Terrorism implies the targets are non-combatants, and that was intentional. That's not obvious here.
Opening the door to supply chain attacks like this is a huge problem, but I'm not sure it was illegal under IHL.
Opening the door to supply chain attacks like this is a huge problem, but I'm not sure it was illegal under IHL.
The method of delivery is too imprecise to guarantee only (or even mostly) the combatants are targeted. A targeting system that was "blind" by design (intention) was almost guaranteed to harm civilians inside civilian buildings, and it did. Terror is a big component of terrorism and the goal of terrorizing civilian population with random explosions and death around them was definitely achieved. In effect this was a slightly more targeted version of bombing a hospital because some military targets are there. Also from the quote above:
> “Authorities have reportedly dismantled unexploded devices in universities, banks, and hospitals.”
IMO, it's a categorical error to say that putting an explosive in a secure pager purchased in bulk order by an internationally recognized terrorist militia is equivalent to rigging a door to explode when anyone (no matter who) opens it. Yes, the actual wording of the law doesn't do a great job of delineating the two situations, but let's not pretend there's not a difference.
When the law was written, the distinction between "civilian use" and "military use" was far far more clear than it is today. Militaries around the world use off the shelf commercial equipment today. A "commercial radio issued to military personnel" doesn't feel like it should be given a pass as being "civilian" because the type of object it is can be purchased by anyone. In practice it was specifically handed out as a military-use item to members of a military organization.
It's true the UN is unanimously anti Israel for most of its existence. This isn't a change. And of course Israel ignores the UN, also not a change.
The Lebanese/Hezbollah better wise up. The Israelis outgun them by inconceivable degrees, and like the Palestinians, were only saved from the usual historical result of annihilation by the politics of oil for the last 75 years.
However:
1) the USA is oil independent with shale oil, and has no functional interest in the region anymore
2) the Saudis, who no longer have the us military as de facto mercenaries on demand and longtime funder of anti Israel groups, need a military power against their biggest threats (Iran and turkey), and are now allies with Israel.
3) yes saudi oil is still important to China,Japan, and Europe, but EVs and alternative energy are poised to make oil a strategically insignificant product in the coming decades, one that can be easily sourced by major militaries without caring about the muddle east.
Anyway, so people arguing about who is the terrorist and who is the valid nation state are arguing from the context of an international trade system that gives a damn about the region being stable.
Israel knows the new rules: nobody cares, just like nobody cares about the Tigers war and nobody cares about Armenia Azerbaijan and whatever other hotspots around the world. Hezbollah and Palestinians need to wake up to this reality, even though the sad fact is that they won't as long as Iranian funds are the only thing that keeps the lights on for them.
No, it didn't.
"Intent" mind reading or not. This is what happened and is a terrorist act.
The existence of non-combatant casualties doesn't make the strike illegal.
The biggest difference is: in this case the terrorists get the payback. The people who are actually guilty/related to that. Organizations like Hezbollah target civilians and fire blindly at entire regions.
There are quite a lot of other differences, I suggest avoiding false equivalencies of this sort.
I get that Israel has a lot it needs to improve on, but it has been remarkably "clean" compared even to American war standards e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urb...
It didn't bomb civilian areas knowingly, that would constitute a war crime and would immediately trigger the Leahy Law that would block all aid to Israel https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-r...
If there was a shred of actual *real* evidence of Israel intentionally targeting civilians it would be in US courts right now trying to enforce that law. The fact is this is all online propaganda where facts don't actually matter and proof isn't necessary... Speaks volumes...
> The difference may be ideological, geopolitical, etc. but it is not that one side follows the rules and the other breaks them.
If your ideology is global Sharia law then sure... If you hate the West then sure. It's just ideology. Their ideology is that Israel should be wiped out. The ideology of Israel is that it's already there and should remain there. I don't think calling this "different ideologies" is a legitimate stance.