Of course it is. they targeted anyone with these pagers as well as anyone standing within a few metres of anyone with a pager. All of whom were definitely combatants. Because otherwise this would be a war crime, and Mossad would never.
That’s not what discrimination means in international law.
It was not an indiscriminate attack and only people who obviously do not have a clue what they’re talking about think that’s not the case.
If you don’t want to be a tragic yet lawful incidental casualty of war, don’t stand near people whose idea of good government is launching 1,000 rockets a month while their families are malnourished.
I’m finding it pretty difficult to find a definition of discriminate killing in international law. Most commentators seem to think that the pager attack was a very clear example of indiscriminate killing. Could you point me to the law which defines this term?
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
As part of a specific plan to make it possible to continue organizing rocket attacks
1,000 rockets per month, costs $600,000,000 a year to intercept
Rockets are fired without guidance of any kind (no discrimination)
At civilians (null proportion)
By non-uniformed fighters (no distinction)
By non-state actors
Launchers and fighterd hidden purposely among civilians
Munitions and launchers assembled and smuggle via underground tunnels, purposely under civilian centers
Aside, a strike aimed directly at the means by which attacks are carried out, upon a military target, meant to disrupt the enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks is the gold standard of proportionate, so scratch that box.
Edit: sorry I leaped over your question into a different answer. It’s kind of because the concept of discrimination is built into distinction and proportionality, which are codified, as cited above in the Chief Prosecutor’s letter. At the link is like a restatement definition or like common law definition of indiscriminate though it doesn’t have any kind of force of law itself, but see the section labeled Interpretation, toward the bottom, and it explains how ICRC arrived at a definition and it’s relation to these other concepts.
So the first sentence there, of article 8.2.b.iv seems to agree with most of the commentary I was seeing, as anyone would know that incidental loss of life and injury to civilians would occur.
Of course it is. they targeted anyone with these pagers as well as anyone standing within a few metres of anyone with a pager. All of whom were definitely combatants. Because otherwise this would be a war crime, and Mossad would never.
That’s not what discrimination means in international law.
It was not an indiscriminate attack and only people who obviously do not have a clue what they’re talking about think that’s not the case.
If you don’t want to be a tragic yet lawful incidental casualty of war, don’t stand near people whose idea of good government is launching 1,000 rockets a month while their families are malnourished.
I’m finding it pretty difficult to find a definition of discriminate killing in international law. Most commentators seem to think that the pager attack was a very clear example of indiscriminate killing. Could you point me to the law which defines this term?
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; © and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b)."
— Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Emphasis my own.
The pagers were
Aside, a strike aimed directly at the means by which attacks are carried out, upon a military target, meant to disrupt the enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks is the gold standard of proportionate, so scratch that box.
Edit: sorry I leaped over your question into a different answer. It’s kind of because the concept of discrimination is built into distinction and proportionality, which are codified, as cited above in the Chief Prosecutor’s letter. At the link is like a restatement definition or like common law definition of indiscriminate though it doesn’t have any kind of force of law itself, but see the section labeled Interpretation, toward the bottom, and it explains how ICRC arrived at a definition and it’s relation to these other concepts.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12
So the first sentence there, of article 8.2.b.iv seems to agree with most of the commentary I was seeing, as anyone would know that incidental loss of life and injury to civilians would occur.