Encrypted communications equipment purchased for military use are not ordinary devices, and under international law if a device is used for military transmissions it is a valid target and can be attacked.
Many were not used by the military and the explosions happened during the day in uncontrolled circumstances. Many civilians got hurt.
Uhm, drones? Hello?
Not to mention the tens of thousands of rockets Hamas made from water pipes, lamp posts, etc.
I’m pretty sure the meaning isn’t that you aren’t allowed to turn an ordinary item into a weapon. It’s that you can weaponize ordinary items. If you make a pipe bomb, for example, it’s pretty obviously a bomb now, and not an ordinary pipe. Basically, making it so people have to fear using ordinary items is what we typically call terrorism.
I don’t like that word, because it’s usually just used as a weapon against less conventional forces by states with more power, meanwhile the states typically still use fear to enforce a political agenda. In this case it’s unarguably the bad kind of terrorism, and they should be held responsible for it.
A drone made for warfare is not the same as a dji 3 or whatever. Now if you put a bomb in that dji and sold it to people…
You do know that Israel is not fighting against an invading force, right? That might be a slight difference when it comes to morality.
You do realize Hezbollah even having possession of those rockets was in violation of UN resolutions. The fact they’ve been launching them for nearly a year now is also a violation. Israel’s actions here are far more justifiable than Gaza.
That is in no way relevant to my point. Let me know when Hezbollah invades Israel.
Men with tactical coordination, trained and armed with automatic weapons, crossed an internationally recognized border by land, sea, and air. They launched thousands of ballistic missiles, killed, captured and held territory, and have repeatedly given assurances that they will do the same again and again.
If that’s not an invasion then we are just arguing semantics.
I don’t think they’re talking about buying something normal and turning it into a weapon. But buying something normal and getting a weapon instead.
And also, the drone allows you to pick your target.
You don’t know who’s holding or near the walkie talkie.
I’m not for or against it, I don’t feel qualified to make a judgement, but I can see the differences.
Exactly. If your drone shows children and you still Boom, you’ve chosen to commit a war crime. But with this plus the indiscriminate bombing of humanitarian centers in Gaza, it’s all war crimes all day every day. The numbers of dead children are exponentially higher than the numbers of dead Hamas, and once the critically injured innocents in Lebanon die the same may be true for Hezbollah.
I don’t get this. It’s war, there isn’t much law. You can have agreements between countries, but is it really law if it’s not enforceable?
It’s enforceable. A war between two countries does not exist in a vacuum. The whole rest of the world can impose sanctions against the violator.
Whether they will in this case is another matter entirely.
Problem with sanctions is they haven’t proved Israel did this. Its plausible deniability
Part of plausible deniability is that it has to be plausible. There has been no plausible argument presented that Israel did not do the pager and walkie talkie attack. For that matter, there hasn’t even been a denial about it.
Is that law though? No one is going to jail. Sounds more a contract or agreement.
Well, that’s up to debate.
In war there are still rules of engagement and expectations about things like “child soldiers” and “civilian casualties” and “collective punishments” etc….
But also, how much to those rules actually stop people?
Which rules are worth breaking if they prevent open war and millions of deaths?
No idea. Some deep philosophising and rationalisations around all of it is required regardless of your stance
There’s plenty of law of war.
But you’re right, laws are worth northing if they’re not followed or enforced.
