Do something about it, then.
They are…
They’ve had arrest warrants out for a while, but they do t have their own police force to enforce it
It relies on member states arresting them when they enter their country. It why Bibi hasn’t been going anywhere besides America. Biden is one of the few leaders willing to side with Israel over the UN
What is the UN human rights chief supposed to do about it?
He did all that was in his power:
Volker Türk told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council there must be an independent and transparent investigation of the two attacks in Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday where these devices exploded, reportedly killing 37 people and injuring more than 3,400 others.
They could all say they are going to disband if Israel doesn’t stop. Why even have the UN if they can’t do anything
Or better yet expel isreal
First of all, that’s also not in his power.
Secondly, how would disbanding the part of the UN that investigates human rights abuses help Palestinians?
Edit: Wait, you think the entire UN should be disbanded over this?
The UN is the only reason we haven’t had a nuclear war yet. Otherwise, countries wouldn’t have a neutral world forum.
How would you react if the UN becomes the world government, so that they would finally have the power to stop wars and hunger that people always complain about?
Precisely.
We’re talking double secret probation. Super cereal shit man.
Constantly wringing my hands at the lack of adults in leadership. Accountability ends atrocity.
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.
Is that law though? No one is going to jail. Sounds more a contract or agreement.
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.
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.
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.
You do know that Israel is not fighting against an invading force, right? That might be a slight difference when it comes to morality.
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.
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.
In one sense this is much worse, and more terrifying than the run-of-the-mill IED’s used by militant groups. Having to be suspicious of everything around you would be maddening. It’s indiscriminate mass psychological warfare, where the collateral damage goes way beyond the people actually carrying the devices.
OK, I’m gonna tell a little story that we used to tell in my part of the country. In my part of the country they grow a lot of watermelons.
So there was this watermelon farmer who got upset that everybody kept sneaking into his fields at night and taking watermelons.
So he came up with his great idea that he put a sign at the edge of the field that said one of these watermelons is poison. Now he knew that no one could take a watermelon cause they wouldn’t know which one was poisoned. He was quite proud of this idea.
So we came back in the morning to see how his sign worked. And sure enough no watermelons have been taken overnight.
However, he noticed the number one on his sign had been crossed out and somebody had put two.
Don’t you just have to watch out for your Hezbollah-supplied devices?
Also, fat chance they could pull the same thing off again
Yeah, Hezbollah absolutely fired their IT guy after the second time it happened.
It’s indiscriminate because Israel doesn’t know who is in proximity of the device when it explodes, or even if the target is nearby. It’s no stretch to think one of the targets could have been frisking a journalist or aid worker when their device detonated.
That being said, the “indiscriminate mass psychological warfare” comment I made was about how the effect of blowing up common devices as an act of war will have negative psychological effects on everybody who was nearby and probably even those in Lebanon who were not nearby, and potentially even Lebanese people who were in other countries who have family back in Lebanon.
How is it “indiscriminate” if solely Hezbollah operatives were targeted?
Because said operatives were often within exploding distance of civilians when the pagers were detonated. Shrapnel, even from a small explosion, can be deadly and has a fairly large range. Especially if you don’t have line-of-sight to your target before detonating the device; you have no idea what or who is nearby when it goes off.
“Explosive” and “targeted” generally don’t go hand-in-hand.
Imagine if China, Taiwan or Korea would start doing this shit. Or maybe they already have! Maybe the device you are reading this on would explode in the event of war!
In another thread I was also performing that thought experiment, specifically related to the possibility of Chinese hobby drones being banned for national security purposes, while at the same time possibly allowing Chinese made EVs to be sold in America. It’s inconsistent if nothing else. A car would be a much more terrifying IED than a pager. Shame on Israel for showing the world that acts like this are not immediately condemned as acts of terrorism and unanimously rejected as being a bridge too far.
Edit: actually it looks like there may be consistency: https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/china/us-to-propose-ban-on-chinese-software-hardware-in-connected-vehicles/
