something like a pay phone, but a personal electronic device, only used by the combatant, would not be associated with civilian use.
Attacking millitatns while they are in the middle of civilians, especially when they are not doing that as part of some hostage/human shield operation, is not OK.
The existing conventions do not prohibit attacking militants while they are in the middle of civilians, even if they are not doing that as part of some hostage/human shield operation. It may be considered morally not ok, but doing so does not violate any obligation.
That's not exactly true; it would depend on how you attacked the combatants, and how much collateral damage you caused. Civilian casualties must be proportionate to the military value of the target.
Reporting is still coming in on these attacks so virtually every comment on these huge long threads could end up falsified one way or the other, but from what I can tell, it looks like these attacks will not only clear that bar, but that they'll do so in a way unprecedented in the history of modern warfare. But we'll see!
For those unfamiliar with terms:
"Black Letter Law":
In common law legal systems, black-letter law refers to well-established legal rules that are no longer subject to reasonable dispute.[1] Black-letter law can be contrasted with legal theory or unsettled legal issues.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-letter_law>
Searching for black letter and combat turns up:
International Institute of Humanitarian Law: The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict With Commentary (2006)
Among definitions:
For the purposes of this Manual, fighters are members of armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups, or taking an active (direct) part in hostilities.
(p. 4)
Civilians are all those who are not fighters.
(p. 5)
Military objectives are objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralisation, in the circumstances at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
(p. 5)
<https://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documen...>
(I'll note that one of the co-authors is affiliated with Tel Aviv University in Israel, though others do not appear to be Israeli.)
The US DoD publishes a law of war manual, last updated in 2023:
<https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...>
Most people are not judges in the international court of justice. The legal technicalities are irrelevant.
It means that those behind it will get the same treatment as known criminal getting away from punishment by the law due to technicalities.
More precisely, the Israeli politicians will not get sentenced by the courts of law but the Jewish people will suffer from increased antisemitism, politicians supporting the country of Israel will get unpopular and Israel will lose support. Israeli business will be considered risky.
When have thousands of consumer devices, in public circulation, been covert bombs set off in unison? This is far, far outside of the norms of warfare.
To the parent's point, I'm looking at my iPhone thinking that Israel would murder me with it if they wanted, and it absolutely does not make me support Israel.
Were the children militants? What about hospital staff? And, how do you know who these people are? You don't, but you're all over this thread running cover for a terrorist attack. I've already seen plenty of reporting that many of these targeted people were not, in fact, militants, but simply political members of Hezbollah. Would you be running the same cover if Hezbollah, or Iran had targeted Knesset staff? Disgusting stuff man, truly odious.
No!
>Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction. A prompt and impartial investigation into the attacks should be urgently conducted.
Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa Director at Human Rights Watch
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...