Sorry I was being vague. Its an attack meant to cause terror in the civilian population as well. Its considered indiscriminate because while they knew who had the pagers at a point in time, when they did decide to blow them they couldnt know who would be hurt. In my opinion thats a line too far to cross.
It might also have to do with the fact that I consider people who are fighting in their own land to be both civilians and militants. Thats besides the actual civilians, if its even possible to live in some of these areas and truly avoid contact with “bad people”.
I don’t buy all this eye for an eye stuff going around, people are shit judges of themselves let alone other people.
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?
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.
I guess I’d agree with you if the goal is just to kill your enemies, I just don’t think thats possible. I don’t know how this makes peace any easier, and whether legal and military experts find it indiscriminate or not, it will have a profound effect on the country as a whole.
It is a terrorist attack, if it happened here we would be talking about the thousands of people who had to witness it and how scared they were, and how noone will touch an electronic anymore out of fear. Even if they were only military people who were “targeted”.
If this attack would lead to peace and a stop in violence and killing then I’d support it. But it doesnt. Israel has never had a proportionate or measured response, much like the US in its past conflicts.
I guess I’d agree with you if the goal is just to kill your enemies, I just don’t think thats possible. I don’t know how this makes peace any easier, and whether legal and military experts find it indiscriminate or not, it will have a profound effect on the country as a whole.
It is a terrorist attack, if it happened here we would be talking about the thousands of people who had to witness it and how scared they were, and how noone will touch an electronic anymore out of fear. Even if they were only military people who were “targeted”.
If this attack would lead to peace and a stop in violence and killing then I’d support it. But it doesnt. Israel has never had a proportionate or measured response, much like the US in its past conflicts.
Edit to clarify: you are likely right legally. I just disagree on other grounds.
Sorry I was being vague. Its an attack meant to cause terror in the civilian population as well. Its considered indiscriminate because while they knew who had the pagers at a point in time, when they did decide to blow them they couldnt know who would be hurt. In my opinion thats a line too far to cross.
It might also have to do with the fact that I consider people who are fighting in their own land to be both civilians and militants. Thats besides the actual civilians, if its even possible to live in some of these areas and truly avoid contact with “bad people”.
I don’t buy all this eye for an eye stuff going around, people are shit judges of themselves let alone other people.
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.
I guess I’d agree with you if the goal is just to kill your enemies, I just don’t think thats possible. I don’t know how this makes peace any easier, and whether legal and military experts find it indiscriminate or not, it will have a profound effect on the country as a whole.
It is a terrorist attack, if it happened here we would be talking about the thousands of people who had to witness it and how scared they were, and how noone will touch an electronic anymore out of fear. Even if they were only military people who were “targeted”.
If this attack would lead to peace and a stop in violence and killing then I’d support it. But it doesnt. Israel has never had a proportionate or measured response, much like the US in its past conflicts.
I guess I’d agree with you if the goal is just to kill your enemies, I just don’t think thats possible. I don’t know how this makes peace any easier, and whether legal and military experts find it indiscriminate or not, it will have a profound effect on the country as a whole.
It is a terrorist attack, if it happened here we would be talking about the thousands of people who had to witness it and how scared they were, and how noone will touch an electronic anymore out of fear. Even if they were only military people who were “targeted”.
If this attack would lead to peace and a stop in violence and killing then I’d support it. But it doesnt. Israel has never had a proportionate or measured response, much like the US in its past conflicts.
Edit to clarify: you are likely right legally. I just disagree on other grounds.