【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】

  • 1 Post
  • 215 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • Nobody in the military or foreign service world think this was indiscriminate. So you can make up your own definition of discrimination, but this was a highly targeted attack.

    Proper discrimination is a question of the feasibility of treating protected persons as distinct from soldiers. Period. This attack did that by intercepting pagers marked for Hezzbollah, rather than pagers marked for general sale to the public. See the difference? The attack treated military targets as distinct from the general public. Therefore, nobody can say the attack was indiscriminate. That’s just not what the word means.

    If it was discriminate, was it proportionate? The 3,000 pagers were for 3,000 members of Hezzbollah, and specifically those members whose work could not be done in cell phones because of the secret military nature of the communications and Hezzbollah’s fear that the cell networks were compromised. That’s a very valuable target. Killing them would be a huge strategic advantage, especially in the midst of daily rocket attacks, being coordinated on the very pagers that were turned into weapons. The chance that some Hezzbollah member doesn’t use the pager given to them by their employer, and instead gives it to some innocent person is minimal. The chance that someone standing nearby the person also gets hurt was very high. I think the strategic advantage clearly outweighs the risk. Virtually all 3,000.of the pagers were going to be in the hands of the people responsible for coordinating conducting the rocket attacks against Israel which are actually discriminate.

    Further, it’s the incidental civilian casualties that must be avoided, not the accidental ones. In other words, that a guided bomb may have a guidance malfunction and strike a civilian target does not ex ante make the attack indiscriminate. There was clearly going to be both come incidental civilian casualties and some accidental casualties. Incidental being the case where, for example the target is struck correctly but maybe was driving when the pager detonated, causing the car to crash into civilians. That’s incidental. Accidental is the pager gets picked up by a kid instead of the Hezzbollah member that owns it. It was not feasible to limit those casualties, so the strategic advantage must be balanced. See how this logic works?

    Here’s a good article on the legal analysis that focuses on the order, and the logical sequence of the analysis. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-lethal-misconception-in-gaza-and-beyond-disguising-indiscriminate-attacks-as-potentially-proportionate-in-discourses-on-the-laws-of-war/

    The problem with doing the analysis out of order, is that if you do, you will find that all anyone has to do to win any war ever is bring their families to the front. Suppose your country is being invaded, and all the invading soldiers have their families with them. You agree that you can kill the soldiers and their families right?

    That kind of gets back to your point about people being both civilians and fighters. That’s not a thing. If you’re a fighter, you’re a fighter. If you’re supporting fighters, you are also a fighter.




  • Is that what Israel said? No.

    98% of Gaza is still alive after one year of all this indiscriminate bombing and genocide.

    There’s a very obvious reason why the civilian death toll and Gaza is so high and it’s because that is the strategy of Hamas, to purposefully raise that number. They have literally no other leverage then to try and get as many people as possible killed while the elite Gazan’s hide underground, and run to the ICJ and claim war crimes. Remember that first week of airstrikes last October, when Hamas launched a social media campaign to convince people that the evacuation warnings and airstrike warnings were a hoax?

    Look how well it is working on you. Why are you siding with the view taken by Iran, Qatar, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, all of them led by far right nationalists, dictators and monarchs, against the view taken by America, Canada, Australia, Japan, and France? That’s not a red flag to you that maybe your moral compass has led you astray?

    Maybe you’re right, and you think the west should abandon Israel. You think they’re just going to let their flawed democracy be taken over by insane religious fascists from Iran? No. Israel will turn Iran into a sheet of glass before they let Iranian soldiers March into Jerusalem. Tens of millions of people will die.

    How sad are you going to be when Middle East states start attacking Israel and the resulting humanitarian and refugee crisis results in 50,000 people dying by lunch time, day in day out, for months or years?

    I bet you’ll be so sad that you won’t even be able to post TikToks about it.


  • You have no clue what you’re talking about. You’re a real life Dunning Kruger curve.

    I learned International law in law school and in my profession of decades, not from Googling links and pretending to be an expert.

    I’m not going to call you an anti-semite for these bullshit arguments you read online because I know it’s just that you’re ignorant, but the reason many people would is because you are applying a heightened standard of law to Israel but not anywhere else, you are holding Israel to a standard that you do not apply to Iran and the violent pan-Islamist nationalists that it backs on all sides of Israel, and are willing to defend it when pan-Islamists do mass shootings and mass kidnappings of civilians, which is their new thing, ever since suicide bombings became faux pas.