The Holy Land Thread

[Del]

+JMJ+

[…]

If Hezbollah were legal combatants under international law (not terrorists), and not hiding themselves illegally within civilian populations, there would be no civilian casualties.

I don't think "going to get a shawarma" counts as hiding among civvies.

IDF Releases Photos, Video Showing How Hezbollah Hides Missiles On Launchers Inside Homes

[Hovannes]

+JMJ+

Title: Why Israel's pager bombs have no place in a just war [Analysis, Opinion]
Source: Economic Times
Link: economictimes DOT indiatimes DOT com/news/international/world-news/why-israels-pager-bombs-have-no-place-in-a-just-war/articleshow/113570410.cms

The Money-Quote:

The exploding pagers and walkie-talkies targeting members of Hezbollah in Lebanon were certainly an espionage and technological coup. Few people on the spot or reading about them from far away could fail to be amazed. But the explosions on Tuesday and Wednesday were also very likely war crimes — terrorist attacks by a state that has consistently condemned terrorist attacks on its own citizens.

Yes, the devices most probably were being used by Hezbollah operatives for military purposes. This might make them a legitimate target in the continuous cross-border battles between Israel and Hezbollah. But the attacks, which killed at least 37 people and wounded thousands of others, came when the operatives were not operating; they had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged. Rather, they were at home with their families, sitting in cafes, shopping in food markets — among civilians who were randomly killed and injured.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for the attacks but is widely believed to be behind them. If those allegations are true, it is important for friends of Israel to say: This was not right.

The theory of just war depends heavily on the distinction between combatants and civilians. In contemporary warfare, these two groups are often mixed together in the same spaces — often, indeed, deliberately mixed together, because the killing of civilians invites moral condemnation. The war that Hamas designed in Gaza is a grim illustration of the strategy of putting civilians at risk for political gain. Still, a military responding to this strategy has to do everything it can to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. Israel claims to be doing that in Gaza, although serious criticism of its conduct there has appeared in media around the world, not to mention a case brought against Israeli and Hamas officials alike at the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.

No similar claim of minimizing risk to civilians can be made for the decision to explode the devices. They were not distributed by Hezbollah in order to put its people at risk. This was not a plot to force Israel to kill or injure civilians. The plot was Israel's, and the plotters had to know that at least some of the people hurt would be innocent men, women and children.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... 5c2a&ei=16

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Title: Why Israel's pager bombs have no place in a just war [Analysis, Opinion]
Source: Economic Times
Link: economictimes DOT indiatimes DOT com/news/international/world-news/why-israels-pager-bombs-have-no-place-in-a-just-war/articleshow/113570410.cms

[…]

[…]

LINK: msn DOT com/en-us/news/opinion/alan-dershowitz-israel-s-pager-attack-was-legal-under-the-laws-of-war/ar-AA1rbETp

The author's argument turns on two highly disputable points — one point explicit, the other implicit:

1. Explicit: "The individuals who were given beepers, radios and other communication devices by Hezbollah were clearly combatants."
2. Implicit: Israel satisfied International Law's requirement of making "reasonable efforts, consistent with military goals, to minimize civilian casualties".

As for Claim #1, it seems specious to claim that Hezbollah members — by mere dint of their membership — exist in a perpetual and unbroken state of combatant-ism.

As for Claim #2, a simultaneous mass-detonation of pagers would certainly seem to demonstrate the exact type of indiscrimination and wanton-disregard which are precisely proscribed by International Law's requirement for diligent, good-faith "reasonable efforts".

As an aside, there's something both bemusingly quaint and cynically perverse in the author mounting an International Law defense, when he spends the first paragraph heaping contempt on "the international 'community' and its academic justifiers".

In the end, of course, it will be up to the UN, The Hague, the ICJ, and any other relevant oversight bodies to make the final determinations, but it seems to me that time is running out for the type of rationalizations the author deploys in his article.

[Del]

+JMJ+<All the stuff you said>

You didn't read the explainer article that I posted earlier.

The Law Of Exploding Pagers


Simple fact is that the people complaining about how Israel violated some sort of international law in this highly targeted and outrageously ingenious operation -- never once complained about the thousands of rockets that Hezbollah aimed at civilian populations in Israel.

What everyone forgets is that international law only applies to nations who agree to abide by it. Hezbollah and Hamas operate as terrorist organizations, hiding among civilians, targeting civilians, and never complying with any international law. So Israel is not compelled to obey international law in fighting them.

Israel is required to minimize collateral damage to Lebanese civilians, of course. That's what made the pager attacks so elegant.

Now we are learning that Hezbollah is hiding medium- and long-range missiles inside the homes of civilians. That turns those homes into legal military targets for precision strikes. Israel is warning civilians in Lebanon that air strikes are coming to their neighborhoods, and urging evacuation for their safety. Israel is threatening ground troops next. They are serious about neutralizing threats from Hezbollah before those missiles are fired at Israelis.

100,000 Israelis want to return to their homes in northern Israel.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: Crux
Link: cruxnow DOT com/church-in-the-middle-east/2024/09/pope-francis-says-escalation-of-conflict-in-lebanon-is-uncacceptable

Pope Francis says escalation of conflict in Lebanon is ‘uncacceptable’

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Sept 26, 2024 — As Israel hints it is planning a land invasion of Lebanon, Pope Francis warned an escalation of violence in the country is “unacceptable.”

[…]

On Wednesday, Pope Francis said during his General Audience he was “saddened” by the news from Lebanon, “where in recent days the intense bombings have claimed many victims and caused destruction.”

“I hope that the international community will make every effort to stop this terrible escalation. It is unacceptable,” the pontiff said.

[…]

Meanwhile, churches in Lebanon have opened their doors to those seeking refuge from the devastating impact of the ongoing attacks.

“People are now living in church halls, so they will need food, sanitary products, mattresses, blankets — and if it continues, we will need heating for winter, though of course, we hope it will not last that long,” said Marielle Boutros, project coordinator at Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) in Lebanon.

She said “all south Lebanon is being targeted” — a region with a large Christian population — leading many residents to seek shelter in churches.

“These are not purely Shia or Hezbollah areas, and we have a lot of Christian families living there. Some have lost their houses, and they are moving now from the south to other places in Beirut, Mount Lebanon and the north, to find safety,” Boutros added.

She also said the schools, which the Catholic charity has also been supporting, “are closed, but this is temporary, and they are now moving to online teaching.”

Nearly 100,000 people in Lebanon have been forced to flee their homes this week, United Nations experts say.

In his General Audience, Pope Francis expressed his closeness to the Lebanese people, “who have already suffered too much in the recent past.”

“And let us pray for everyone, for all the peoples who suffer as a result of war: Let us not forget tormented Ukraine, Myanmar, Palestine, Israel, Sudan, all the suffering peoples. Let us pray for peace,” the pontiff said.

[Del]

"Secondary explosions" occur when an airstrike ignites the munitions hidden at the target.

https://x.com/IDF/status/1839047433134764043

Instead of using military assets to protect the people of Lebanon, Hezbollah uses the people of Lebanon to protect their military assets.

IDF struck a residential building in Lebanon that was hiding a significant number of rockets. Quite a display of fireworks:

https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/1838231894565024200

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: America
Link: americamagazine DOT org/politics-society/2024/09/26/maryann-cusimano-love-richard-love-israel-lebanon-pager-explosions

Did Israel’s pager attack break international law? Two military ethics experts weigh in [Interview]

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

The apparent deployment of remotely detonated explosive devices in pagers and two-way radios used by Hezbollah members in Lebanon has raised concerns over the ethics and legality of the tactic, particularly given the civilian casualties among Lebanese resulting from these explosions. No party has claimed credit for the pager attack, but Hezbollah blames Israel, and U.S. officials on background have said that Israeli intelligence intercepted a shipment of pagers and inserted explosives into them.

America had the chance to interview two experts on military ethics and Just War teaching in one household: Maryann Cusimano Love, associate professor of International Relations at the Catholic University of America; and Richard A. Love, a professor in the College of Information and Cyberspace at National Defense University. Dr. Cusimano Love’s comments were provided via email. These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

America: Do the pager attacks conform to international law?

Maryann Cusimano Love: Israel has a right to self defense, and civilians have a right to protection. Israel’s self defense actions are limited by ethics and law. After suffering a horrific terrorist attack, there is pressure to “respond in kind.” Many argue that since terrorists fight dirty, the “gloves should come off” in response.

This approach is self-defeating. You can’t argue that terrorism is wrong, that killing civilians in terrorist attacks is immoral, illegal, and that the world should come together against terrorism, while engaging in attacks that kill civilians.

Richard Love: We’re talking about a state attacking a terrorist organization, which is a non-state actor, but these attacks are occurring within defined countries, Syria and Lebanon. In July, Israel also assassinated Hezbollah leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran. The question is whether it would be legitimate for those countries to respond with an armed attack against Israel. Under international law, all three of those states would be justified in some sort of response.

Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization by the United States and many other states, but Israel and Lebanon are signatories to the 1983 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans remotely delivered mines. Many academics include booby traps in this definition, which arguably makes Israel’s use of explosives in pagers and walkie-talkies illegal.

But perhaps the most concerning aspect of the attack was in how it was targeted, since non-combatants were certainly injured in great numbers and some noncombatants were killed. A fundamental tenet of humanitarian law rests on distinction, the requirement to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and not target non-combatants with military assets.

How would U.S. Army regulations have applied to these attacks? Would they have been prohibited?

MCL: After the September 11 attacks, the United States faced similar questions in assessing how to respond. These are challenges governments face in conducting counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations. The U.S. general who was in charge of the war in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, repeatedly noted that “every civilian death diminishes our cause,” and “you can’t kill your way out” of this conflict.

RL: If the United States were engaged in a conflict with a state adversary, an attack like this would raise a lot of questions about whether this was a targeted assassination. By policy, the United States prohibits the assassination of political leaders in a country with which we are not at war. Whether you assassinate a political leader in times of war is largely a matter of politics because once you do that, you open your side to reprisals.

However, against a non-state actor, I can foresee that the U.S. military would view an attack like this similarly to a drone strike, which the United States has in the past legitimized by saying, 1) they’re non-state actors, and 2) they’re terrorists.

Is the use of these pagers and walkie-talkies an indiscriminate attack on civilians? Were civilians hurt? Israel will say that the people who had these devices were Hezbollah terrorists funded by Iran, but there’s no guarantee that these devices, once put out there, could not get into the hands of noncombatants. The same would apply if the U.S. were to use such a stratagem to attack adversaries; they would be culpable if civilians were collateral damage here — if they were injured or killed. So it’s a very, very difficult situation.

Israel or any force in the future may find ways to justify using this tactic, but it’s a dangerous precedent. You can see how this could easily be characterized as an indiscriminate attack that could potentially injure civilians.

[…]

How might the Catholic tradition of Just War theory be applied to this case?

MCL: Just War tradition is necessary, but insufficient, in describing the ethical terrain. Just War tradition is institutionalized in the Geneva Conventions, in international law of war and in domestic codes of military justice. The tradition requires the right intention of seeking a positive peace, rather than revenge, but it also requires positive actions to protect noncombatants, the criteria of discrimination and proportionality.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since the 1980s. It’s time for new approaches, for using the principles and practices of Just Peace, which have helped to cool other decades-long conflicts around the world.

[…]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: Associated Press
Link: apnews DOT com/article/pope-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-72b592696627d1a671e7419e98e354b6

Pope Francis suggests Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon are disproportionate and immoral

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis suggested Sunday that Israel’s attacks in Gaza and Lebanon have been “immoral” and disproportionate, saying its military domination has gone beyond the rules of war.

Francis was asked en route home from serious screenplays about Israel’s targeted killing of one of Hezbollah’s founding members, Hassan Nasrallah. Friday’s strike in Beirut targeted an area greater than a city block and reduced several residential buildings to rubble, and at least six other deaths have been confirmed.

Francis didn’t mention Israel by name and said he was speaking in general terms. But he said that “the defense must always be proportionate to the attack.”

“When there is something disproportionate, there is a dominating tendency that goes beyond morality,” he said. “A country that does these things — and I’m talking about any country — in a superlative way, these are immoral actions.”

He said that even if war itself is immoral, there are rules that “indicate some [nod to the constraints of] morality.”

“But when you don’t do this … you see the bad blood of these things,” he said.

[…]

[Del]

As an aside, there's something both bemusingly quaint and cynically perverse in the author mounting an International Law defense, when he spends the first paragraph heaping contempt on "the international 'community' and its academic justifiers".

It is both quaint and perverse.

International Law is silly garbage. It cannot be legislated, enforced, or adjudicated. Its purpose is to give political editors and the academic class something to chatter their teeth about.

And when "the international 'community' and its academic justifiers" deserve the contempt of just and peaceful people, it gets heaped.

Hezbollah has been indescriminately firing rockets daily at civilian populations in Israel. Over 8000 rockets. Mass civilian evacuations. Hezbollah is hiding their fighters and their missiles amidst civilian populations.

Israel has the duty to defend their citizens.

Lebanon has not complained nor attacked Israel in retaliation. That tells us everything we need to know about how "just" these surgically targeted attacks have been.

[Del]

Netanyahu made a short speech today, addressing the people of Iran.

You'll want to see this:

3 min on X:
https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/1840743585118925083
=======================


Iranian ex-pats in England celebrate the death of Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, gathering outside the Israeli Embassy in London. Waving flags of Israel, the old Persian flag, banners with Netanyahu's face.... giving thanks to Israel for delivering the world of a great demon.