Comment by dlubarov

Comment by dlubarov 10 months ago

9 replies

Do you consider it worse than conventional alternatives, such as artillery strikes, even if the latter is likely to result in a worse civilian casualty ratio?

Also, if booby traps aren't considered a legitimate tactic in a military conflict, why does noone complain when, say, Ukraine mines a field?

dragonwriter 10 months ago

Booby traps and land mines are legally distinct (and, within land mines, anti-personnel and anti-vehicle land mines are distinct), but its also not the case that no one complains about the use of mines, booby-traps, etc., by both parties in the Russia-Ukraine War.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/13/landmine-use-ukraine

  • dlubarov 10 months ago

    Well, Russia isn't a party to the Ottawa Treaty. Ukraine hasn't formally withdrawn yet, but has hinted that they consider adherence impractical.

    Stepping back though, there are literally millions of mines hidden in Ukraine, creating a vastly greater danger for civilians. Legal or not, for the most part noone cares.

    Why are we here scrutinizing Israel for a form of booby-trapping which is vastly smaller in scale, much easier to clean up (figuring out which devices are compromised vs demining 174,000 km^2), and more targeted?

    • aguaviva 10 months ago

      (1) Ukraine is using its mines defensively. Israel's use in this instance is intrinsically offensive.

      (2) The scale is entirely different - but completely orthogonal to that: Do you see a difference between (per what Ukraine is doing) leaving devices around in areas which are mostly depopulated by now anyway, where people generally know that mines are likely to be there, and which will most likely be clearly enough marked on maps after all of this is over; and in a society where there is basically a solid social consensus that this war needs to be fought, and laying mines out on the frontlines is one of the many heavy costs that they will need to bear in order to bring the war to its necessary end --

      And (per what the Mossad is doing) consciously triggering these devices, knowing full well (as they must have) that a 1:2 civilian-military ratio of fatalities and maimings (the current boxscore on this per WP) was not just possible, but entirely to be expected? In a population that definitely did not chose to be at war (or even to support a necessary defensive war like Ukraine is doing), and where the targetted/responsible party is but one faction among many?

      I do.

      • dlubarov 10 months ago

        Israel is defending itself against Hezbollah. Hezbollah started the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict on Oct 8, the day after the Hamas-led attack. They can end it at any time by merely stopping their bombardment of Israel, but they have indicated that they don't plan to stop until there's an end to the Gaza conflict, which they are not a party to. Of course self-defense sometimes involves preemptive strikes, like Ukraine striking Russian airfields.

        We'll have to see how effective future demining efforts are, but historically, civilian casualties from unexploded mines have been quite significant. Despite the risks, Ukraine can't realistically stop inhabiting 20-30% of its territory indefinitely.

        Where do you get 1:2 from? There isn't much credible information yet about civilian vs militant deaths. What we do know is that the 5,000 affected pagers were ordered by Hezbollah and issued to its members. Less is known about other devices.