Seems pretty clear. I admit I'm struggling with this one but it's getting clearer the more I read.
Geneva Convention:
@Fellixe Terrorist orgs are generally not entitled to special protections, nor are they civilians.
@stueytheround Yes, though I don't think the fact that the current conflict is against terrorists gives Israel the freedom to employ tactics that are against the Geneva Conventions.
I'm not screaming "genocide" here. I'm very sympathetic to the fact that Israel is fighting not only direct terrorism but a proxy war against larger outside terrorist organizations and terrorist supporting states. But they seem to have fucked up employing this tactic. This rule is designed for exactly this scenario
@Fellixe I don't think that what Israel just did breaks the above convention as written. That's what I mean.
@Fellixe
The objects were not attached to persons protected under humanitarian law, nor were they likely to attract civilians.
@stueytheround @Fellixe
Absolutely Felixe, terrorists are exempt from any Geneva Convention.
@EileenKCarpenter @stueytheround @Fellixe
Is that what happened? I understand it was all Hezbollah. Terrorists.
In any case, I think it was brilliant. I'm not at all interesting in second guessing another country's military strategy.
@Anemone @stueytheround @Fellixe
The pagers just exploded wherever they were -- mostly in the pockets of Hezbollah members, but if some of the explosions were severe enough to kill the wearers, there's no way to prevent shrapnel blowing away from their bodies toward whoever is nearby.
@EileenKCarpenter @stueytheround @Fellixe
The injuries were to the face, eyes, and hips of those terrorists who received a page or call on the walkie talkie.
Terrorists should really be more responsible when walking around with tools of war in their pockets - it's their responsibility not to hurt others near them when using those tools of war.
@Anemone @stueytheround @Fellixe
Israel is struggling with the public relations battle, and now they've just alienated anyone who has ever carried a pager. It's not a weapon of war. It's a beeper. It sits between you and many other people as you go about your day.
Hezbollah members are likely to congregate with each other, but many happened to be in public places like markets. What if you were at the supermarket in your country in line behind a foreign spy who someone wanted to assassinate?
@EileenKCarpenter There is no way to guarantee zero collateral damage when using explosives. It's impossible. Whether it's a grenade or a state of the art missile or drone you can *not* guarantee zero civilian casualties. Yet for some reason people want to hold Israel to an impossible standard which they don't hold any other country to, including Russia whi've killed thousands of civilians in Ukraine.
Why do you think that is?
@Anemone @stueytheround @EileenKCarpenter There is a lot of that going around, the impossible standards. Los of accusations of targeting children when the targets were military and happened to be minors who were also militants.
In this particular case, though, the standard doesn't seem unreasonable. It is published and agreed to. They might have a legal defense through the terrorism angle. But the proxy war vs. Lebanon or Iran etc could actually cut against that legal strategy.
@Fellixe It's not the terrorism angle.
You're completely misreading the law.
It's a law intended to prevent the use of boobytraps to *deliberately* target civilians or other protected groups, much like the IRA did with car bombs back in the 80s. The method used here did not do that. The targets were military. Civilian injury, while regrettable was not deliberate.
@stueytheround @Anemone @EileenKCarpenter If intending to target civilians was the purpose the rule could have been written "intended to target civilians". I think this rule is inclusive of bombs that might incidentally attract civilian attention.
@Anemone @EileenKCarpenter @stueytheround @Fellixe agree except in the case of the children who have no control over what the adults in their lives do. As far as I know there were two children who died. It’s much better than hundreds but it’s still awful any time innocents die
@Museek Of course it is and nobody *wants* innocents to die no matter their age. It's one of the most awful aspects of war and always has been. 💕
@EileenKCarpenter "Might attract civilians" in other words, this law is designed to prevent the use of boobytraps to *deliberately* target civilians.
Like, for instance, suicide bombings in marketplaces.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but non-targeted civilian casualties are not in breach of the above law.
That’s an unfortunate coincidence, but it’s not covered in that snippet. It says booby traps on protected people, or that are likely to attract civilians.
A pager on someone’s hip is not likely to attract civilians, @EileenKCarpenter @Anemone @stueytheround @Fellixe
@Anemone @stueytheround @Fellixe
However, since there was no way to know who might be standing in proximity to the wearer, it is problematic. What if one of them were wearing his pager on a standing-room-only bus next to a stranger's face?