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.
@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?
@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 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.
@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.
@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.
@Anemone @EileenKCarpenter