Once that pager is used by a military organization for military use the entire ‘booby trap’ argument falls apart. It only holds when civilian items are booby trapped. Any and every bit of military equipment can be turned lethal. Not a single civilian was randomly purchasing an exploding pager in Lebanon’s mobile phone stores. These pagers were bought wholesale by Hezbollah, given to members of Hezbollah, used to communicate Hezbollah directives.
> "pursuant to Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention I, such acts are permissible in circumstances where the objects in question are no longer used for civilian purposes."
Enough shedding tears over the members of the largest terrorist army in the world, which happened to be engaged on its own initiative in a war with Israel. When Israel detonated those pagers on Hezbollah members it was legal and they all deserved it. This is an organization that has openly declared it was planning the execute the same massacre and atrocities as October 7 against Israeli civilians in the Galilee. Does anyone think the condemnation of progressives about particulars of the LoAC matter to Israel, considering those same people never make much of a protest when Islamist organizations violate the LoAC? Sorry, you guys can clutch pearls, wring hands, and philosophize about how Israel is fighting its wars of survival.
Thanks for your reply. I also read that article in Newsweek. Here is another perspective to consider. Yes, it is legal to target military objects, and the pagers could rightly be considered military objects. But a separate question is the method used to carry out the attack, and it is possible to object to using a booby-trap to attack even a purely military object. The clearest example would be attacking soldiers themselves, which is clearly permitted under LOAC. Consider, for example, setting a booby trap on the side of a road soldiers are patrolling. If the item being booby-trapped is of vital importance to civilian life, but the attack may force an army to ban the important item across the board or extensively curtail its use due to fear of booby traps, then the booby trap attack may be problematic in spite of the legitimacy of its target. I am not saying that is necessarily the case with regard to the pagers, I am only pointing out why booby-traps are so problematic as they undermine the modicum of trust between combatants necessary for LOAC to function.
There's no "could be" in this instance. Nasrallah has made a public speech telling his minions to get rid of their cellphones, or lock them in a metal box. He's the one who chose to purchase the alternative communications devices. The reason they all had those pages is because their organization's leader decided it, funded it, and had them trained. There is zero doubt that those pagers were used for military purposes. This wasn't a random sabotaging of civilian pagers. The entire line of reasoning by token Jews like Ken Roth, and fake Jews like AOC is specious propaganda, but that's not new with antisemitic anti-Israel scum like those two.
There is nothing problematic with using lethal sabotage against terrorist organizations. They are not signatories on any treaties, so they do not receive the same protections. They respect absolutely no laws of war, so they aren't combatants that should be granted LoAC provisions. They need to be wiped out from the top to the bottom. When I start hearing HRW, Amnesty International, pathetic 'progressive' DSA House representatives, and members of the academic far-left cult raise opposition to Hamas booby trapping thousands of homes in Gaza, Houthis attacking international trade, Hezbollah holding the entire country of Lebanon hostage and dragging it into war on behalf of their Iranian masters, I'll start taking complaints about "slippery slopes" seriously.
You Go Israel 🇮🇱! A genius move!!!
Once that pager is used by a military organization for military use the entire ‘booby trap’ argument falls apart. It only holds when civilian items are booby trapped. Any and every bit of military equipment can be turned lethal. Not a single civilian was randomly purchasing an exploding pager in Lebanon’s mobile phone stores. These pagers were bought wholesale by Hezbollah, given to members of Hezbollah, used to communicate Hezbollah directives.
> "pursuant to Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention I, such acts are permissible in circumstances where the objects in question are no longer used for civilian purposes."
https://www.newsweek.com/sorry-aoc-israels-precision-attack-against-hezbollah-was-humane-legal-opinion-1957207
Enough shedding tears over the members of the largest terrorist army in the world, which happened to be engaged on its own initiative in a war with Israel. When Israel detonated those pagers on Hezbollah members it was legal and they all deserved it. This is an organization that has openly declared it was planning the execute the same massacre and atrocities as October 7 against Israeli civilians in the Galilee. Does anyone think the condemnation of progressives about particulars of the LoAC matter to Israel, considering those same people never make much of a protest when Islamist organizations violate the LoAC? Sorry, you guys can clutch pearls, wring hands, and philosophize about how Israel is fighting its wars of survival.
Thanks for your reply. I also read that article in Newsweek. Here is another perspective to consider. Yes, it is legal to target military objects, and the pagers could rightly be considered military objects. But a separate question is the method used to carry out the attack, and it is possible to object to using a booby-trap to attack even a purely military object. The clearest example would be attacking soldiers themselves, which is clearly permitted under LOAC. Consider, for example, setting a booby trap on the side of a road soldiers are patrolling. If the item being booby-trapped is of vital importance to civilian life, but the attack may force an army to ban the important item across the board or extensively curtail its use due to fear of booby traps, then the booby trap attack may be problematic in spite of the legitimacy of its target. I am not saying that is necessarily the case with regard to the pagers, I am only pointing out why booby-traps are so problematic as they undermine the modicum of trust between combatants necessary for LOAC to function.
There's no "could be" in this instance. Nasrallah has made a public speech telling his minions to get rid of their cellphones, or lock them in a metal box. He's the one who chose to purchase the alternative communications devices. The reason they all had those pages is because their organization's leader decided it, funded it, and had them trained. There is zero doubt that those pagers were used for military purposes. This wasn't a random sabotaging of civilian pagers. The entire line of reasoning by token Jews like Ken Roth, and fake Jews like AOC is specious propaganda, but that's not new with antisemitic anti-Israel scum like those two.
There is nothing problematic with using lethal sabotage against terrorist organizations. They are not signatories on any treaties, so they do not receive the same protections. They respect absolutely no laws of war, so they aren't combatants that should be granted LoAC provisions. They need to be wiped out from the top to the bottom. When I start hearing HRW, Amnesty International, pathetic 'progressive' DSA House representatives, and members of the academic far-left cult raise opposition to Hamas booby trapping thousands of homes in Gaza, Houthis attacking international trade, Hezbollah holding the entire country of Lebanon hostage and dragging it into war on behalf of their Iranian masters, I'll start taking complaints about "slippery slopes" seriously.
I agree. Despite understanding why it was done the way it was done, it gives me chills to think of the consequences of starting this type of warfare.