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 I think that second point is arguable. A pager is attractive to civilians in a number of ways. Anecdotally the fact that the pager went off and in at least one case a family member responded to it is pretty good evidence of that.
@Fellixe Attractive to civilians means *designed* to cause civilian casualties. This is not. It's a personal device. I think you're desperate to make an argument for a breach of the Geneva convention which isn't there.
@stueytheround I dint think that's correct. Put a football/booby trap on a battlefield hoping that a soldier will be sentimental and pick it up and instead a local child finds it first - there's one definition of "attractive yo civilians"