Exploding Pagers

[Simon]

Middle East carrier pigeons are shitting themselves right now.

[Beany]

Oh, what a surprise:

Simultaneous targeting of thousands of individuals, whether civilians or members of armed groups, without knowledge as to who was in possession of the targeted devices, their location, and their surroundings at the time of the attack, violates international human rights law and, as applicable, international humanitarian law.

It is difficult to conceive how, in these circumstances, such attacks could possibly conform with the key principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, under international humanitarian law. If the attacker is unable to assess the compliance of the attack with binding rules of international law, notably the likely impact on civilians, then the attack should not be carried out.

International humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby-trap devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.

It is a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians.

I call, again, for an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of these explosions. Those who ordered and carried out these attacks must be held to account.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and ... ecurity-hc

Not that it matters, because the IDF get to violate every part of international law with absolute impunity and no-one ever actually does anything about it.

[Mito Man]

Maybe it’s time to tear up and rewrite the treaty, because seemingly every country involved in a war violates it and that would leave any country which actually follows it at a major disadvantage.

[dinny_g]

Not that it matters, because the IDF get to violate every part of international law with absolute impunity and no-one ever actually does anything about it.

Are Hamas held accountable for flying over Israel territory and dropping bombs on civilian areas

[Beany]

Funny coincidence Mito, reportedly (and I could only source it from fairly left wing sources so biiiig pinch of salt) one of the IDFs positions to warcrimes and human rights is reportedly that while they have the broadly uncritical support of the west, and the US particularly, that they can just be flagrant about breaching the commonly accepted standards of conflict so much that they get the defacto understanding of war crimes changed in the views of normal people and international law, specifically because the US will back them up and they won't get touched for it.

Now, that source (which typically, I can't bloody find now, for what value it has) might be dodgy, but that they consider hundreds of civilian deaths and hundreds more injured by taking out a civilian occupied tower block as an acceptable cost for the suspicion that one senior Hamas commander might be in there rather suggests that the big pinch of salt might only need to be a normal sized one. They're certainly behaving in a way that makes that report seem applicable.

For context, remember when the US went after Bin Laden with that raid, the worlds most wanted man?

If they thought that any operation to capture/kill him would end up with more than 30 civilian deaths, it needed direct approval from the secretary of defence or the president to get the go ahead - as they felt that it was beyond the pale to be authorised by anyone less if that was the risk of civilian death. Their usual limit is typically 'zero' which is why when they vaporise a wedding party by accident, it's international news.

Israel will reportedly casually and routinely accept a dozen civilian casualties for literally anyone they consider to be a Hamas militant, of any level.

Here's an article based on interviews with IDF soldiers, which is as close to verification as we can get, and which along with other investigative reporting was the basis for a lot of the coverage early in the war about what acceptable collateral damage was:
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassinati ... bing-gaza/

It's a very interesting read. 972 are considered left leaning (obviously) but quite credible in terms of their factual information.

Dinny, "Are Hamas held accountable for flying over Israel territory and dropping bombs on civilian areas?"

The generally agreed estimates of 40,000 dead and approaching 100,000 injured in Gaza (not including people dying from the consequences of a conflct - starvation, disease etc) is Hamas being held accountable, although I imagine the civilian population of Gaza might have strong opinions on that matter.

Don't even ask about the civilian to combatant ratio, the numbers are all over the place due to a mixture of Israel historically overestimating the numbers and flatly refusing to reveal their methodology, and Hamas regularly releasing numbers that are considered to be at least representative by most, but refusing to break down between civilians and combatants.

The numbers for 'valid targets' are anywhere between 5,000 (estimates from human rights oriented NGOs - probably conservative and based on likely militants and members of the paramilitary wing) and 14-16,000 (Israel numbers - probably overestimating, and including politicians and civil servants working for the Hamas government) depending on who you ask, neither of which are exactly good in the context of 40k dead overall.

[dinny_g]

I’m not altogether sure I see the point you’re making Beany?

The effectiveness or not of potential war crimes by one combatant in a conflict does not invalidate war crimes performed by the other. A war crime is a war crime. It doesn’t matter who’s winning or losing

[Mito Man]

The West has to appear like the more civilised adult. We love a good risk assessment. Have Larry check out some drone images before declaring that no more than 5 civilians will be casualties before firing the tomahawks.
Anyway, America sure loved to kidnap and torture all sorts of people.
I don’t think we’ll ever know of what truly happened in the Middle East, it’s not like Ukraine/Russia where everyone has a smartphone and a drone.

[Beany]

I think it's the hypocrisy as much as anything else.

Look at how Ukraine behaves - they so much as sneeze in the direction of the Geneva convention or rules of engagement, and suddenly they're told, publicly and in all the global press - that all the support they've been getting is at risk and they need to be Good Boys and Girls.

Meanwhile, Israel is out there shooting up their own hostages in error, blowing up civilian housing on a whim, bombing 'safe zones' and refugee camps, killing aid workers etc- you know, the sort of thing that would normally cause the UN to send a peacekeeping task force in to to manage - and the US/the west just sit there quietly naval gazing and making mumbled noises about it being a 'complex and evolving situation' while sending them more military and financial support then they know what to do with.

Meanwhile, the ICC and UN are gumming the west impotently about war crimes and human rights violations left right and centre.

Netanyahu is the biggest problem as he's been using the conflict to bolster internal support, which isn't working too well if the protests in Israel, against him are anything to go by.

An interesting article from the Guardian yesterday, suggesting that the ICC might indict both he and the head of Hamas for war crimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... l-fugitive

Hopelessly naive, I suspect given that Israel doesn't even recognise the ICC (just like the US...) and have been credibly accused of trying to hack, smear, intimidate and generally fuck with the ICC for years to try to undermine attempts to investigate them.

I hate letting myself dive into the middle east situation, it's always incredibly depressing.

[Mito Man]

Cynic in me says it’s because we mostly donate weapons to Ukraine, but sell them to Israel. Same with Saudi.
Remember the Obama administration getting quite friendly with Iran, unfreezing their assets in exchange for them not refining uranium so much… It was always clear where that money would eventually wind up when the entire goal of their regime was to wipe Israel off the earth or however they phrase it.
And now it seems like every month the US is exporting $20B in arms to Israel…

[Beany]

Well, Saudi Arabia....no, I'm not even gonna start

[IanF]

[Nefarious]

I've been having a bit of a think about this and why it doesn't quite sit right with me morally.

I think the problem, and this applies to the Gaza situation as well to a large degree, is that there is a conflation of terrorist acts, which are crimes committed by civilians, and acts of war, which are committed by states. There are judicial processes for dealing with civilian crimes, whereas act of war can justify a military response.

I accept that in both the case of Lebanon and Gaza the boundaries are a little blurred because Hezbollah is *backed* by a state and Hamas ended up as the de facto ruling force in Gaza, but both the 7 October attack and the firing of rockets from Beirut seem to more squarely fit the definition of terrorist acts than state-to-state military action.

And I think that's why the use of outright military force, including the accepted collateral loss of civilian lives doesn't feel right, appropriate or fully justified.

If you accept that the response should be within the realm of criminal justice rather than military, with specific regard to the pager/walkie talkie action, it raises the question - if the Israeli government were able to infiltrate the Hezbollah communications system why didn't they use that advantage to identify, locate and arrest the criminal perpetrators? To use the advantage to semi-indiscriminately maim/kill without trial or any due process feels decidedly outside the realm of the behaviour expected from a civilised nation.