Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism:
Volker Türk, the UN commission for human rights "explained that international law prohibits the use of booby-trapped items used in daily life, and 'it is a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians.'"
These takes are problematic because it's clear to most observers that the attacks were, by the standards set by ground combat in Fallujah, NATO air operations in Kunar Province, or operations against ISIL in Inherent Resolve, the pager/radio attacks were drastically more discriminating, and caused a tiny fraction of the noncombatant casualties. This, of course, is also a distorted standard capturing only NATO/aligned combat operations; the picture gets much worse if you pull in Gulf State military operations, Azerbaijan, or Russia/Ukraine.
(Turk's booby-trap argument is challenging for two additional reasons; the first is that the encrypted pagers and ICOM radios we're discussing are military command & control equipment, not items used "in daily life" in the sense contemplated by the booby trap convention, and further the definition of a booby trap in that convention involves a device triggered when random people approach it, not one detonated at a specific instruction by the party that placed it. The history of the booby trap convention is tied up in the human cost of unwinding booby traps after conflicts have wound down, which is not a problem the pagers posed.)
I'm concerned that people attempting (reasonably!) to communicate disapproval for IDF operations generally are damaging their credibility by trying to fold the pager/radio attack into their message. To me, the pager/radio attack is damning for an entirely different reason: with proper seriousness and resourcing, it's clear that Israel was able to incapacitate a near-peer military adversary with vastly lower noncombatant cost than what they've managed in Gaza.
I think the bit that this misses is that the root of all the problems we've seen over the last few decades is that Israel keeps doing their settlement thing. In spite of decades of pretty much the entire rest of the world – including the US – saying they should not be doing that.
I don't approve of Hezbollah or Hamas; but if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections. Israel has consistently maintained that no, actually, the core problem is that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, and once we get rid of these people all the problems will be gone. It's certainly true that these organisations have become part of the problem, but they're not at the root of it.
"We will keep our bad faith settlement policy, and if you behave like a good boy to our satisfaction long enough then maybe perhaps we will consider granting you rights" doesn't really work. All these gun-toting "don't tread on me" 2nd amendment absolutionists people full-on supporting Israel wouldn't accept that either. Israel must resolve the settlement issue first, and THEN we can dismantle the violent extremist groups (which will take time and won't happen overnight – there will be a "Real Hamas" splinter group just as there was a "Real IRA"). This is the only way peace can happen.
This is why I think you can't really compare it to operations against ISIL or Taliban, whom have a far less legitimate complaints. This is also why "IDF is the most moral army in the world" that I have seen some people say, and what you're kind of echoing here, is completely besides the point. I don't know if it's true and I don't really care. This conflict would be non-existent on the scale that it exists today if not for the settlement policy, which is 100% in Israel's control.
So --- and I think this is take that pisses off both sides of this conflict --- I really don't think moral struggles or the definition of "terrorism" is at all illuminating in this conflict. Both sides deploy the term to discredit the other; in neither case does it matter.
Two important things to understand about Hezbollah are that is the dominant military power in Lebanon, and that is directly supplied, enabled, and controlled by the IRGC QF. Hezbollah is in a plausible sense a military occupier of the state of Lebanon; as an illustration of that fact, look at its full mobilization in support of the Syria/Iran axis during the Syrian Civil War (a Hezbollah conflict that went largely unreported in the west, but caused integer multiples more civilian casualties than anything we've seen reported in the last 12 months).
This is an open conflict between two military peers. Over the last year, Hezbollah has fired on average dozens of rockets every day, at a cadence sufficient to evacuate much of Northern Israel to hotel rooms and temporary housing. My point isn't that you should respect Hezbollah less for doing so, or that it is therefore a terrorist organization. Rather: Hezbollah is a world-tier military force (by many accounts the most effective in the Syrian wars) that has opened a front on a neighboring country.
These are two warring armies. "Deserve", as William Munny would say, has nothing to do with it. If it helps, Israel has been coasting on arguments that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization for years, and I'm no more interested in those arguments.
> I really don't think moral struggles or the definition of "terrorism" is at all illuminating in this conflict
Yes, I fully agree. To be blunt, it's boring semantic wank.
No one is here is an angel. Everyone has serious legitimate grievances and no one is smelling of roses. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hyper-partisan.
But that doesn't mean we can't say all of this could have been avoided if Israel hadn't continued their settlement policy with no hint or perspective or any compromise. Remember the constitutional changes and protests over them? That was mostly over the the far-right wanting to expand the settlement policy even further. Even before Oct 7 several government ministers seemed to support the outright ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza. Fun people.
This is not just "fanning the flames", it's the root of the conflict. That was really my main point; I don't think you can just talk about number of civilian casualties without also recognizing that Israel's policies are the fuel on which the entire thing burns. That is: at its core it's a conflict of Israel's choosing. Without it you might have the small terror group or lone nutjob, but nothing like we see today.
It doesn't help that Israel gets a huge amount of military support, to the point where it can just do anything without significant cost in lives or material. Look at the casualty ratios – "military peers" is rather a stretch IMHO.
It just doesn't mean anything. I disagree with you about Hezbollah's motives, but that's besides the point. No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year. To call the missile attacks an act of war would be to understate dramatically the campaign they've undertaken. You can believe Hezbollah's motives were pure and their campaign fully justified. Israel was still going to shoot back; after almost a full year of large scale rocket attacks, it was starting to look weird that they hadn't already. Hezbollah presumably just expected them to shoot back less effectively.
> No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year.
Only Israel reacts to terrorism with a genocidal rampage. No other country behaves like this. And it only behaves like this because it has been enabled by their allies, and the international community, who consistently let their crimes go unpunished, including but not limited to their settlement policy.
On the flip side, no colonized people in the world (except maybe Tibet) would ignore what Israel has done over the last decades. Decades of colonial occupation usually results in resistance and that resistance usually includes terrorism.
Israel’s behavior is not normal, by any measure, Hezbollah or Hamas’ behavior on the other hand is consistent with resistance group of colonized peoples.
Once again: Hezbollah occupies Lebanon. It is not a resistance movement. A majority of Lebanese (which is not majority Shia) loathes it. It's primary military engagements over the last decade --- even after including the casualties it incurred by opening a front with Israel over the last year --- have been in Syria, where it has been gleefully (and I use that word advisedly; look up the details, they've been making videos --- Madaya; Homs; Idlib) murdering children and civilians. You give the game away a bit when you equate Hezbollah with Hamas. They are radically different organizations. Both are terrible, but they are terrible in their own distinct ways.
I understand why people have a problem with Israel. It makes a lot of sense. But you cannot simply assume any declared military enemy of Israel is a resistance organization. We went through this with Ansar Allah in Yemen, which is literally a racialist fascist dictatorship representing single-digit percentages of the population, also managed by the IRGC QF, and also killing civilians by the tens of thousands.
In no way does Hezbollah "occupy" Lebanon. It is drawn entirely from Lebanese society. Truly a bizarre thing to keep repeating so stridently! Its also absurd to deny the literal origins of the group, as a militia that was attempting to defend southern Lebanon from an actual occupation? This isn't hidden, there are shelves of books in english on the origins of Hezbollah? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the wikipedia article on them, just to show what level of consensus there is, states the fact of its origins as a response to an Israeli invasion, and its source for this is....wait for it....the BBC.
Hey! I'm glad to see you. Hezbollah was a Khomeinist response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. If you want to argue that Israel bears some responsibility for the destabilization of Lebanon, I won't argue. But it was trained and guided by the IRGC from its inception; the modern incarnation of Hezbollah is directed by the IRGC Quds Force. If you want to argue that the two organizations (QF and Hezbollah) are separable, you have two simple fact patterns to contend with:
* Hezbollah fully mobilized to engage, on behalf of the Syrian Baathists during the Syrian civil war. By some accounts Hezbollah was the most effective fighting force in the entire conflict. There was no clear ideological reason Hezbollah should have committed itself and other Lebanese militia to that conflict; it did so because Iran and the Baathist leadership of Syria are aligned politically. It's striking, reviewing the entire history of Hezbollah's military conflict, that the Syrian theater accounts for a plurality of all military casualties ever taken by Hezbollah. I'd like to understand your explanation for Hezbollah taking over 2,000 infantry casualties in Syria that excludes the IRGC directing them to do so.
* The Mossad pager attack struck Iran's foreign envoy to Lebanon (that's reported in the story we're commenting on) and dozens of Iranian Quds Force operatives in the Bekaa valley. I'm curious what your explanation of those casualties would be, apart from the obvious and widely reported suggestion that Hezbollah under Nasrallah was an instrument of the QF.
The claim that Hezbollah is directed by and is in essence an instrument of the Quds Force fits into a context of Iran's strategy of engaging militarily through a network of proxies --- the claim I'm making is one Iran itself makes. Iran's proxies include not just Hezbollah but Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza --- Hamas being noteworthy because they had a falling out with the IRGC because they supported the Sunni insurgency in Syria.
It's wild to me, as a westerner, that on the leaderboard of "most salient military conflicts in the Middle East", Israel/Palestine ranks at best #3, behind the Saudi/Persian rivalry (which claimed hundreds of thousands of noncombatant lives in Yemen) and the Sunni/Alawite conflict in Syria (which claimed hundreds of thousands of noncombatant lives in Syria).
I don't care about the moralizing in either direction. I don't care that Israel believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I don't care that Hezbollah believes Israel is an illegitimate occupier. I don't care if Hezbollah felt justified in indiscriminately lobbing rockets at northern Israel. I don't care because it doesn't matter. They struck, Israel responded; they are near-peer military adversaries, and they are at war.
This to me just illustrates the futility of advocating for a "right to fight back" or a "right to resist". There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. Wouldn't it be wild if there were? If some adjudicator could just decide, you're in the right, they're in the wrong, you can fire thousands of rockets, they just have to sit there and take it? In reality, however, if you launch a large scale military offensive at a capable adversary, you're going to get hit back.
> There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks.
I'm not "moralizing" I'm citing the UN, and nobody is saying that ^
Israel is a colonist apartheid. It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine and Palestine does have the right to fight back.
It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
Israel's policies may change (do note that a distinction is being drawn here between Israeli Arabs, who enjoy Israeli citizenship, freedom of movement, voting rights, Knesset membership, etc and Palestinians, who do not). The state of Israel is not going to dissolve, because there are no plausible pressures that can be brought to bear to make that happen.
Post WW2 history does not treat kindly the kinds of atrocities currently being committed by Israel. I don’t know of any state which actually survived being a perpetrator of a genocide (at least not as a continuation of a functioning state). Khmer Cambodia did not, Rwanda did not. The closest is probably Serbia (but they were merely complicit of a genocide committed Republika Srpska which now only exists as a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina) or Indonesia (which survived as a dictatorship before transforming to Democracy in a revolution 15 years after the East-Timor genocidal rampage; a revolution largely caused by the genocidal behavior).
If Israel is going to follow the pattern of perpetrators of modern genocide it will either voluntarily change, be invaded and forced to change, or hang on as a dictatorship for a couple of decades and change in a revolution. In any case an Israel as we know it would have to be a historic first if it would persist as this pseudo democratic apartheid state as we know it today for the next two decades. In other words—looking at history—chances are very much in favor of Israel dissolving.
I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. This kind of rhetoric is what jams up curious discussions about what's happening in the region; Syria and Yemen host actual genocidaires --- in Syria's case, of Palestinians in refugee camps --- and have killed civilians in the last 20 years greater multiples than the IDF has in its entire history. But somehow, Israelis notice, it's only Israel that needs to worry about what history will say about it. Your list of comparable states is wild.
You need to find a rhetorical device for calling out Israel's war crimes in west Asia that doesn't involve attempting to line Israel, and only Israel, up alongside the Rwandan Interahamwe. I think reasonable people who you stand a chance of persuading recoil from these kinds of analogies, and they're right to do so.
My point was originally that history does indeed have examples of apartheid states dissolving, contradicting your prediction that Israel wouldn’t dissolve. My point was simply to prove you wrong by citing historic examples.
My point was never to compare Israel to Rwanda (which I never did) but rather, since you weren’t convinced by the original statement, to further my case by citing other genocidal rampages which did in fact lead directly to the downfall of the perpetrating state. Your point about Syria might be on par with that as it is hardly a functioning state, although I would argue that their atrocities against Palestinian refugees don’t come anywhere close to the one currently ongoing by Israel, nor other cases of post WW2 genocides.
The Syrian state ran out of ordinary munitions during the civil war, but so desired to ethnically cleanse Sunni Palestinian refugee camps that they improvised by packing metal oil drums with high explosives, nails, scrap, and bearings, and then dropping them from helicopters onto the camps. There's video footage. Soldiers in the helicopters have to light fuses on them by hand, like 1920s silent film villains. They adopted a tactic of dropping a barrel bomb, waiting 10 minutes for responders to come help the wounded, and then dropping another one on them; they apparently called it a "double tap". They did this deliberately, exclusively targeting civilians.
And, of course, they did this in addition to deploying Sarin gas. Have you ever read the New Yorker story about the Baathist Sarin attacks on Halabja? If not, can I ask that you go read it (it's on archive.is; steel yourself) and then come back and tell me how you think the IDF stacks up regionally?
By the way: these are the people Hezbollah engaged its largest ever military mobilization to support. In Madaya, they deliberately blockaded food supplies into the suburb for months; people ate their pets, and then grass. Then they starved to death. Hezbollah leaders set up food displays with fresh proteins and produce and filmed joke videos.
If you can find a genocide in post WW2 history that didn’t result in the failure of the perpetrators state, that only refutes the absolute strongest version of my claim. However that doesn’t refute my general claim that Genocidal states do in fact tend to dissolve over the following decades, and that history has examples of apartheid states—even heavily armed ones—dissolving into a single state democracy of all its people.
Looking at history the pattern is pretty clear, even though it is not absolute (nothing in history is).
Apartheid - more complicated. Many people dispute this. I think it's plausible to make a case that there is an apartheid in the West Bank, though it's not completely obvious (mostly because the people there don't want to be under Israeli rule, they want their own government).
> It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What's the next step for people who are second, third and foruth-generation Israelis and have only known Israel as their home?
What's the implication of deciding that a state recognized worldwide and part of the UN must dissolve? What about the other dozens of states since then, must they also dissolve?
> It is not a colonist by any standard definition.
Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
> Apartheid - more complicated.
It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis.
> Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis?
What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
> It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world, they were ethnically cleansed from that area by Rome. This is not even disputed.
Of course Palestinians are also indigenous to the land! Many of them more recently.
And of course, multiple generations have Israelis have now been born and lived their entire lives in that land.
But none of this really matters. The standard colonial pattern is of a country sending its population to colonize a new land. That is just emphatically not what happened. Israel was largely founded by refugees who were fleeing persecution, or by Jews ethnically cleansed from their homes. That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Hence the standard outcome that happens in colonies is that the people leave and return to the land they are "from", which is just irrelevant here, because the children of refugees have nowhere else to "return" to.
> It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Yes, and many groups disagree with this, including the US and EU iirc. Human Rights Watch in particular is a very problematic organization that has a lot of complaints against it of being biased against Israel.
That said, I'm pretty sure that what I said is consistent with what they say in their report - there's a plausible case for apartheid in the Occupied Territories. They think it has now crossed the line to being legally apartheid, others disagree. This is relevant for the OT but not the rest of Israel.
Israel has a lot of discrimination and other issues with its Israeli Arab population, but it's almost entirely not legal discrimination.
> Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do.
That is actually a very untrue example. Right of Return is a right of citizenship, the fact that some people have a right of return and others don't is not a discrimination against existing citizens.
I don't have the right to become a British citizen, that doesn't mean Britain is discrimination against me. It is just doing what every state does - defining who its citizens are via some metric, usually by being born to parents who are citizens, though different states define this differently. Israel is doing similarly.
> 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors.
Wage discrimination does not prove apartheid or any systemic discrimination.
Let's remember that Israeli Arabs can vote, can be any profession they want, a large percentage of the doctors in Israel are Arabs, there are Israeli-Arab supreme court judges, members of the Israeli Congress, etc.
> Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis.
That is exactly what Hamas is asking for. Deportation and/or killing of all Israeli-Jews.
A one state solution is a ridiculous idea that is not what anyone in the region wants, not what anyone who has ever seriously considered what to do in the region that has had any power has advocated, and would almost certainly lead to the death of one or both of the ethnic groups in the region.
Even if not, what country would ever agree to double its voting population with a population that is completely culturally different?
What do you tell Israeli members of the LGBT community, that it's totally ok to have a one state solution by adding 100% more voters that come from a society that wants to make homosexuality illegal? Do you think they should agree to that idea?
> Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
Great! I'm in favor. Like any other serious solution, this process aimed to create two states for two people. As I said elsewhere, this process largely died, in my opinion, because sincere efforts of the Israelis were met with refusal to sign an actual deal from the Palestinians, and then met with violence and terror attacks.
And the last ~17 years have seen Israelis completely convinced that there is no partner for peace and never will be, while ignoring that Israel itself is causing the conditions for there being no partner for peace!
Both sides have to just accept the fundemantal reality - there are 7 millions Jews and 7 million Arabs on this land, neither is going anywhere, the only solution is to reach a peace agreement. This will not happen through violence, only through a negotiated deal.
> Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world
No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
> The standard colonial pattern is [...] That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Man, you can't quote me talking about the British Mandate of Palestine and then say they're not colonizers. Literally before the Holocaust Britain was arming Jews to go colonize Palestine. Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
I'm not even gonna address the rest of this point by point, you're just insisting that a 2 state solution is the only way because a 2 state solution is legalized perpetuation of the colonization.
A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
No, Hamas does not want the death/expulsion of all Jews, that's simply a lie.
> No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
You brought up indigeneity. In what way are Jews not indigenous? I agreed with you that it's irrelevant right after. I don't think it automatically gives anyone right to claim any land.
> Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
Who exactly were the colonizers? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under the Ottoman Empire? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under British rule?
The 90% of the Jews who came to Israel because they literally had no where else to go after being in DP camps after WW2 and the UN voting for them to move to that land?
I'm not sure who are these mythical colonizers who came in and violent expelled Palestinians from the land. Most of the Jews either came legally through immigration or were refugees.
> A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
This is literally the first time I've ever heard this claim. A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I really don't know what to make of this argument. Two people live on a land and don't want to be part of the same state, for good reason. Both have reasonable reasons to consider that land theirs (certainly at this point) and nowhere else to go. What can be more sensible than splitting up that land?
>A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I'm sorry but wasn't this also you?
> OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before?
Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that *granted them statehood* and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
This isn't a serious line of questioning, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say they're doing more colonization without the deal and then say the deal was bad for Palestine.
First, occupation is not the same as colonization. Second, I was speaking of Gaza specifically when I talked about there being more vs. less occupation - not all of Israel.
> Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that granted them statehood and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
So I don't understand what you're advocating. You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
What solution do you think is a) the right one and b) the practical one? I don't understand how my advocating of what probably 95% of peace activists are advocating is wrong.
Occupation is not tautological to colonization but occupation can be the first step to colonization.
> You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
It is a continuation of the colonization. It is also something the Palestinians *have* agreed to, that's what the Oslo Accords are.
> On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held.
I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights?
But none of that matters because the first thing that has to happen before even a 2 state solution is a ceasefire.
I’ve heard constant talk about there being a UN resolution that’s gone completely unenforced, which involved UN occupation in southern Lebanon to ensure protection from Hezbollah control and attacks targeting Israel. Is there any validity to that? If such a large policy isn’t being enforced to support Israel, does that not somewhat validate most of Israel’s seemingly-aggressive actions in Lebanon, since the area isn’t being protected as expected?
I think just about everybody intimately acquainted with UNIFIL believes that UNIFIL serves mostly to put soldiers from other countries in harm's way as a performative gesture by the UN (it has a long history). UNIFIL was chartered to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining the position it has today, and later to prevent the militarization of southern Lebanon. It has failed comprehensively. Both Hezbollah and the IDF are actively hostile towards it. The UN should withdraw from Lebanon.
Is there really cause to believe a peaceful compromise would have been possible even without the settlements? Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides?
Israel's two largest borders are with Egypt and Jordan, both of which it has shared peaceful relations with for decades. It shares a complicated border with Syria, where it has for more decades held a salient into Syrian sovereign territory (the Golan), but until recently there has been little military activity involving it. It's the Lebanese border where all the action is at.
That's a misleadingly small part of the story of why there's no peace today.
Israeli went on to elect multiple other PMs to continue working towards a peace deal. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, but Barak met with Araft in 2000, 2001, Olmert was trying to make a deal all the way up to 2007. And in the meantime, famous military hawk Sharon actually withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements.
What actually happened is that a result of the Oslo accords, while yes, one right-wing extremist killed Rabin (and another right-wing extremist committed a disgusting terror attack on Palestinians) - the Palestinians started a massive wave of terror attacks, probably spearheaded by Hamas with the express purpose of scuttling the peace process.
Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. Not only that, you had stuff like Ariel Sharon encouraging people to settle all the land while they can. It was hard to really take in good faith.
And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
> Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy.
This is just not true. The Palestinians didn't have any recognized governing body before the accords; the accords made the Palestinian Authority the official representative of the Palestinian people, and outlined the areas from which Israel would withdraw and that would be governed by the PA completely. This all happened and is still the situation.
> I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
That is not the reason the peace process failed - it failed because the Palestinians at some walked away without agreeing to a deal, or giving a counteroffer that Israel could weigh. Multiple times. Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today.
But the terrorism is the reason the Israeli Left eventually lost much public support - because the Right just said, correctly, that all attempts at peace and all concessions have been met with refusal and more violence.
I'm not saying Israel didn't do anything bad or was always the best negotiating partner, and I think settlement activity should've been stopped (and really, should never have happened in the first place!). But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying.
You don't have to trust Israelis for this, trust Clinton, trust the other Americans, trust plenty of historians who've looked at the deal.
As for historical revisionism...
> And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks.
It takes like two minutes on Wikipedia to show that this is not true. Hamas was founded in 1987 and carried out its first terror attack in 1988, about 6 years before Goldstein's terror attack.
> Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today.
There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy. And several Israeli politicians were sabotaging things by encouraging further settlements.
My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced. Any "peace negations" without that on the table are not really meaningful and just window dressing. "Please behave nicely according to our satisfaction until we maybe give you your due rights" is not a reasonable demand, especially not in the face of some of the people in government right now.
And "Hamas born" was not the right term. The point is they stepped up their game and became influential, which is not particularly controversial AFAIK. IIRC they also didn't do any suicide attacks before Goldstein, but I could be misremembering that.
> But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying.
Different zeitgeist. Post cold war 90s were very optimistic. Too optimistic probably.
Also less of a "second world war" hangover. Look, I grew up with stories from my grandparents about the occupation. Half my history lessons were about the war and Holocaust. I have great sympathy for the Jewish people and would even go so far to consider myself a Zionist, at least for some meanings of the concept.
But also, I'm young enough that as far as I'm concerned it's too long ago, and while some morally dubious actions from the past are at least understandable, it's no longer a reason. Even more so for people 20 years younger than me who never had grandparents who told them stories.
I mean, half of the US was on-board with "Satanic Ritual Abuse" during the 80s. Just because "people are the time" said X or thought Y doesn't mean it's correct.
> There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy.
I don't understand what you mean. The negotiation was to come to an agreement to stop settlement activity and give all the territory to the Palestinians.
Are you saying the problem is that there were no concessions before the negotiations had reached an agreement? That is not how negotiations typically work.
> My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced.
Look, I agree that settlement activity should stop. Many Israelis agree and don't want settlement activity to continue.
The problem is that many Israelis are convinced, very likely correctly, that undoing settlements without a deal will cause far more violence to happen to Israel. This is exactly what happened with Gaza - a unilateral withdrawal of army and settlements, before any negotiated agreement, led to Gaza turning into a launching pad of rockets on Israel.
I still think the settler violence happening today in the WB is abhorrent, all new settlements must cease immediately, etc. I'm totally with you there. I don't know if it'll happen - we may be too far gone at this stage.
In any case, Palestinian violence has basically always backfired on Palestinians. Even if you can somehow accept it morally (which you absolutely shouldn't), the end result is that every single bad condition of the Palestinians has been the direct result of violence, including the horrific condition of Gaza right now. Maybe trying a different approach like renouncing violence is just a good idea?
OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before?
I think the basic logic of "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" is the guiding logic here, whether you call it occupation or not.
My understanding, after having learned more about this topic in the last year, is that this runs much deeper in the Israeli political establishment than Israel's image in the west would suggest.
E.g., I found it notable that Likud's founding charter explicitly rejects a two-state solution, fully endorses the settlement policy and calls for an Israel "from the river to the sea" - in 1977! [1] (More recent updates to the charter are more ambiguous though)
That, btw, is itself already the "moderate" position in contrast to Likud's predecessor parties - which were platforming on extending Israel into the (back then occupied) Sinai [2] or taking over all of Jordan [3] (due to it having been the other half of Mandatory Palestine).
Every country has its fringe groups with extremist views, except in this case, the groups became the dominant government party.
A recent tweet [4] from Netanyahu in response to Macron also makes it clear that the "we conquered it fair and square, so it's ours now" mindset is still alive and well today.
None of that excuses the atrocities done by Palestinian groups - but it definitely calls into question who is the escalating side in this conflict. It also makes the west's one-sided support for Israel appear increasingly jarring and at odds with it's own values.
I think it's uncontroversial that Likud opposes a 2-state solution, for what it's worth. I think you're going to find a lot of people taking Israel's side in the existential question of whether it should defend itself as a sovereign, and/or respond to mass-casualty attacks from paramilitary militias in territories it occupies, but far fewer people endorsing Israel's leadership. "I support Israel's right to exist but Netanyahu belongs at the Hague" is a pretty common position.
The issue is: it doesn't get you anywhere in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I believe Israel has awful, possibly criminal leadership. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't respond to full-scale military attacks from neighboring near-peer militaries.
I think tallying up the morals of each side of this conflict is really unproductive, but in the spirit of just digging into the details here, I feel like it's worth pointing out that the details on Hezbollah's side of the scale are grim. Not in its conflict with Israel, but with the broader region, where it has killed civilians with great gusto.
(Full disclaimer: I have no personal ties to the conflict and I get the largest part of my information about it from Haaretz, Wikipedia and Al Jazeera. So I definitely have a bias)
> "I support Israel's right to exist but Netanyahu belongs at the Hague" is a pretty common position.
I think Netanyahu (and Smotrich, Ben Gvir, etc) are a big part of the problem, but it's too simple to blame everything on them. The differences to the other political parties seem to be mostly in details that seem relatively irrelevant for non-Israelis: Basically whether to conduct the occupation and settlement with a good or a bad conscience and whether in service of a religious destiny or for mundane security reasons. But no one has any plan to end the occupation or even just to clear the settlements. The recent bill to reject any Palestinian state was voted in across almost all parties.
> But that doesn't mean it shouldn't respond to full-scale military attacks from neighboring near-peer militaries.
I think tallying up the morals of each side of this conflict is really unproductive, but in the spirit of just digging into the details here, I feel like it's worth pointing out that the details on Hezbollah's side of the scale are grim. Not in its conflict with Israel, but with the broader region, where it has killed civilians with great gusto.
Yeah, I don't want to exonerate Hezbollah (or Hamas for that matter). It's just that in this conflict, Hezbollah so far behaved entirely rational and predictable. Their attacks were calibrated to put pressure on Israel but nothing more - and their objective was clear to see. Israel could have easily achieved its objective of bringing back the inhabitants of the north by agreeing to one of the US-brokered ceasefire deals.
It is relatively obvious that Netanyahu wants to continue the war in Gaza at all costs and is rather starting another war than to hold the attacks.
The other reason is that with Israeli military operations, self-defense and conquest seem always be intertwined. I find it uncanny how quickly settlement movements for Gaza and Lebanon pop up during something that is ostensibly a war of self-defense. (Not even starting with the extremely dehumanizing "proposals" what to do with Gaza's population that are apparently freely discussed in Israel's civil society, such as the recent "General's plan")
I'd be more on board if the fight against Hezbollah and Hamas was conducted by an international force with UN mandate than by the IDF alone - and if at the same time we put some actual pressure on Israel to end the occupation, so there is an actual alternative for Palestinians to the terror groups.
No, Hezbollah has not behaved "entirely rational and predictable". They have indiscriminately fired rockets at civilian populations in northern Israel, often over a hundred in a single day, averaging dozens every day continuously for almost a year, killing principally (as you'd expect) civilians (ironically, many of them not Israeli Jewish citizens), in one case including half a youth football team.
If "team A did bad thing X" is an argument for anything, could I counter that team B did X too, and more? You're complaining that Hezbollah kills civilians... So does the IDF.
Now if you tell me that one is intentional and the other one isn't the I know you're not being honest, because there's plenty of evidence that the IDF is really casual about collateral damage.
> Now if you tell me that one is intentional and the other one isn't the I know you're not being honest, because there's plenty of evidence that the IDF is really casual about collateral damage.
Casual about collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians are different things.
Yes, you can make a list of terrible acts committed by almost any military, especially if you go back 76 years to before it was a state. It is very clear that some soldiers in the IDF, like in any army, have committed war crimes.
It's not "some soldiers", Netanyahu and others at the top have signified their intent to commit genocide with their repeated dehumanization of Palestinians as "Amalek". The Israeli Minister of National Security was a member of a recognized terrorist group. It's not some bad apples, the leadership in Israel is rotten to the core.
But it's clear that no matter what I say you're gonna excuse it. Throwing a baby into an oven in front of the father is some next level nazi shit. If you'll excuse that you'll excuse anything
> But it's clear that no matter what I say you're gonna excuse it. Throwing a baby into an oven in front of the father is some next level nazi shit. If you'll excuse that you'll excuse anything.
I didn't excuse it. I said it was a terrible act.
It was also committed more than 70 years ago, technically before Israel was even founded. Quite literally 3 years after millions of Jews were systematically burned in Nazi-Germany's ovens. Do you think Germany's actions in WW2 are relevant if discussing Germany today?
> It's not "some soldiers", Netanyahu and others at the top have signified their intent to commit genocide with their repeated dehumanization of Palestinians as "Amalek".
Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
What has been repeated is the thousands of times that Netanyahu and others have said that Israel is only going after Hamas, not Gazan civilians.
> The Israeli Minister of National Security was a member of a recognized terrorist group.
Well that I can't argue with. That minister is a disgusting human being who is completely destroying Israel from within, even apart from the vile things he is doing against Palestinians. Luckily his impact on the war isn't huge, but he definitely has some impact, including scuttling ceasefire deals and pressuring for the war to continue.
He is vile and Israel should be ashamed he has any influence on Israel at all, let alone being in charge of the police. (Most Israelis agree about this, unfortunately the totally corrupt Netanyahu needs him for his own political ambitions, because all normal Israelis politicians refuse to work with him!)
> It was also committed more than 70 years ago, technically before Israel was even founded.
> Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations. Most people on this site are American, they're not going to lambaste you for supporting a political nuthouse lest they scorn themselves. But they will (and rightfully so) contest anyone that tries laundering history to create a halo-effect for their favorite nation. Zionism deserves it's due shake no matter what the conditions were at the time, especially considering how interests in the region predated WWII with the Balfour declaration.
The problem isn't people, but politics. Israel (as does America with their Abrahamic militants) has an extremism problem that has been given undue control over government and military proceedings. Their actions (as you've admit with the propaganda concession) has justified insane actions and statements that cannot be rationally supported. The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously. The world's apprehension would be proven correct as Israel made hot-headed mistakes like bombing aid workers and approving poorly-targeted operations as bloody restitution.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The US depends on Israel to not just enforce peace in the Levant, but to export the Western esprit de corps across the world. If Israel continues to allow it's politics to be dictated entirely by identity and emotion, then logic will be rhetorically unnecessary to justify any military action.
> Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations.
My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant. That's how everyone thinks of things all the time in other contexts. Egypt was one of the countries that fought wars with Israel multiple times - now Egypt and Israel have peace. Moving on from past violence is pretty much how every conflict eventually ends.
> The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously.
Most people think so. And they might be right. I certainly have a lot of questions and doubts about the way Israel has carried out the war.
But it's worth noting that many/most of the most vocal critics of Israel were incredibly critical before Israel had done almost anything. Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th. And indeed, all over the world, people were protesting Israel while Hamas militants were still inside Israel slaughtering families, before Israel had done any response.
So I take criticism of Israel from some people seriously, but with a huge grain of salt.
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
The Amalek quote is from October or November but
“This is a battle, not only of Israel against these barbarians, it is a battle of civilisation against barbarism,” Dec 24th
> Israeli President Isaac Herzog said a few weeks earlier, on December 5, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is “a war that is intended, really, truly, to save western civilisation… [from] an empire of evil”.
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
Heat of war rhetoric is exactly the problem here, though. The War on Terror is 20-odd years old now and people are just as skeptical now as they were when aggression initiated. Without objective or logical goals to attain, Israel's defense forces can't cripple the Iranian infrastructure that threatens them, and they instead fight in Gaza as a perceived proxy. And instead of stabilizing their neighboring region, the IDF tactically neutered it to prevent any chance at sovereign control. Their goals are pretty much blatantly obvious, if you're looking at the big picture.
> And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and I suspect the ADL would object too. War crimes are consistently relevant, and stain their associated administration with the intent of bringing specific criminals to justice and preventing patterns of abuse. When the Axis lost in WWII, the Nazi regime fell but the criminals, their ideology and the hateful rhetoric they used persisted. Germany only absolved themselves by committing to complete and good-faith national reformation, which Israel hasn't undergone since the nation's inception.
> Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th.
They were accused of genocide for a lot longer than that. From the very start, Israel ordered the poisoning of wells in Lebanon[0], tacitly endorsed mass-killings in the West Bank[1] and researched minimum sustainment for the remaining Gazan population[2]. It doesn't make you antisemitic to note these things any more than it makes you racist for acknowledging slavery. These are politically and ideologically motivated fascinations with the suppression of a native people that errs on uncanny.
It's not my pleasure to report it in the slightest, because it's a harrowing reflection of how far global powers will bend over to support dubious interests. But it's also our global responsibility to excise all forms of dangerous extremism, otherwise we're just hypocrites. The IDF's attitude (and likely much of Israel, considering the terms of conscription) reaches dangerous levels of nationalism that are synonymous with supremacist and genocidal intent. We don't have to ask ourselves if Israel supports this or not, because settlers in the Golan Heights are allowed to molest the natives without fear of reprisal.
Take your criticism from wherever it pleases you, but do not write off anti-Zionist protest as transient or outdated. Israel has done this to themselves by creating a soft power echo-chamber that only rewards their worst impulses. They've had every opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and address them, but they refuse relentlessly. I do not respect the IDF, and their actions embarrass me simply by being a member of the first world. They need to change, or Israel will sign their fate as another internationally embarrassing hermit kingdom.
Even if Israel gets rid of settlements in the West Bank, even If Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders, the Israel-Palestine conflict will not end. That's because Palestinians want a one-state solution, along with the return of Palestinian refugees, both the first gen and their descendants--and that's the real solution from the Palestinian side. Israel is never going to accept the real Palestinian solution.
It would be more fair to note that both Hamas and the current governing coalition in Israel very clearly want a one-state solution. In fact, if you could roll Israel back to 1967 borders, the Palestinians would be in an enormously better position than they are today; politics, and, in particular, the logistics of dismantling what are in effect whole Israeli suburbs illegally situated in the West Bank, are what keep us from getting that done.†
It's difficult to really get a firm grasp on what "Palestinians" demand, because (1) the Palestinian Authority is deeply corrupt, generally not trusted by Palestinians, and actively sabotaged by the Netanyahu coalition, and (2) Hamas took power in 2006 and then for almost 20 years refused any self-determination for Gazan Palestinians, all the while being tacitly endorsed and financially abetted by the Netanyahu governing coalition.
If your claim is that Hamas is not interested in a realistic brokered solution of the Israel/Palestinian crisis, you're right. Hamas is a death cult propped up by the IRGC QF, truly one of the most despicable organizations on the planet. But I would strongly object to Hamas' worldview being imputed to Palestinians more generally; Palestinians are Hamas' primary victims.
† There are other logistical problems that would need to get hammered out in a "'67 borders" agreement, like what the corridor between Gaza and the West Bank would look like. To hear skeptical Israeli policy commentators talk about it, you'd also put the structure of Palestinian security forces on that list, but I think the last year has counterfeited that concern: you literally can't do worse than the status quo.
Supporters of Palestinians, especially activists and students on campuses, in the West are not interested in the two-state solution. This position aligns with Arabs, who don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East. Hamas says it directly; others are not so direct, but one can infer their position through their actions.
One can say 'give voice and agency to those who want to make peace with the two-state solution'; then, make peace with these groups. I am not so confident on this adventure. Even the late Prof. Edward Said, who every postcolonial and postmodernist professor and student adore and worship, wanted a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, a variety of the one-state solution. Look at some version of a bi/tri-nationalism in the neighboring Lebanon: Hezbollah dictates the Lebanese govt.
> This position aligns with Arabs, who don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East. Hamas says it directly; others are not so direct, but one can infer their position through their actions.
Let's just put things into perspective here - Egypt and Jordan, both Arab countries, have had peaceful relations with Israel for decades. Saudi Arabia was probably very close to signing a deal with Israel as well - an offer that might even still be on the table, if the war ends.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "Arabs don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East". Not anymore.
And I don't think it matters particularly what "supporters of Palestinians" want, it matters what the people in actual power making the decisions want and do.
I'm not a campus activist. I don't care what campus activists say. Some campus activists have said truly dumb things; I won't impute them to Palestinians.
I agree that it's hard to get a firm grasp on the "Palestinians" demand. It's hard to get a firm grasp on what "Americans" demand of their government, and as we see every election cycle, there are pretty conflicting demands in a polarized country.
That said, the official representative of the Palestinians did have a chance to negotiate with the Israelis, received a generous offer according to Israelis and many outsider observers, and said no - walked away without a counteroffer.
The standard Israeli feeling is that there simply is no practical way to reach a negotiated peace because of this, especially since Palestinian representatives since that time have less political will and "moral authority" among Palestinians.
(And of course something that Israelis often miss is that Israel has spent 15+ years actively working against peace, so the lack of Palestinian leaders at this stage is at least partially because of Israel!)
> if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections
Sure. Wars' aims usually aren't irrational. Both sides seem to be somewhat flippant about collateral damage. But Hamas and, to a lesser degree, to my knowledge, Hezbollah stand out for explicitly and proudly targeting Israeli civilians.
> why I think you can't really compare it to operations against ISIL or Taliban, whom have a far less legitimate complaints
They're all couched in the language of expelling foreign imperialists.
> conflict would be non-existent on the scale that it exists today if not for the settlement policy
Plenty of Iran's regional allies oppose Israel's right to exist. The formation of Israel is a can of worms. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's positions would be strengthened--I think--if they tempered their demands to e.g. Israel returning to its original borders.
And Israel explicitly and proudly targets Palestinian and Lebanese civilian targets, as well as UN peacekeepers. They will deny it in US-facing communications, but are remarkably candid with their domestic media.
> Hamas or Hezb target civilians more than the IDF
Never claimed as much. The point is Hamas and Hezbollah explicitly target civilians. (The October 7th raid had a modest CCR of 2:1 inasmuch as there were 766 civilian and 273 security casualties [1]. Break down some of the raiding parties, however, and the CCR is much higher. Comparable to some of Israel's worst raids, or Russia's war in Chechnya.)
> IDF has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than either
This is how multiplying a big scalar by a smaller ratio works.
> We are rounding civilian casualties to integers. This is a necessarily inexact science.
I think what he's suggesting is that of the Israeli casualties on October 7th, we have no accurate breakdown for how many were caused by IDF implementing the "Hannibal procedure". It's possible the answer is "A LOT".
One case in which it is known that civilians were hit, a case that received wide coverage, took place in the house of Pessi Cohen at Kibbutz Be'eri. 14 hostages were held in the house as the IDF attacked it, with 13 of them killed.
This had nothing to do with the westbank and yes, Israel has a problem with extremism and illegal settlements. But that isn't the topic here.
Hezbollah has started its war against Israel and the pager attack was an efficient way to retaliate and cripple Hezbollah command. There is no justification for Hezbollah to attack Israel with missiles.
I don't really understand why their attack on Hezbollah logistics is even in question. Israel has to use all their capabilities to respond to these attacks.
In the end we need a two-state solution with Israel and the Palestinians have self-determination and security. The faults of those involved are many, but the solution is known - it is a two-state solution, an end to armed attacks on Israeli civilians/homes and an end to the settlements.
A two-state solution is a fever dream if the occupier is uninterested in it. We’ve seen that repeatedly for the past 75+ years in actions and literal words.
So the question is, if you were the subjugated population, what would you do?
Not kill 1200 people, including 815 civilians, and take an addition 251 hostage.
But I think it's really important to be clear about who "we" is here. Last I checked, a majority of Gazans are not old enough ever to have voted in an election (the last one was held almost 20 years ago). If you mean "Hamas", and you stipulate that Hamas is in any way operating in the best interests of living Gazans in the present, it's easy to give a clear answer to that question. If you mean Gazan civilians, the true victims of Hamas, it's much more complicated.
Hamas is a symptom of desperation. It certainly is not acting in the best interest of Gazans and they are suffering due to that.
But on the other hand, diplomacy has not been an effective tool for Gazans and, as all signs indicate, it never will. Not at least until US withdraws its unconditional support for Israel.
With status quo, Gazans have the choice to lie down and die or continue living under deplorable conditions under a military occupation, as Israel slowly annexes the land that, under international law, doesn’t belong to them.
I agree. Gazan civilians had no good options (though, as we've discovered, it was possible for things to get far worse for them than they had been, and I don't think it serves any purpose to sugarcoat that).
Having said that: I don't want to get into 2024 Israeli policy with regards to Gaza, because with this ruling coalition who knows anything, but in the status quo ante of this attack Israel was not in fact slowly annexing the Gaza. (They are slowly annexing the West Bank, to be sure, but these are distinct populations with distinct governance).
Yes, but that is a response to the October 7 attacks, and this thread is about the antecedents of that attack.
(I question the seriousness of that movement; Likud under Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza and dismantled the settlements there, for practical reasons. It is not necessarily in the long-term interests of the Israeli state to settle in the Gaza Strip. But it doesn't matter for this thread either way. If it needs saying: all of Israeli's illegal settlement programs are bad.)
> A two-state solution is a fever dream if the occupier is uninterested in it. We’ve seen that repeatedly for the past 75+ years in actions and literal words.
First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.
Second, there was a real effort at arriving at a two state solution made by Israel. It's often debated who is "at fault" for no solution having been reached, but without rehashing it - I think it's simply false to say that "the occupier is uninterested in a two-state solution. Not when Israelis elected politicians multiple times over 15 years to seek such a solution, not when Israeli politicians multiple time reached compromises with the Palestinians.
Btw, I think both sides often claim, falsely, that the other side is incapable of compromise - I think it's important to keep pointing out that this is false and that actual meaningful steps towards peace have been achieved. Especially outsiders should be looking at this broad perspective, and not play up the "one side is inherently unreasonable" argument, which is never true.
First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.
Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.
(With Gaza one try to could quibble that there was no "effective" occupation from 2005-2023, but even that was never true in regard to control of Gaza's borders).
> Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.
Oh, I meant that it hasn't been 75 years, not that the territories aren't occupied. They've only been occupied since 1967.
This isn't just a quibble btw - it's worth asking who the territories are occupied from. Because there was never a Palestinian state, and those territories belonged to Jordan and Egypt, who don't want them and have peace with Israel. Normally "Occupied" territory is territory that is contested by the country it was occupied from.
In this case it's more complicated, because the Palestinians that live on that land consider it theirs and have nationalistic aspirations. Which I 100% support, and absolutely think an agreement should be reached.
(Btw, itt is worth asking why, in the 20 years during which Egypt and Jordan had control over those territories, a Palestinian state wasn't created.)
My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.
For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.
The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.
Also, any and all attempts by Palestinians to get formal recognition in the UN have been repeatedly vetoed by the United States.
> My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.
I'm sorry, not sure how else to say this - you're simply wrong. Pretty much everyone involved in the negotiations at the time disagrees with this idea. Whether the "final" offer that Israel gave to the Palestinians was "enough" or not is of course a matter of some opinion, though many at the time, both Israelis and Americans, thought that they were given an incredibly generous offer. In any case, the Palestinians never came back with a counteroffer of what they would accept, so it's hard to say how close or far Israel was from the "minimum" that Palestinians would consider acceptable.
> For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Literally every deal is that the West Bank and Gaza become part of a Palestinian state, that's the territories that Israel has occupied since 1967. One other territory, the Sinai, was given back to Egypt as part of the peace deal with Egypt (and is, btw, 4x the size of all of Israel).
And the Palestinian authority, as part of Oslo, did get a limited sovereignity over parts of the West Bank. Israel also completely left Gaza in 2005, though it still had some control over it, and imposed a blockade when Hamas was elected (together with Egypt).
So again, I'm not sure what you mean - literally every deal starts with Israel giving the pre-1967 land to the Palestinians, with some land swaps for land that Israel prefers not to give (btw, you call it "giving back" the land, which is inaccurate - it was never the Palestinian's land, it was part of Jordan and Egypt when it was occupied).
> The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.
They are probably deeply unpopular now, but I don't think they were deeply unpopular at the time on the Israeli side. Indeed Israel elected multiple people trying to pursue peace after the Oslo accords, and while none of them had overwhelming public support, they had enough support to form majority coalitions and actually try to negotiate.
They're unpopular now because the result of what to Israelis looks like serious attempts at achieving peace with the Palestinians, ended with violence, terror and refusal to cooperate on the side of the Palestinians.
> In the end we need a two-state solution with Israel and the Palestinians have self-determination and security
The problem is the history of extracting a region from this miasma has involved (a) invasion and unconditional surrender to an outside power or (b) subjugation and thus the erasure of the divide. We decided after WWII the latter is unacceptable. That leaves the former.
The proper parties to do it would be the Middle Eastern military powers. But they, being monarchies and dictatorships, lack the legitimacy and stability to engage in such projects.
> I don't approve of Hezbollah or Hamas; but if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections. Israel has consistently maintained that no, actually, the core problem is that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, and once we get rid of these people all the problems will be gone.
Let me offer you a counter-perspective on this. Israel and the PA actually worked to achieve peace - beginning with the Oslo accords that officially recognized the PA as the representative of the Palestinian people, and in which they officially recognized Israel on the '67 borders.
There followed a more than a decade of attempts at reaching an agreement for a two-state solution, which would have ended Israel's settlements and given the Palestinians what they ostensibly want.
Except this isn't the core objective of Hamas and Hezbollah. Their core objective has always been to eliminate Israel entirely. Which is why Hamas helped stop the very peace agreements which could've led to a two-state solution, by starting a wave of terror attacks. It's unclear to what extent the PA itself was involved, but Hamas was absolutely involved, and their stated goal was to not achieve peace, but rather scuttle any peace so that the fight could be a fight to the death of Israel, instead.
(And of course, Israeli extremists were working on the Israeli side to stop the peace process, with much fewer attacks and far less success, except for the one terrible blow they did manage to dish out - assassinating the Prime Minister that would've most likely been able to get a peace deal done!)
That is the sense in which many Israelis feel like - yeah, if Israel destroys the group that is actively seeking to disrupt peace and working towards Israel's destruction - we can actually negotiate with the reasonable people that are left. (I don't think this is correct or Netanyahu's full motivations, but it's not completely wrong, either.)
> Israel must resolve the settlement issue first, and THEN we can dismantle the violent extremist groups (which will take time and won't happen overnight – there will be a "Real Hamas" splinter group just as there was a "Real IRA"). This is the only way peace can happen.
Israelis believe that without those settlements, a far more massive attack would happen.
And they are probably right! Israel remvoed the settlements from Gaza, removed all military presence from Gaza, and the Gazans elected Hamas, which took over the Gaza strip (killing all PA members), then spent 15 years shooting rockets at Israel continuously, and spent billions of dollars of aid that was supposed to help Palestinians on, instead, building up towards the October 7th attack.
You're effectively saying to Israelis "if you want peace, just try to repeat this, except on a far more massive scale in the West Bank", and to trust that somehow, this won't turn out exactly the same as in Gaza. Israelis have good reason to mistrust this idea!
(For the record, I do think there are good counterarguments against this, and I am very much against the settlements, as are many Israelis. But the concerns I outline are real, legitimate concerns, and they have to be addressed or at least, understood.)
> And they are probably right! Israel remvoed the settlements from Gaza, removed all military presence from Gaza, and the Gazans elected Hamas, which took over the Gaza strip (killing all PA members), then spent 15 years shooting rockets at Israel continuously
Of course the outcome will be the same as Gaza if the period after negotiations fail is contemporaneous with "grind their economic opportunities into the dust....literally". If an asshole moves into your master bedroom and you want him GONE.....but he proceeds to hook you up with a FAANG job that prints money (and no, "aid" is not the same as the self-respect that comes with controlling your own destiny via hard work)....you'll be more inclined to tolerate living with him, after a period of extended mutual disdain, of course.
It’s refreshing to hear from someone else what I’ve been thinking and saying for a while now.
This perspective is conspicuously missing from all narrative you hear and read in the media, as well as the administration. The gaslighting is hard to ignore.
The pager attack cannot be considered a discriminating attack as they had no idea where the explosions would happen. Even assuming that only military personnel used the pagers they had no way to know where they would be or who else would be near them, especially since a pager is something you always carry with you.
I for one am much more comfortable with the military nature of the radio/pager attack as legitimately military now than I was in the days after it happened.
But I completely agree with your last point. It makes the Gaza invasion look _more_ like collective punishment than it already did (which is pretty wild).
In the same spirit I should say I'm in a much different place with respect to Gaza now than I would have been 6 months ago; I might not have fully agreed with your take back then, but clearly do now.
What makes you think that the Iraq war was not terrorism? You're comparing Israeli terrorism to United States terrorism. Israel and the United States are a prominent terrorist alliance, and they have been terrorizing the Middle East for decades.
tptacek, it’s hard to take any of your analysis seriously when you label Hezbollah, a non-state controlled armed resistance militia , with no tanks, fighter jets or submarines a “neer-peer military adversary” of Israel, which essentially has full & unlimited access to US weapons stockpiles and latest defence technology (minus nukes and subs).
You are wittingly or unwittingly utilizing the same propaganda strategy of the IDF to lionize their enemies and exaggerate threats so they can use it as an excuse to commit war crimes and inflict severely disproportionate attacks on civilians. With all due respect, we can’t all be experts in everything so please stick to talking about tcp.
One reason I call them that is that they fought Israel to a standstill in southern Lebanon not long ago; the missile attacks were presumably an attempt to lure the IDF into a similar confrontation. Hezbollah is Iran; they are an instrument of the IRGC. Israel and Iran aren't near-peer military forces; they are peers. Israel cannot unilaterally overwhelm Iran.
The end of your comment was a shameful personal attack* and disgustingly anti-semitic**, made worse (if possible) by internet insults. If you pull a trick like that on HN again, we will ban you.
I don't see how it's in your interest to discredit your own argument with gutter-level slurs, but if that's what you want to do, please do it elsewhere. I wonder how the many Jewish people arguing for the same position that you are, some of whom even have "jewish names", feel about posts like yours.
(* the tinyurl.com link at the end points to a "let me google that for you" with the query "is Ptacek a jewish name".)
(** I don't use language like this in HN mod comments very often, because I don't want to cheapen it, but this is an exception.)
Please keep this stuff on reddit. HN is one of the last few remaining high-quality social websites precisely because we shun comments like this. It should go without saying, but if you disagree, please do so in a civil manner.
> Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism:
This was the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization.
People love to try an claim that they're anti-Israel and not antisemitic, but no other country in the world would be held to this kind of ridiculous standard in the face of constant terrorist attacks on a civilian population.
> the people who happened to be next to them when they went off?
Collateral damage. Same as in any war.
This discussion belies a naivete about how wars are fought. War--theconventional, legal, internationally-sanctioned kind--is horrible. The moment any side commits to war, it's committed to committing atrocities. You can't fight war without being shockingly cruel and inhumane.
We have certain limits that have been internationally agreed. But let's be honest, nobody in the Middle East is following them. (The difficulty being compounded when one side is filled with quasi-insurgent/quasi-state participants.) And let's be more honest: nobody has treated them as totally binding ever.
If a similar and equally large-scale attack was done by a nation at war with US, targeting US military command, would that be a low-casualty operation or an act of terrorism?
And would it matter if the technical interpretation differed wildly from the general perception?
For what it's worth, I consider both parties in their forever war to be irredeemable bastards. As I learned early on, the network of tunnels in Gaza has no civilian shelter space, a clear indication that their general population's safety has not been a concern. On the upside, if there is any to be found, at least it means there won't be human shields to speak of down there.
That said, I don't know if that would make a difference. Both sides have demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to slaughter civilians.
If there is a declared state of war between two countries, than someone else doing what Israel did to Hezbollah would be considered a valid act of war.
The problem is that Israel and Hezbollah are currently in a state of informal hostilities but are not in a state of declared war. That distinction matters at the international level.
In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. It turns out Hamas had been using the most recent truce to build up its forces and plan those terrorist attacks, which is why Israel is unwilling to enter into a new truce. (And on a historical note, Hamas has unilaterally broken or violated every truce and peace treaty it has negotiated with Israel.) Given that the Gazan civilian population was openly sheltering and supporting the Hamas forces, the international rules of war hold that Gazan civilians are legitimate collateral damage so long as there was no intent by Israel to deliberately attack civilian targets. Importantly, Israel is formally at war with Hamas, so the legal framework is different from what happened with Hezbollah.
Nations do not declare wars anymore, because wars are illegal since WW2. Quoting Wikipedia:
> Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations
So since then, wars are now called "counter-terrorist operations", "peace enforcement operations", "special military operations" — you name it.
Nobody "declares war" anymore. See, for a defensive war (when a nation is being attacked) there is no legal need to declare it in the first place — and this is why Ukraine does not "declare war on Russia", and this is why Israel does not declare war against Hezbollah (and Hezbollah is not even a state to begin with) — it is a defensive war from the legal standpoint.
You declare an offensive war. And this is illegal. Once you do it, there will be legal repercussions, like troubles with purchasing weapons from other countries (as they often have laws prohibiting from selling weapons to countries at war). So why would anybody do it? It would be silly.
Israel actually didn't do that - Netanyahu literally said "this is not another skirmish, this is a war" and gave explicit goals to the war (bringing back the hostages and dismantling Hamas). Later on an additional goal was added - allowing the return of Israeli internal refugees to their homes in the North.
Yeah, but that is for "internal consumption" and it doesn't affect any international relations, unlike "declaring war".
An interesting example is the U.S. which has been in a "state of war" (official term is "period of hostility") since 2001, a.k.a. "War on Terrorism" — and it still is! Which, by the way, gives a nice bonus of immediate citizenship for signing up for the military, without the need to wait for 5 years.
I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. Are other members of Hezbollah considered legitimate targets? From memory, the Iranian ambassador had one. Were they a legitimate target?
> I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case.
> 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities
A 3:1 CCR is close to par for the course for NATO and positively honourable for e.g. Russia [1].
Tptacek's take is correct. (Of course it's Patrick.) One can reasonably disagree with the strike, even if limited to the precedent it set for plastic detonators that most countries' scanners can't pick up. But as a military tactic, even taking Hezbollah's numbers at face value, it was normally discriminating for a Western power.
You have to think about the counterfactual. If Israel hadn’t utilized the pagers what would they do instead? The obvious answer is that they would bomb the residences where these people live. That would cause much much worse collateral damage than the pagers did.
Uh, does anybody not "consider this to be a form of terrorism"?
Of course it is terrorism, very much by definition. Obviously, it would be very unpalatable for any involved politician to call it as such, because of the connotations the word has (or rather "has assigned"), so they will exercise doublespeak, doing which perfectly is their core expertise. But it would be funny, if anybody at all buys into that.
Key components are 6 grams of white pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and "highly flammable material" as a detonator. PETN was developed in 1906, and is accessible to more advanced hobby chemists.
So we have explosive device that passes through airport security scanner. And can be made at home by dedicated individuals... What are the implications for air travel?
The trick is probably not to make PETN, but to package it in such a way there are no traces of it outside?
There are likely no implications for air travel. At least I always assumed that advanced state actors can make explosives that are undetectable by airport security scanners.
> we have explosive device that passes through airport security scanner
I don't think it passes through modern American scanners--they can theoretically discriminate plastic explosives (and presumably detonators) from water, though whether it gets caught is a matter of TSA competence.
I mean, the implication is that they either tested the pagers on an airport's security scanner (pointing to state built explosive devices making their way onto consumer flights).
Or they tested them on their airport security scanners (and the question of why this group needs an airport security scanner to test things on).
Either way, the implications for air travel are not all that great!
Would you please stop posting this sort of battle comment to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly and breaking the site guidelines in the process. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for—regardless of which war, or which side you're for or against.
I know other commenters have been doing it too, but your comments (and comment history) stand out among the ones I've looked at in this thread so far.
Wow, they did a licensing deal with a legitimate manufacturer in Taiwan to get the battery listed on official websites? This runs so much deeper than I expected.
Supply chains are one heck of an attack surface...
The battery wasn't actually for sale; they just created fake product pages for it so that if anyone looked up the part number, it wouldn't be immediately obvious that it was fake.
> Gold Apollo’s chairman, Hsu Ching-kuang, told reporters a day after the pager attack that he was approached about three years ago by a former employee, Teresa Wu, and her “big boss, called Tom” to discuss a licence agreement.
> Hsu said he had scant information about Wu’s superior, but he granted them the right to design their own products and market them under the widely distributed Gold Apollo brand. Reuters could not establish the identity of the manager, nor whether the person or Wu knowingly worked with Israeli intelligence.
These make me wonder whether major players would quickly allocate production to their own countries as well as their vassal countries where they can comfortably spy on. It is not that difficult for a major player to infiltrate a foreign civilian product factory, say, produces lower end MCUs that are used in infrastructure, find a list of customers and plan accordingly.
And in this case it is very suspicious that Hsu did not even ask any questions.
My thought: what if some extremists, who are not in short supply given the current condition decide to do a copy-cat attack on major airports simultaneously? Are the machines guaranteed to identify each one of them? I mean the tech doesn't look too hard even for dedicated individuals, let alone quasi-state actors.
It was lucky none of the thousands of pagers employed in this terror attack blew inside some airplane and made it much worse. It's dismaying we have a state doing this.
Probably they did. The problem with pager like communication is that it is very easy to employ codewords. Something like "if we send orange, bring your weapon and meet us at the market, if we send pear pack a week worth of stuff and meet us at the pumping station, if we send melon disappear to the countryside for two days". Monitoring that can give you a sense that "something is happening" but it won't tell you exactly what. So all in all it is not terribly valuable.
But if I would be working for Hez I would assume that all communication over the pagers have been completely compromised.
Of important note, none of that requires any modification to the pager. Paging protocols are ancient and unencrypted: a little SDR stick and you can run your own sigint on your local pager network.
That seems like a big risk to take though? The best scenario is they get these out to all the leaders and do what they did. Why would you risk that with “random” signals coming out of the pagers occasionally that might get spotted by the some Hezbollah member who also is good at radio/digital comms. It seems unlikely they did anything other than what they did which was set them all up for a crotch bomb.
The term "terrorism" is often misused. According the the actual definition, terrorism is about inciting fear and the unintended consequences that this entails, and it does not necessarily have to involve civilian casualties.
For example, imagine firing a gun in a shopping mall without killing anybody. The entire mall still has to be evacuated, people start screaming, the firefighters, paramedics, and SWAT team show up, the stores have to hire a security guard, and shoppers are afraid to return. Everyone blames the mayor for not preventing the incident from occurring in the first place, and the mayor is pressured to enact new gun laws and set up a new checkpoint. These things happen even if there was no actual danger because it was a blank cartridge and not live ammunition.
The same effect occurs when you drop bombs on a city. All of the sudden it is no longer desirable to live in that city, even if it was a very precise bombing.
If you infiltrate supply chains and plant bombs, nobody trusts the global markets, people have to spend more money on inspections, manufacturers have to pay more for insurance, there are endless consequences
This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and how's is quite interesting, keeping international law in mind while talking about the attack seems important.
- "2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material."
Not taking sides on the attack, but, wow, you ommited half the text - important in this context:
"unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences."
Please elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of.
Weeks out, with more facts settled, it does appear that this was one of the most (if not the most) precisely targeted attacks in the history of modern warfare, measured either by ratio of combatants to noncombatants injured, or by the measures used to target it (which included creating a fake pager distributor that sold legitimate pagers to legitimate sources and selectively delivered compromised pagers specifically to Hezbollah, which used them on a private military network it fought a civil war in Lebanon to maintain).
What isn't captured in these threads but should be obvious to anyone looking 150 miles south is that conventional warfare, as conducted by every military power in the world, kills children and noncombatants in vastly higher numbers.
Use this attack to disqualify Israel's reckless and militarily pointless continued campaign in Gaza. Clearly, they had the capability not to conduct warfare the way they are there. Or, if you like, to condemn all warfare worldwide. But the attempt to single out the pager/radio attack as distinctively amoral is unpersuasive.
FYI I disagree that this necessarily means that in Gaza.
Israel has spent 18 years fairly convinced that Hamas isn't a major threat and that Hezbollah is, so most resources were spent on preparing for war with Hezbollah. This is maybe even mostly correct.
That means Israel was far more prepared to attack Hezbollah, and it shows.
If the US were ever attacked by Russia, it has battle plans in place. If it were attacked by Argentina, I don't think it has nearly as many plans/assets/intelligence/etc. So a counterattack on Argentina would have to look very different.
(Though of course this mostly explains the initial response, and as you say, is far less convincing one year in!)
Israel spent 18 years willfully not addressing Hamas the way it did Hezbollah, as a mechanism to prevent a 2-state solution. Israel is responsible for the fact that it did not have the level of seriousness and preparation for Hamas that it did for Hezbollah, knowing full well that it would ultimately end up fighting Hezbollah in the sparsely populated hills of southern Lebanon, and Hamas in dense urban areas. It is culpable for the civilian toll in Gaza that resulted.
What Israel's leadership did here goes beyond not caring about civilian lives in Gaza. They cynically abetted Hamas's strategy to sacrifice those lives in a bid to start a world war that would bring on the end times, knowing that Hamas was absolutely batshit crazy and would thus keep Palestinians permanently destabilized.
Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
> Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
That's fair enough, many Israelis feel likewise. You shouldn't mistake me for liking the Israeli leadership either.
That said - Hamas played a game of pretending to be appeased, and it worked. I agree that Israel has been absolutely immoral over the last 18 years, though I think the bigger problem was closing off avenues for peace and not (as Israel should've done as the stronger party) aggressively pushing for peace.
That said - I do wonder what you think Israel should've done differently. Because to address Hamas earlier would've meant invading Gaza years ago. Certainly Israelis can and are upset that its leaders let Hamas build up so much strength, but do you think anyone in the world would've had any sympathy for Israel had it done a ground invasion to root out Hamas fifteen years ago? Even after October 7th there was barely sympathy to root out Hamas.
This is like, imagine David Koresh's Branch Davidian cult took over Waco, and then the entirely of Texas CD17, and the Republican governor of Texas deliberately made space for the cult for electoral reasons. Later, Koresh starts a march towards Austin, making it as far as Temple, which he sacks before being turned back; the ensuing effort to apprehend him in Waco kills 5% of the its entire civilian population.
Who do I blame for this situation? There's a lot to go around. Certainly, I do not come out thinking Koresh's Branch Davidians were the victims. I am also not so much interested in the percentage of blame allocated to each culpable party; they're all awful.
Well, I agree, the current government of Israel is awful, as is Hamas.
But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
In your scenario, if the governor of Texas had decided not to make space for the cult, and had instead rooted them out, I don't think anyone would've been upset. But do you honestly think that if, after Hamas won the elections in Gaza and kicked out the PA, that Israel had decided to invade Gaza and fought with Hamas - without direct provocation - do you think in that scenario people wouldn't be just as upset at Israel?
I say this as a Netanyahu-hating leftist "peace-advocate" (mostly). I think most of us would've been upset at the "war-mongering" Netanyahu in that situation. That's why I hard on this - it's a self-criticism as much as it is a criticsm of others. The truth is, pre-emptive war might've been the correct move against Hezbollah and against Hamas, but I honestly don't think anyone would've been ok with Israel doing it. Do you think otherwise?
> But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
They could have not actively worked to foster the networks in Gaza that became Hamas in order to both split Palestinian opposition and have a less sympathetic, more extremist, more Islamic opposition to deflect international pressure to make peace with the Palestinians.
That they are capable of this level of precision but choose not to use it in Gaza seems to imply that destroying and depopulating Gaza is the military goal there.
The pagers were sold to Hezbollah. The military objectives achieved were:
a) to prevent the combatants holding the pagers from being able to attack Israel in the future
b) to disrupt the communications of Hezbollah, therefore, making it more difficult for them to coordinate attacks Israel.
Also, the explosives used were weak such that most people near them were maimed rather than killed. Meaning, it is reasonable to assume that alternative methods of eliminating the Hezbollah operatives, such as airstrikes or a ground invasion, would end up with a significantly higher civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio than what we saw with the pager attack.
The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero. The recent terrorist attack committed by Israel in Lebanon and Syria breaks every respectable moral compass. Innocent people, including children, were harmed and continue to be harmed by Israel's ongoing war campaign. And I can't believe I have to say this, but "maiming" children is not any less morally bankrupt than killing them.
> The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero.
A lot of German civilians were killed during World War 2. Would you have preferred handing the Germans all of Europe to prevent that? As others have noted, reality is significantly more complex than theoretical ethics. Often times your choice is not between right and wrong, but between wrong and somewhat less wrong.
> Israel is attempting to stop further attacks on the only place that Jews are allowed to protect themselves.
We have the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Jews are quite able to protect themselves there. Israel isn't the only place. I liked Ari Shaffir's light-hearted retorts to Howie Mandell on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNieyWrZ0c (Jimmy Dore commentary on their segment)
> elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of
This paragraph doesn't require proactive measures be taken to protect civilians. It just suspends its own restriction on booby-trapped items if there is a military objective.
There is a sleigh of hand expression change in many texts where “operative” becomes “combatant” therefore all locations become military and all assassinations legitimate. There is no way anyone could claim they knew where they would go off and towards what kind of casualties military combatants or civilian authority or anybody standing by. Also nobody claimed there were warmings to civilians as per the text quoted, not even the standard “Every person not leaving is considered a combatant” which has been the standard public announcement during the forced relocations and refugee areas bombings.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in the race so I might be missing many details and nuances
Hold on a second. That's not the second half of what they quoted. It is in a separate section. I'm having trouble figuring out what it actually applies to, because Article 7 is written in a very confusing fashion.
It has 3 sections. Section 1 looks like this:
> 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:
and then lists 10 categories that include a wide variety of things, such as internationally recognized protective signs, dead people, children's toys, kitchen utensils (not in military locations), animals, and several others.
Then there is section 2, which the person above quoted:
> 2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.
That is the entirety of section 2. Finally there is section 3, which I'm going to quote in full:
> 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
> (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
> (b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences.
So..., #1 and #2 both prohibit a bunch of booby traps. Then #3 says that it is prohibited to use weapons covered by this Article (so everything in #1 and #2?) in places with a lot of civilians unless certain precautions are taken.
If this means that the #2 items can be used in civilian areas if those precautions are taken, does it mean the same for the #1 items? With #3 being a separate section I'm not seeing how it can be limited to just modifying #2. It does say "weapons to which this Article applies".
That would result in some truly weird restrictions. It would mean for example that I cannot booby trap a corpse except in the case where I'm placing it in a place with civilians and have either placed it close to a military objective or taken measures to keep civilians from tripping it. If I wanted to place that booby trap in some remote area where only military is around I'd run afoul of #1 without the #3 exception to allow it.
It would make sense if it is an additive thing. If I say booby trap a corpse I might be charged with a violation of #1. If I do that in a civilian area I might additionally be charged with a violation of #3 unless I took the precautions listed in #3.
The really bad part is how lauded the Mossad was for it's 'precision' by the western media. Geneva convention violations, random children killed because Hezbollah militant were shopping/walking nearby, really 'precise'...
On the other hand killing only 5 children for two hundred opposants, and not at least twice as much is proof that Mossad is a hundred of time more precise than tsahal. But maybe that's a low bar.
> terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
They want to push the non-Chia in Lebanon against the Chia, probably hoping for an organisation like "Phalanges Libanaises" to come back and restart the civil war. If a new civil war start, it will be the second Israel deliberatly started in lebanon (yeah, the "Phalangistes" did the massacre, but the Mossad actually planned it and gave the target (mostly palestinians btw). This time it will be harder though.
No, a terror attack is an attack that create a fear amongst noncombatants in order to push political objectives.
Easy example:
Attacking a hospital that healed an enemy combatant is a terror attack, even if you missile is very precise and only kill the combatant and people sharing his room. You didn't aim for civilians, but your goal with this attack is to coerce civilians (doctors and nurses here) into refusing to heal combatant again, using fear. That's the definition. In both the French dictionary, and britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism).
> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like?
You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition.
> Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it.
That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases where this was argued it was about the rights granted to prisoners of war. (That is, do the members of these organisations when captured count as prisoners of war? Should they be granted the same kind of protections?)
> This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity.
That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants:
> Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.
I read the site you linked and it was very interesting
I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.
In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
> On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II.
> The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis.
> Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties).
Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.
I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that clause
Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?
Israel is a signatory nation as I have laid out in quotes from the West Point article above. Lebanon may or may not be from what I can tell, but that doesn't affect whether or not Israel is bound.
I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article.
> Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.
> Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced.
What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.
My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed
Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
The booby trap clause as you refer to it binds nations regardless of whether or not the target(s) of the booby traps are themselves nations. Just because you're fighting irregular forces and/or terrorists doesn't give a country license to ignore UN obligations regarding use of weapons.
I can see why many may not care about that. I can also see that you do care about this topic and appreciate the discussion.
I am glad we aren't using mustard gas today, like we did in World War I. America caught some flak for using shotguns versus Nazi Germany in trench warfare in World War II, which was apparently outlawed at the time. Did the ends justify the means? I don't really like that framing because it denies combatants dignity, whether or not we agree or disagree about whether or not a specific law of war should apply in a given circumstance.
Laws of war such as these are not likely enforceable given the limited targeted use of the pagers, but that doesn't mean that laws weren't violated. Furthermore, it represents an escalation of sorts on the Israeli side.
I guess I'm trying to reason about your position. Do you find that the pagers don't constitute booby traps, or that Israel isn't bound regardless of whether or not they are booby traps? Or do you find that due to the international non-state actor target of the pager strike, that it logically follows that Israel is not violating any applicable law or treaty because the target isn't themselves party to the same laws? Help me understand your view and position.
> He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
> Friedrich Nietzsche
Per these links, Israel and Lebanon are bound to Amended Protocol II to my reading:
1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention.
2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces
3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition.
If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative
1. I would disagree. These aren't mines, as they aren't triggered by the target. They're similar to the booby trapped tobacco pipes mentioned in one of my links, which were triggered by the trapper.
2. Intelligence agencies don't get POW protections, so that point is not really relevant. Treaties bind you, even if your enemy is not similarly bound.
3. If the targeted assassinations with booby trapped pagers didn't have civilian casualties, I might agree, but in this case, I don't.
I tend to agree with you that the outcome was about as good as could be expected, and likely much better than could be achieved with traditional munitions. However, the escalatory effect of using booby traps, legal usage/legal target or not, is not ideal.
1. Then we will have to disagree, for me it was quite obvious what scenario they had in heart when writing the convention. While the difference here would at least mean a court will need to decide this applies here, as this is not clear cut relevant in any way
2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex
3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.
About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.
Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation
1. It is pretty clear that it does apply to me, so agree to disagree.
2. I linked why both Israel and Lebanon are both bound? Not sure why it would matter whether it's international or not, but it crossed borders, so to me it seems clear.
3. I agree, it was an amazing feat, and minimal casualties considering the impact. Also, due to suspected/impending exposure of pager operation, there was no time to delay without exposing the operation for no impact. It was a massive military/intel win for Israel, and I can't think of a more deserving target. I don't take any joy in the civilian casualties, but I'm not sure that was even a factor due to the potential imminent exposure to the operation, and they already decided to put the operation in motion. At that point, no real compelling reason not to follow through.
I agree with you that it was entirely unsurprising that something would happen involving disrupting continued strikes. I'm more surprised that we found out as much as we have in the original post than I am surprised that it happened.
2. I think the issue is whether it is an armed conflict between nations (but i am not a lawyer)
While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)
2. To my reading, there are two issues being conflated - the POW rights of non-state organizations, and separately, the booby trap clause.
The POW rights issues do have considerations for the actions of you and your enemy, and whether either are non-state organizations or members of such, etc.
The booby trap clause is simply equally binding against all signatories, regardless of who you are employing booby traps against, and regardless of whether or not you or the target is or isn’t a non-state organization or member thereof.
I honestly feel like this whole conflict has been on a repeated loop since second intifada in 80s, mostly due to Israel not wanting a one or two state solution on Israel’s side, Palestinian government or representatives not wanting their trade or money to have to flow through Israel, and everyone else trying to keep the current 40 year loop on repeat because it is a useful wedge issue for political bargaining. It’s like Henry Kissinger knew that the delicate balance of terror was the least-bad outcome, and now we are unable to break free of adversarial approaches to the conflict due to the continuing hostilities on all sides.
The status quo sucks for all involved, but all involved think that it would be worse for their team if there were peace in the Mid East, so no one is interested in broader peace process beyond immediate Palestine-Israel conflict, which itself is a covert proxy war between Israel and rest of Mid East, which itself is the overt proxy war proper between Israel and rest of Mid East.
"Nothing"? So not even basic human rights? Or what are you saying?
Also both Hamas is de-facto the government of Gaza, and Hezbollah is kind of a "state within a state". They do terror attacks, yes, but a lot is also just about the boring business of running a bureaucracy.
Israel is the #1 terrorist in the region by any intellectually honest definition of the term. This article is about a terrorist attack by Israel that injured many civilians. And let's not forget when Israeli soldiers dressed up as doctors to murder someone lying in a hospital bed.
Curious why this is currently flagged. It’s an in-depth look at what is almost certainly the most sophisticated and consequential physical supply-chain attack in history, and will be covered in security textbooks for years to come.
If this were true you would see a lawsuit based on Leahy law in the states. The fact is it's just not. Israel has held aid occasionally but most of the problem with supplies have to do with Hamas stealing them.
I don't support a lot of the stuff Israel is doing but painting it in this light is deeply incorrect and unfortunately hurts Palestinians. Both sides escalate and the result of such escalations are always worse for the weaker side.
Alright boomers, if your website has “contact us” for pricing instead of a two-click way to order it digitally then I’m going to assume you are placing bombs inside your electronics
Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4893900-leon-panett...
Volker Türk, the UN commission for human rights "explained that international law prohibits the use of booby-trapped items used in daily life, and 'it is a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians.'"
https://newrepublic.com/post/186244/leon-panetta-israel-leba...
Also covered by Human Rights Watch here criticizing the indiscriminate nature of the attacks means they were against IHL:
https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2024/09/19
These takes are problematic because it's clear to most observers that the attacks were, by the standards set by ground combat in Fallujah, NATO air operations in Kunar Province, or operations against ISIL in Inherent Resolve, the pager/radio attacks were drastically more discriminating, and caused a tiny fraction of the noncombatant casualties. This, of course, is also a distorted standard capturing only NATO/aligned combat operations; the picture gets much worse if you pull in Gulf State military operations, Azerbaijan, or Russia/Ukraine.
(Turk's booby-trap argument is challenging for two additional reasons; the first is that the encrypted pagers and ICOM radios we're discussing are military command & control equipment, not items used "in daily life" in the sense contemplated by the booby trap convention, and further the definition of a booby trap in that convention involves a device triggered when random people approach it, not one detonated at a specific instruction by the party that placed it. The history of the booby trap convention is tied up in the human cost of unwinding booby traps after conflicts have wound down, which is not a problem the pagers posed.)
I'm concerned that people attempting (reasonably!) to communicate disapproval for IDF operations generally are damaging their credibility by trying to fold the pager/radio attack into their message. To me, the pager/radio attack is damning for an entirely different reason: with proper seriousness and resourcing, it's clear that Israel was able to incapacitate a near-peer military adversary with vastly lower noncombatant cost than what they've managed in Gaza.
I think the bit that this misses is that the root of all the problems we've seen over the last few decades is that Israel keeps doing their settlement thing. In spite of decades of pretty much the entire rest of the world – including the US – saying they should not be doing that.
I don't approve of Hezbollah or Hamas; but if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections. Israel has consistently maintained that no, actually, the core problem is that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, and once we get rid of these people all the problems will be gone. It's certainly true that these organisations have become part of the problem, but they're not at the root of it.
"We will keep our bad faith settlement policy, and if you behave like a good boy to our satisfaction long enough then maybe perhaps we will consider granting you rights" doesn't really work. All these gun-toting "don't tread on me" 2nd amendment absolutionists people full-on supporting Israel wouldn't accept that either. Israel must resolve the settlement issue first, and THEN we can dismantle the violent extremist groups (which will take time and won't happen overnight – there will be a "Real Hamas" splinter group just as there was a "Real IRA"). This is the only way peace can happen.
This is why I think you can't really compare it to operations against ISIL or Taliban, whom have a far less legitimate complaints. This is also why "IDF is the most moral army in the world" that I have seen some people say, and what you're kind of echoing here, is completely besides the point. I don't know if it's true and I don't really care. This conflict would be non-existent on the scale that it exists today if not for the settlement policy, which is 100% in Israel's control.
So --- and I think this is take that pisses off both sides of this conflict --- I really don't think moral struggles or the definition of "terrorism" is at all illuminating in this conflict. Both sides deploy the term to discredit the other; in neither case does it matter.
Two important things to understand about Hezbollah are that is the dominant military power in Lebanon, and that is directly supplied, enabled, and controlled by the IRGC QF. Hezbollah is in a plausible sense a military occupier of the state of Lebanon; as an illustration of that fact, look at its full mobilization in support of the Syria/Iran axis during the Syrian Civil War (a Hezbollah conflict that went largely unreported in the west, but caused integer multiples more civilian casualties than anything we've seen reported in the last 12 months).
This is an open conflict between two military peers. Over the last year, Hezbollah has fired on average dozens of rockets every day, at a cadence sufficient to evacuate much of Northern Israel to hotel rooms and temporary housing. My point isn't that you should respect Hezbollah less for doing so, or that it is therefore a terrorist organization. Rather: Hezbollah is a world-tier military force (by many accounts the most effective in the Syrian wars) that has opened a front on a neighboring country.
These are two warring armies. "Deserve", as William Munny would say, has nothing to do with it. If it helps, Israel has been coasting on arguments that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization for years, and I'm no more interested in those arguments.
> I really don't think moral struggles or the definition of "terrorism" is at all illuminating in this conflict
Yes, I fully agree. To be blunt, it's boring semantic wank.
No one is here is an angel. Everyone has serious legitimate grievances and no one is smelling of roses. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a hyper-partisan.
But that doesn't mean we can't say all of this could have been avoided if Israel hadn't continued their settlement policy with no hint or perspective or any compromise. Remember the constitutional changes and protests over them? That was mostly over the the far-right wanting to expand the settlement policy even further. Even before Oct 7 several government ministers seemed to support the outright ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza. Fun people.
This is not just "fanning the flames", it's the root of the conflict. That was really my main point; I don't think you can just talk about number of civilian casualties without also recognizing that Israel's policies are the fuel on which the entire thing burns. That is: at its core it's a conflict of Israel's choosing. Without it you might have the small terror group or lone nutjob, but nothing like we see today.
It doesn't help that Israel gets a huge amount of military support, to the point where it can just do anything without significant cost in lives or material. Look at the casualty ratios – "military peers" is rather a stretch IMHO.
It just doesn't mean anything. I disagree with you about Hezbollah's motives, but that's besides the point. No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year. To call the missile attacks an act of war would be to understate dramatically the campaign they've undertaken. You can believe Hezbollah's motives were pure and their campaign fully justified. Israel was still going to shoot back; after almost a full year of large scale rocket attacks, it was starting to look weird that they hadn't already. Hezbollah presumably just expected them to shoot back less effectively.
> No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year.
Only Israel reacts to terrorism with a genocidal rampage. No other country behaves like this. And it only behaves like this because it has been enabled by their allies, and the international community, who consistently let their crimes go unpunished, including but not limited to their settlement policy.
On the flip side, no colonized people in the world (except maybe Tibet) would ignore what Israel has done over the last decades. Decades of colonial occupation usually results in resistance and that resistance usually includes terrorism.
Israel’s behavior is not normal, by any measure, Hezbollah or Hamas’ behavior on the other hand is consistent with resistance group of colonized peoples.
Once again: Hezbollah occupies Lebanon. It is not a resistance movement. A majority of Lebanese (which is not majority Shia) loathes it. It's primary military engagements over the last decade --- even after including the casualties it incurred by opening a front with Israel over the last year --- have been in Syria, where it has been gleefully (and I use that word advisedly; look up the details, they've been making videos --- Madaya; Homs; Idlib) murdering children and civilians. You give the game away a bit when you equate Hezbollah with Hamas. They are radically different organizations. Both are terrible, but they are terrible in their own distinct ways.
I understand why people have a problem with Israel. It makes a lot of sense. But you cannot simply assume any declared military enemy of Israel is a resistance organization. We went through this with Ansar Allah in Yemen, which is literally a racialist fascist dictatorship representing single-digit percentages of the population, also managed by the IRGC QF, and also killing civilians by the tens of thousands.
In no way does Hezbollah "occupy" Lebanon. It is drawn entirely from Lebanese society. Truly a bizarre thing to keep repeating so stridently! Its also absurd to deny the literal origins of the group, as a militia that was attempting to defend southern Lebanon from an actual occupation? This isn't hidden, there are shelves of books in english on the origins of Hezbollah? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the wikipedia article on them, just to show what level of consensus there is, states the fact of its origins as a response to an Israeli invasion, and its source for this is....wait for it....the BBC.
Hey! I'm glad to see you. Hezbollah was a Khomeinist response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. If you want to argue that Israel bears some responsibility for the destabilization of Lebanon, I won't argue. But it was trained and guided by the IRGC from its inception; the modern incarnation of Hezbollah is directed by the IRGC Quds Force. If you want to argue that the two organizations (QF and Hezbollah) are separable, you have two simple fact patterns to contend with:
* Hezbollah fully mobilized to engage, on behalf of the Syrian Baathists during the Syrian civil war. By some accounts Hezbollah was the most effective fighting force in the entire conflict. There was no clear ideological reason Hezbollah should have committed itself and other Lebanese militia to that conflict; it did so because Iran and the Baathist leadership of Syria are aligned politically. It's striking, reviewing the entire history of Hezbollah's military conflict, that the Syrian theater accounts for a plurality of all military casualties ever taken by Hezbollah. I'd like to understand your explanation for Hezbollah taking over 2,000 infantry casualties in Syria that excludes the IRGC directing them to do so.
* The Mossad pager attack struck Iran's foreign envoy to Lebanon (that's reported in the story we're commenting on) and dozens of Iranian Quds Force operatives in the Bekaa valley. I'm curious what your explanation of those casualties would be, apart from the obvious and widely reported suggestion that Hezbollah under Nasrallah was an instrument of the QF.
The claim that Hezbollah is directed by and is in essence an instrument of the Quds Force fits into a context of Iran's strategy of engaging militarily through a network of proxies --- the claim I'm making is one Iran itself makes. Iran's proxies include not just Hezbollah but Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza --- Hamas being noteworthy because they had a falling out with the IRGC because they supported the Sunni insurgency in Syria.
It's wild to me, as a westerner, that on the leaderboard of "most salient military conflicts in the Middle East", Israel/Palestine ranks at best #3, behind the Saudi/Persian rivalry (which claimed hundreds of thousands of noncombatant lives in Yemen) and the Sunni/Alawite conflict in Syria (which claimed hundreds of thousands of noncombatant lives in Syria).
Let me know where our premises differ!
> No country in the world could ignore militarily what Hezbollah has done over the last year.
You realize Israel has been invading Lebanon since the 60's right?
Lebanon has the right to fight back against a sovereign nation who is occupying their land. General Assembly resolution A/RES/38/17 (22/11/1983)
I don't care about the moralizing in either direction. I don't care that Israel believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, I don't care that Hezbollah believes Israel is an illegitimate occupier. I don't care if Hezbollah felt justified in indiscriminately lobbing rockets at northern Israel. I don't care because it doesn't matter. They struck, Israel responded; they are near-peer military adversaries, and they are at war.
This to me just illustrates the futility of advocating for a "right to fight back" or a "right to resist". There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks. Wouldn't it be wild if there were? If some adjudicator could just decide, you're in the right, they're in the wrong, you can fire thousands of rockets, they just have to sit there and take it? In reality, however, if you launch a large scale military offensive at a capable adversary, you're going to get hit back.
> There is no such thing as a right to military strikes without counterattacks.
I'm not "moralizing" I'm citing the UN, and nobody is saying that ^
Israel is a colonist apartheid. It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine and Palestine does have the right to fight back.
It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
Israel is not going to dissolve. They're 9 million people with a hypercapable, nuclear-armed military.
History disagrees with you. Apartheid states—even nuclear armed ones—have in the past dissolved into a one democratic state of all their peoples.
Israel's policies may change (do note that a distinction is being drawn here between Israeli Arabs, who enjoy Israeli citizenship, freedom of movement, voting rights, Knesset membership, etc and Palestinians, who do not). The state of Israel is not going to dissolve, because there are no plausible pressures that can be brought to bear to make that happen.
Post WW2 history does not treat kindly the kinds of atrocities currently being committed by Israel. I don’t know of any state which actually survived being a perpetrator of a genocide (at least not as a continuation of a functioning state). Khmer Cambodia did not, Rwanda did not. The closest is probably Serbia (but they were merely complicit of a genocide committed Republika Srpska which now only exists as a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina) or Indonesia (which survived as a dictatorship before transforming to Democracy in a revolution 15 years after the East-Timor genocidal rampage; a revolution largely caused by the genocidal behavior).
If Israel is going to follow the pattern of perpetrators of modern genocide it will either voluntarily change, be invaded and forced to change, or hang on as a dictatorship for a couple of decades and change in a revolution. In any case an Israel as we know it would have to be a historic first if it would persist as this pseudo democratic apartheid state as we know it today for the next two decades. In other words—looking at history—chances are very much in favor of Israel dissolving.
I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. This kind of rhetoric is what jams up curious discussions about what's happening in the region; Syria and Yemen host actual genocidaires --- in Syria's case, of Palestinians in refugee camps --- and have killed civilians in the last 20 years greater multiples than the IDF has in its entire history. But somehow, Israelis notice, it's only Israel that needs to worry about what history will say about it. Your list of comparable states is wild.
You need to find a rhetorical device for calling out Israel's war crimes in west Asia that doesn't involve attempting to line Israel, and only Israel, up alongside the Rwandan Interahamwe. I think reasonable people who you stand a chance of persuading recoil from these kinds of analogies, and they're right to do so.
My point was originally that history does indeed have examples of apartheid states dissolving, contradicting your prediction that Israel wouldn’t dissolve. My point was simply to prove you wrong by citing historic examples.
My point was never to compare Israel to Rwanda (which I never did) but rather, since you weren’t convinced by the original statement, to further my case by citing other genocidal rampages which did in fact lead directly to the downfall of the perpetrating state. Your point about Syria might be on par with that as it is hardly a functioning state, although I would argue that their atrocities against Palestinian refugees don’t come anywhere close to the one currently ongoing by Israel, nor other cases of post WW2 genocides.
The Syrian state ran out of ordinary munitions during the civil war, but so desired to ethnically cleanse Sunni Palestinian refugee camps that they improvised by packing metal oil drums with high explosives, nails, scrap, and bearings, and then dropping them from helicopters onto the camps. There's video footage. Soldiers in the helicopters have to light fuses on them by hand, like 1920s silent film villains. They adopted a tactic of dropping a barrel bomb, waiting 10 minutes for responders to come help the wounded, and then dropping another one on them; they apparently called it a "double tap". They did this deliberately, exclusively targeting civilians.
And, of course, they did this in addition to deploying Sarin gas. Have you ever read the New Yorker story about the Baathist Sarin attacks on Halabja? If not, can I ask that you go read it (it's on archive.is; steel yourself) and then come back and tell me how you think the IDF stacks up regionally?
By the way: these are the people Hezbollah engaged its largest ever military mobilization to support. In Madaya, they deliberately blockaded food supplies into the suburb for months; people ate their pets, and then grass. Then they starved to death. Hezbollah leaders set up food displays with fresh proteins and produce and filmed joke videos.
If you can find a genocide in post WW2 history that didn’t result in the failure of the perpetrators state, that only refutes the absolute strongest version of my claim. However that doesn’t refute my general claim that Genocidal states do in fact tend to dissolve over the following decades, and that history has examples of apartheid states—even heavily armed ones—dissolving into a single state democracy of all its people.
Looking at history the pattern is pretty clear, even though it is not absolute (nothing in history is).
> Israel is a colonist apartheid.
It is not a colonist by any standard definition.
Apartheid - more complicated. Many people dispute this. I think it's plausible to make a case that there is an apartheid in the West Bank, though it's not completely obvious (mostly because the people there don't want to be under Israeli rule, they want their own government).
> It's not that Palestine can bomb and Israel can't, it's that Israel must dissolve. Israel has neither the right to bomb nor the right to exist. Palestine shouldn't use violence to make Israel dissolve but they have the right to.
Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis? What's the next step for people who are second, third and foruth-generation Israelis and have only known Israel as their home?
What's the implication of deciding that a state recognized worldwide and part of the UN must dissolve? What about the other dozens of states since then, must they also dissolve?
> It is not a colonist by any standard definition.
Yes they are. It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
> Apartheid - more complicated.
It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Israel does not allow free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, that in itself is a war crime. Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do. 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors https://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016... . Israel was even caught practicing eugenics on the beta Israelis.
> Israel should dissolve, and...? What's the next part of the sentence for what happens to the 9 million Israelis?
What are you filling in the blank with...? Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis. Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
> It's true that before the British Mandate of Palestine the population of Syria Palaestina was 3-11% Jewish (Mizrahi Jews) but most of the Jewish population of Israel is not indigenous to that region of the world (like how the Ashkenazi Jews are from Europe and Eastern Russia).
Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world, they were ethnically cleansed from that area by Rome. This is not even disputed.
Of course Palestinians are also indigenous to the land! Many of them more recently.
And of course, multiple generations have Israelis have now been born and lived their entire lives in that land.
But none of this really matters. The standard colonial pattern is of a country sending its population to colonize a new land. That is just emphatically not what happened. Israel was largely founded by refugees who were fleeing persecution, or by Jews ethnically cleansed from their homes. That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Hence the standard outcome that happens in colonies is that the people leave and return to the land they are "from", which is just irrelevant here, because the children of refugees have nowhere else to "return" to.
> It isn't, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch recognize it is Apartheid. As do Ireland and South Africa (countries who have both been victim to Colonist Apartheid violence).
Yes, and many groups disagree with this, including the US and EU iirc. Human Rights Watch in particular is a very problematic organization that has a lot of complaints against it of being biased against Israel.
That said, I'm pretty sure that what I said is consistent with what they say in their report - there's a plausible case for apartheid in the Occupied Territories. They think it has now crossed the line to being legally apartheid, others disagree. This is relevant for the OT but not the rest of Israel.
Israel has a lot of discrimination and other issues with its Israeli Arab population, but it's almost entirely not legal discrimination.
> Israel literally has a two tiered society, Israeli Arabs do not have the Right To Return like Jewish Israelis do.
That is actually a very untrue example. Right of Return is a right of citizenship, the fact that some people have a right of return and others don't is not a discrimination against existing citizens.
I don't have the right to become a British citizen, that doesn't mean Britain is discrimination against me. It is just doing what every state does - defining who its citizens are via some metric, usually by being born to parents who are citizens, though different states define this differently. Israel is doing similarly.
> 50% of Arab Israelis are under the poverty line because of wage discrimination and other factors.
Wage discrimination does not prove apartheid or any systemic discrimination.
Let's remember that Israeli Arabs can vote, can be any profession they want, a large percentage of the doctors in Israel are Arabs, there are Israeli-Arab supreme court judges, members of the Israeli Congress, etc.
> Nobody is asking for them to be deported. I mean obviously people like Yaakov Fauci would have to give back the houses they literally stole but a "1 state solution" does not require the deportation/killing of the Israelis.
That is exactly what Hamas is asking for. Deportation and/or killing of all Israeli-Jews.
A one state solution is a ridiculous idea that is not what anyone in the region wants, not what anyone who has ever seriously considered what to do in the region that has had any power has advocated, and would almost certainly lead to the death of one or both of the ethnic groups in the region.
Even if not, what country would ever agree to double its voting population with a population that is completely culturally different?
What do you tell Israeli members of the LGBT community, that it's totally ok to have a one state solution by adding 100% more voters that come from a society that wants to make homosexuality illegal? Do you think they should agree to that idea?
> Elsewhere in this thread I linked the Oslo Accords, I suggest you read about them, peace is possible.
Great! I'm in favor. Like any other serious solution, this process aimed to create two states for two people. As I said elsewhere, this process largely died, in my opinion, because sincere efforts of the Israelis were met with refusal to sign an actual deal from the Palestinians, and then met with violence and terror attacks.
And the last ~17 years have seen Israelis completely convinced that there is no partner for peace and never will be, while ignoring that Israel itself is causing the conditions for there being no partner for peace!
Both sides have to just accept the fundemantal reality - there are 7 millions Jews and 7 million Arabs on this land, neither is going anywhere, the only solution is to reach a peace agreement. This will not happen through violence, only through a negotiated deal.
> Firstly, Jews are originally indigenous to that part of the world
No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
> The standard colonial pattern is [...] That is just not what most people are thinking of when thinking of colonialism.
Man, you can't quote me talking about the British Mandate of Palestine and then say they're not colonizers. Literally before the Holocaust Britain was arming Jews to go colonize Palestine. Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
I'm not even gonna address the rest of this point by point, you're just insisting that a 2 state solution is the only way because a 2 state solution is legalized perpetuation of the colonization.
A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
No, Hamas does not want the death/expulsion of all Jews, that's simply a lie.
> No, that's not how this works. My 23&Me says my family came from Africa (as did all people), then southwest Asia then Europe but that doesn't give me the right to go to one of those countries and claim land.
You brought up indigeneity. In what way are Jews not indigenous? I agreed with you that it's irrelevant right after. I don't think it automatically gives anyone right to claim any land.
> Yes, Jews fleeing the Holocaust did find refuge in Palestine but fleeing an ethnic cleansing of their own doesn't make the colonization that was already ongoing more legal.
Who exactly were the colonizers? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under the Ottoman Empire? The Jews who legally immigrated to that land under British rule?
The 90% of the Jews who came to Israel because they literally had no where else to go after being in DP camps after WW2 and the UN voting for them to move to that land?
I'm not sure who are these mythical colonizers who came in and violent expelled Palestinians from the land. Most of the Jews either came legally through immigration or were refugees.
> A 2 state solution is not the only way, it is colonization.
This is literally the first time I've ever heard this claim. A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I really don't know what to make of this argument. Two people live on a land and don't want to be part of the same state, for good reason. Both have reasonable reasons to consider that land theirs (certainly at this point) and nowhere else to go. What can be more sensible than splitting up that land?
>A two state solution is the stated goal of the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. It was the goal of Arafat. Are you seriously saying that their goal, had it been reached, was a continuation of colonization?
I'm sorry but wasn't this also you?
> OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before?
Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that *granted them statehood* and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
This isn't a serious line of questioning, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say they're doing more colonization without the deal and then say the deal was bad for Palestine.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
To clarify some things that maybe are unclear:
First, occupation is not the same as colonization. Second, I was speaking of Gaza specifically when I talked about there being more vs. less occupation - not all of Israel.
> Obviously, there are many in Palestine who would agree to a deal that granted them statehood and meant less occupation than before even if it didn't mean the full return of the land.
So I don't understand what you're advocating. You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
What solution do you think is a) the right one and b) the practical one? I don't understand how my advocating of what probably 95% of peace activists are advocating is wrong.
Occupation is not tautological to colonization but occupation can be the first step to colonization.
> You said that a two state solution (which Palestinians so far have never agreed to) is just a continuation of colonization.
It is a continuation of the colonization. It is also something the Palestinians *have* agreed to, that's what the Oslo Accords are.
> On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held.
I'm fine with a 2 state solution if that's what the Palestinans want. My issue is that Israel is unlikely to follow the rules given their current behavior so why not just make it 1 state with equal rights? Is that really so scary? Equal rights?
But none of that matters because the first thing that has to happen before even a 2 state solution is a ceasefire.
>It doesn't have a right to occupy Palestine
So where is it supposed to go? Israelis go home back to Israel?
Move it to Uganda. /s
But I answered this an hour ago. A one state solution does not mean the mass deportation of Jews. They should become equal citizens of Palestine.
And obviously the Israelis who stole Palestinian homes at gun point would have to return the property they stole.
Nothing like that is plausibly going to happen. We might as well talk about surrendering San Antonio to the Mexicans; that will happen first.
I’ve heard constant talk about there being a UN resolution that’s gone completely unenforced, which involved UN occupation in southern Lebanon to ensure protection from Hezbollah control and attacks targeting Israel. Is there any validity to that? If such a large policy isn’t being enforced to support Israel, does that not somewhat validate most of Israel’s seemingly-aggressive actions in Lebanon, since the area isn’t being protected as expected?
I think just about everybody intimately acquainted with UNIFIL believes that UNIFIL serves mostly to put soldiers from other countries in harm's way as a performative gesture by the UN (it has a long history). UNIFIL was chartered to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining the position it has today, and later to prevent the militarization of southern Lebanon. It has failed comprehensively. Both Hezbollah and the IDF are actively hostile towards it. The UN should withdraw from Lebanon.
Is there really cause to believe a peaceful compromise would have been possible even without the settlements? Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides?
Israel's two largest borders are with Egypt and Jordan, both of which it has shared peaceful relations with for decades. It shares a complicated border with Syria, where it has for more decades held a salient into Syrian sovereign territory (the Golan), but until recently there has been little military activity involving it. It's the Lebanese border where all the action is at.
(And the "border" with the West Bank and Gaza.)
> Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides?
The Oslo Accords, but right wing Israelis assassinated their own PM to prevent a peace deal.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo#:~:text=....
That's a misleadingly small part of the story of why there's no peace today.
Israeli went on to elect multiple other PMs to continue working towards a peace deal. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, but Barak met with Araft in 2000, 2001, Olmert was trying to make a deal all the way up to 2007. And in the meantime, famous military hawk Sharon actually withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements.
What actually happened is that a result of the Oslo accords, while yes, one right-wing extremist killed Rabin (and another right-wing extremist committed a disgusting terror attack on Palestinians) - the Palestinians started a massive wave of terror attacks, probably spearheaded by Hamas with the express purpose of scuttling the peace process.
Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. Not only that, you had stuff like Ariel Sharon encouraging people to settle all the land while they can. It was hard to really take in good faith.
And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
> Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy.
This is just not true. The Palestinians didn't have any recognized governing body before the accords; the accords made the Palestinian Authority the official representative of the Palestinian people, and outlined the areas from which Israel would withdraw and that would be governed by the PA completely. This all happened and is still the situation.
> I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
That is not the reason the peace process failed - it failed because the Palestinians at some walked away without agreeing to a deal, or giving a counteroffer that Israel could weigh. Multiple times. Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today.
But the terrorism is the reason the Israeli Left eventually lost much public support - because the Right just said, correctly, that all attempts at peace and all concessions have been met with refusal and more violence.
I'm not saying Israel didn't do anything bad or was always the best negotiating partner, and I think settlement activity should've been stopped (and really, should never have happened in the first place!). But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying.
You don't have to trust Israelis for this, trust Clinton, trust the other Americans, trust plenty of historians who've looked at the deal.
As for historical revisionism...
> And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks.
It takes like two minutes on Wikipedia to show that this is not true. Hamas was founded in 1987 and carried out its first terror attack in 1988, about 6 years before Goldstein's terror attack.
> Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today.
There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy. And several Israeli politicians were sabotaging things by encouraging further settlements.
My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced. Any "peace negations" without that on the table are not really meaningful and just window dressing. "Please behave nicely according to our satisfaction until we maybe give you your due rights" is not a reasonable demand, especially not in the face of some of the people in government right now.
And "Hamas born" was not the right term. The point is they stepped up their game and became influential, which is not particularly controversial AFAIK. IIRC they also didn't do any suicide attacks before Goldstein, but I could be misremembering that.
> But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying.
Different zeitgeist. Post cold war 90s were very optimistic. Too optimistic probably.
Also less of a "second world war" hangover. Look, I grew up with stories from my grandparents about the occupation. Half my history lessons were about the war and Holocaust. I have great sympathy for the Jewish people and would even go so far to consider myself a Zionist, at least for some meanings of the concept.
But also, I'm young enough that as far as I'm concerned it's too long ago, and while some morally dubious actions from the past are at least understandable, it's no longer a reason. Even more so for people 20 years younger than me who never had grandparents who told them stories.
I mean, half of the US was on-board with "Satanic Ritual Abuse" during the 80s. Just because "people are the time" said X or thought Y doesn't mean it's correct.
> There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy.
I don't understand what you mean. The negotiation was to come to an agreement to stop settlement activity and give all the territory to the Palestinians.
Are you saying the problem is that there were no concessions before the negotiations had reached an agreement? That is not how negotiations typically work.
> My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced.
Look, I agree that settlement activity should stop. Many Israelis agree and don't want settlement activity to continue.
The problem is that many Israelis are convinced, very likely correctly, that undoing settlements without a deal will cause far more violence to happen to Israel. This is exactly what happened with Gaza - a unilateral withdrawal of army and settlements, before any negotiated agreement, led to Gaza turning into a launching pad of rockets on Israel.
I still think the settler violence happening today in the WB is abhorrent, all new settlements must cease immediately, etc. I'm totally with you there. I don't know if it'll happen - we may be too far gone at this stage.
In any case, Palestinian violence has basically always backfired on Palestinians. Even if you can somehow accept it morally (which you absolutely shouldn't), the end result is that every single bad condition of the Palestinians has been the direct result of violence, including the horrific condition of Gaza right now. Maybe trying a different approach like renouncing violence is just a good idea?
> withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements.
No settlements != No occupation
OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before?
I think the basic logic of "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" is the guiding logic here, whether you call it occupation or not.
My understanding, after having learned more about this topic in the last year, is that this runs much deeper in the Israeli political establishment than Israel's image in the west would suggest.
E.g., I found it notable that Likud's founding charter explicitly rejects a two-state solution, fully endorses the settlement policy and calls for an Israel "from the river to the sea" - in 1977! [1] (More recent updates to the charter are more ambiguous though)
That, btw, is itself already the "moderate" position in contrast to Likud's predecessor parties - which were platforming on extending Israel into the (back then occupied) Sinai [2] or taking over all of Jordan [3] (due to it having been the other half of Mandatory Palestine).
Every country has its fringe groups with extremist views, except in this case, the groups became the dominant government party.
A recent tweet [4] from Netanyahu in response to Macron also makes it clear that the "we conquered it fair and square, so it's ours now" mindset is still alive and well today.
None of that excuses the atrocities done by Palestinian groups - but it definitely calls into question who is the escalating side in this conflict. It also makes the west's one-sided support for Israel appear increasingly jarring and at odds with it's own values.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Ideological_positions
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Greater_Israel
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
[4] https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/1846242196531339413
I think it's uncontroversial that Likud opposes a 2-state solution, for what it's worth. I think you're going to find a lot of people taking Israel's side in the existential question of whether it should defend itself as a sovereign, and/or respond to mass-casualty attacks from paramilitary militias in territories it occupies, but far fewer people endorsing Israel's leadership. "I support Israel's right to exist but Netanyahu belongs at the Hague" is a pretty common position.
The issue is: it doesn't get you anywhere in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I believe Israel has awful, possibly criminal leadership. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't respond to full-scale military attacks from neighboring near-peer militaries.
I think tallying up the morals of each side of this conflict is really unproductive, but in the spirit of just digging into the details here, I feel like it's worth pointing out that the details on Hezbollah's side of the scale are grim. Not in its conflict with Israel, but with the broader region, where it has killed civilians with great gusto.
(Full disclaimer: I have no personal ties to the conflict and I get the largest part of my information about it from Haaretz, Wikipedia and Al Jazeera. So I definitely have a bias)
> "I support Israel's right to exist but Netanyahu belongs at the Hague" is a pretty common position.
I think Netanyahu (and Smotrich, Ben Gvir, etc) are a big part of the problem, but it's too simple to blame everything on them. The differences to the other political parties seem to be mostly in details that seem relatively irrelevant for non-Israelis: Basically whether to conduct the occupation and settlement with a good or a bad conscience and whether in service of a religious destiny or for mundane security reasons. But no one has any plan to end the occupation or even just to clear the settlements. The recent bill to reject any Palestinian state was voted in across almost all parties.
> But that doesn't mean it shouldn't respond to full-scale military attacks from neighboring near-peer militaries.
I think tallying up the morals of each side of this conflict is really unproductive, but in the spirit of just digging into the details here, I feel like it's worth pointing out that the details on Hezbollah's side of the scale are grim. Not in its conflict with Israel, but with the broader region, where it has killed civilians with great gusto.
Yeah, I don't want to exonerate Hezbollah (or Hamas for that matter). It's just that in this conflict, Hezbollah so far behaved entirely rational and predictable. Their attacks were calibrated to put pressure on Israel but nothing more - and their objective was clear to see. Israel could have easily achieved its objective of bringing back the inhabitants of the north by agreeing to one of the US-brokered ceasefire deals.
It is relatively obvious that Netanyahu wants to continue the war in Gaza at all costs and is rather starting another war than to hold the attacks.
The other reason is that with Israeli military operations, self-defense and conquest seem always be intertwined. I find it uncanny how quickly settlement movements for Gaza and Lebanon pop up during something that is ostensibly a war of self-defense. (Not even starting with the extremely dehumanizing "proposals" what to do with Gaza's population that are apparently freely discussed in Israel's civil society, such as the recent "General's plan")
I'd be more on board if the fight against Hezbollah and Hamas was conducted by an international force with UN mandate than by the IDF alone - and if at the same time we put some actual pressure on Israel to end the occupation, so there is an actual alternative for Palestinians to the terror groups.
No, Hezbollah has not behaved "entirely rational and predictable". They have indiscriminately fired rockets at civilian populations in northern Israel, often over a hundred in a single day, averaging dozens every day continuously for almost a year, killing principally (as you'd expect) civilians (ironically, many of them not Israeli Jewish citizens), in one case including half a youth football team.
If "team A did bad thing X" is an argument for anything, could I counter that team B did X too, and more? You're complaining that Hezbollah kills civilians... So does the IDF.
Now if you tell me that one is intentional and the other one isn't the I know you're not being honest, because there's plenty of evidence that the IDF is really casual about collateral damage.
> Now if you tell me that one is intentional and the other one isn't the I know you're not being honest, because there's plenty of evidence that the IDF is really casual about collateral damage.
Casual about collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians are different things.
Remember when Israel shot at that car with a family in it? Hind Rajab.
Or when they sniped that journalist and attacked her funeral, Shireen Abu Aqleh?
Or when they bombed the AP building in 2021 with no evidence.
Or when the IOF threw a baby in an oven in front of the father during the Deir Yassin massacre? Hussein al-Shareef and Abdul Rauf
Or when they bombed refugee camps? Or when they told people to evacuate south and then bombed the Rafah border crossing so they couldn't escape?
Or the Goldstone Report where the UN found that the IOF was forcing Palestinians at gun point to enter buildings first to make sure they're clear? https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g09/158/66/pdf/g09158... Page 22
Very demure, very mindful
Yes, you can make a list of terrible acts committed by almost any military, especially if you go back 76 years to before it was a state. It is very clear that some soldiers in the IDF, like in any army, have committed war crimes.
It's not "some soldiers", Netanyahu and others at the top have signified their intent to commit genocide with their repeated dehumanization of Palestinians as "Amalek". The Israeli Minister of National Security was a member of a recognized terrorist group. It's not some bad apples, the leadership in Israel is rotten to the core.
But it's clear that no matter what I say you're gonna excuse it. Throwing a baby into an oven in front of the father is some next level nazi shit. If you'll excuse that you'll excuse anything
> But it's clear that no matter what I say you're gonna excuse it. Throwing a baby into an oven in front of the father is some next level nazi shit. If you'll excuse that you'll excuse anything.
I didn't excuse it. I said it was a terrible act.
It was also committed more than 70 years ago, technically before Israel was even founded. Quite literally 3 years after millions of Jews were systematically burned in Nazi-Germany's ovens. Do you think Germany's actions in WW2 are relevant if discussing Germany today?
> It's not "some soldiers", Netanyahu and others at the top have signified their intent to commit genocide with their repeated dehumanization of Palestinians as "Amalek".
Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
What has been repeated is the thousands of times that Netanyahu and others have said that Israel is only going after Hamas, not Gazan civilians.
> The Israeli Minister of National Security was a member of a recognized terrorist group.
Well that I can't argue with. That minister is a disgusting human being who is completely destroying Israel from within, even apart from the vile things he is doing against Palestinians. Luckily his impact on the war isn't huge, but he definitely has some impact, including scuttling ceasefire deals and pressuring for the war to continue.
He is vile and Israel should be ashamed he has any influence on Israel at all, let alone being in charge of the police. (Most Israelis agree about this, unfortunately the totally corrupt Netanyahu needs him for his own political ambitions, because all normal Israelis politicians refuse to work with him!)
> It was also committed more than 70 years ago, technically before Israel was even founded.
> Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations. Most people on this site are American, they're not going to lambaste you for supporting a political nuthouse lest they scorn themselves. But they will (and rightfully so) contest anyone that tries laundering history to create a halo-effect for their favorite nation. Zionism deserves it's due shake no matter what the conditions were at the time, especially considering how interests in the region predated WWII with the Balfour declaration.
The problem isn't people, but politics. Israel (as does America with their Abrahamic militants) has an extremism problem that has been given undue control over government and military proceedings. Their actions (as you've admit with the propaganda concession) has justified insane actions and statements that cannot be rationally supported. The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously. The world's apprehension would be proven correct as Israel made hot-headed mistakes like bombing aid workers and approving poorly-targeted operations as bloody restitution.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The US depends on Israel to not just enforce peace in the Levant, but to export the Western esprit de corps across the world. If Israel continues to allow it's politics to be dictated entirely by identity and emotion, then logic will be rhetorically unnecessary to justify any military action.
> Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations.
My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant. That's how everyone thinks of things all the time in other contexts. Egypt was one of the countries that fought wars with Israel multiple times - now Egypt and Israel have peace. Moving on from past violence is pretty much how every conflict eventually ends.
> The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously.
Most people think so. And they might be right. I certainly have a lot of questions and doubts about the way Israel has carried out the war.
But it's worth noting that many/most of the most vocal critics of Israel were incredibly critical before Israel had done almost anything. Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th. And indeed, all over the world, people were protesting Israel while Hamas militants were still inside Israel slaughtering families, before Israel had done any response.
So I take criticism of Israel from some people seriously, but with a huge grain of salt.
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
The Amalek quote is from October or November but
“This is a battle, not only of Israel against these barbarians, it is a battle of civilisation against barbarism,” Dec 24th
> Israeli President Isaac Herzog said a few weeks earlier, on December 5, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is “a war that is intended, really, truly, to save western civilisation… [from] an empire of evil”.
Or you could just check out this database of 500+ genocidal statements presented to the ICJ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas... (not all of them come from the government but it's a great resource)
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
Heat of war rhetoric is exactly the problem here, though. The War on Terror is 20-odd years old now and people are just as skeptical now as they were when aggression initiated. Without objective or logical goals to attain, Israel's defense forces can't cripple the Iranian infrastructure that threatens them, and they instead fight in Gaza as a perceived proxy. And instead of stabilizing their neighboring region, the IDF tactically neutered it to prevent any chance at sovereign control. Their goals are pretty much blatantly obvious, if you're looking at the big picture.
> And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and I suspect the ADL would object too. War crimes are consistently relevant, and stain their associated administration with the intent of bringing specific criminals to justice and preventing patterns of abuse. When the Axis lost in WWII, the Nazi regime fell but the criminals, their ideology and the hateful rhetoric they used persisted. Germany only absolved themselves by committing to complete and good-faith national reformation, which Israel hasn't undergone since the nation's inception.
> Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th.
They were accused of genocide for a lot longer than that. From the very start, Israel ordered the poisoning of wells in Lebanon[0], tacitly endorsed mass-killings in the West Bank[1] and researched minimum sustainment for the remaining Gazan population[2]. It doesn't make you antisemitic to note these things any more than it makes you racist for acknowledging slavery. These are politically and ideologically motivated fascinations with the suppression of a native people that errs on uncanny.
It's not my pleasure to report it in the slightest, because it's a harrowing reflection of how far global powers will bend over to support dubious interests. But it's also our global responsibility to excise all forms of dangerous extremism, otherwise we're just hypocrites. The IDF's attitude (and likely much of Israel, considering the terms of conscription) reaches dangerous levels of nationalism that are synonymous with supremacist and genocidal intent. We don't have to ask ourselves if Israel supports this or not, because settlers in the Golan Heights are allowed to molest the natives without fear of reprisal.
Take your criticism from wherever it pleases you, but do not write off anti-Zionist protest as transient or outdated. Israel has done this to themselves by creating a soft power echo-chamber that only rewards their worst impulses. They've had every opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and address them, but they refuse relentlessly. I do not respect the IDF, and their actions embarrass me simply by being a member of the first world. They need to change, or Israel will sign their fate as another internationally embarrassing hermit kingdom.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
[2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-29/ty-article/.p...
That's not the argument. I stated it plainly upthread.
Even if Israel gets rid of settlements in the West Bank, even If Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders, the Israel-Palestine conflict will not end. That's because Palestinians want a one-state solution, along with the return of Palestinian refugees, both the first gen and their descendants--and that's the real solution from the Palestinian side. Israel is never going to accept the real Palestinian solution.
It would be more fair to note that both Hamas and the current governing coalition in Israel very clearly want a one-state solution. In fact, if you could roll Israel back to 1967 borders, the Palestinians would be in an enormously better position than they are today; politics, and, in particular, the logistics of dismantling what are in effect whole Israeli suburbs illegally situated in the West Bank, are what keep us from getting that done.†
It's difficult to really get a firm grasp on what "Palestinians" demand, because (1) the Palestinian Authority is deeply corrupt, generally not trusted by Palestinians, and actively sabotaged by the Netanyahu coalition, and (2) Hamas took power in 2006 and then for almost 20 years refused any self-determination for Gazan Palestinians, all the while being tacitly endorsed and financially abetted by the Netanyahu governing coalition.
If your claim is that Hamas is not interested in a realistic brokered solution of the Israel/Palestinian crisis, you're right. Hamas is a death cult propped up by the IRGC QF, truly one of the most despicable organizations on the planet. But I would strongly object to Hamas' worldview being imputed to Palestinians more generally; Palestinians are Hamas' primary victims.
† There are other logistical problems that would need to get hammered out in a "'67 borders" agreement, like what the corridor between Gaza and the West Bank would look like. To hear skeptical Israeli policy commentators talk about it, you'd also put the structure of Palestinian security forces on that list, but I think the last year has counterfeited that concern: you literally can't do worse than the status quo.
Supporters of Palestinians, especially activists and students on campuses, in the West are not interested in the two-state solution. This position aligns with Arabs, who don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East. Hamas says it directly; others are not so direct, but one can infer their position through their actions.
One can say 'give voice and agency to those who want to make peace with the two-state solution'; then, make peace with these groups. I am not so confident on this adventure. Even the late Prof. Edward Said, who every postcolonial and postmodernist professor and student adore and worship, wanted a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, a variety of the one-state solution. Look at some version of a bi/tri-nationalism in the neighboring Lebanon: Hezbollah dictates the Lebanese govt.
> This position aligns with Arabs, who don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East. Hamas says it directly; others are not so direct, but one can infer their position through their actions.
Let's just put things into perspective here - Egypt and Jordan, both Arab countries, have had peaceful relations with Israel for decades. Saudi Arabia was probably very close to signing a deal with Israel as well - an offer that might even still be on the table, if the war ends.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "Arabs don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East". Not anymore.
And I don't think it matters particularly what "supporters of Palestinians" want, it matters what the people in actual power making the decisions want and do.
I'm not a campus activist. I don't care what campus activists say. Some campus activists have said truly dumb things; I won't impute them to Palestinians.
I agree that it's hard to get a firm grasp on the "Palestinians" demand. It's hard to get a firm grasp on what "Americans" demand of their government, and as we see every election cycle, there are pretty conflicting demands in a polarized country.
That said, the official representative of the Palestinians did have a chance to negotiate with the Israelis, received a generous offer according to Israelis and many outsider observers, and said no - walked away without a counteroffer.
The standard Israeli feeling is that there simply is no practical way to reach a negotiated peace because of this, especially since Palestinian representatives since that time have less political will and "moral authority" among Palestinians.
(And of course something that Israelis often miss is that Israel has spent 15+ years actively working against peace, so the lack of Palestinian leaders at this stage is at least partially because of Israel!)
> if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections
Sure. Wars' aims usually aren't irrational. Both sides seem to be somewhat flippant about collateral damage. But Hamas and, to a lesser degree, to my knowledge, Hezbollah stand out for explicitly and proudly targeting Israeli civilians.
> why I think you can't really compare it to operations against ISIL or Taliban, whom have a far less legitimate complaints
They're all couched in the language of expelling foreign imperialists.
> conflict would be non-existent on the scale that it exists today if not for the settlement policy
Plenty of Iran's regional allies oppose Israel's right to exist. The formation of Israel is a can of worms. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's positions would be strengthened--I think--if they tempered their demands to e.g. Israel returning to its original borders.
And Israel explicitly and proudly targets Palestinian and Lebanese civilian targets, as well as UN peacekeepers. They will deny it in US-facing communications, but are remarkably candid with their domestic media.
[flagged]
> Hamas or Hezb target civilians more than the IDF
Never claimed as much. The point is Hamas and Hezbollah explicitly target civilians. (The October 7th raid had a modest CCR of 2:1 inasmuch as there were 766 civilian and 273 security casualties [1]. Break down some of the raiding parties, however, and the CCR is much higher. Comparable to some of Israel's worst raids, or Russia's war in Chechnya.)
> IDF has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than either
This is how multiplying a big scalar by a smaller ratio works.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel%E2%80...
You’re assuming every death on the 7th was by Hamas or other Gaza factions, which is false.
And these abstractions are useless and only serve to obfuscate the horrors of war.
> You’re assuming every death on the 7th was by Hamas or other Gaza factions
We are rounding civilian casualties to integers. This is a necessarily inexact science.
> these abstractions are useless and only serve to obfuscate the horrors of war
I could not agree with you more.
> We are rounding civilian casualties to integers. This is a necessarily inexact science.
I think what he's suggesting is that of the Israeli casualties on October 7th, we have no accurate breakdown for how many were caused by IDF implementing the "Hannibal procedure". It's possible the answer is "A LOT".
https://archive.is/4mtXW https://archive.is/romMZ (Haaretz articles)
One case in which it is known that civilians were hit, a case that received wide coverage, took place in the house of Pessi Cohen at Kibbutz Be'eri. 14 hostages were held in the house as the IDF attacked it, with 13 of them killed.
This had nothing to do with the westbank and yes, Israel has a problem with extremism and illegal settlements. But that isn't the topic here.
Hezbollah has started its war against Israel and the pager attack was an efficient way to retaliate and cripple Hezbollah command. There is no justification for Hezbollah to attack Israel with missiles.
I don't really understand why their attack on Hezbollah logistics is even in question. Israel has to use all their capabilities to respond to these attacks.
In the end we need a two-state solution with Israel and the Palestinians have self-determination and security. The faults of those involved are many, but the solution is known - it is a two-state solution, an end to armed attacks on Israeli civilians/homes and an end to the settlements.
Thomas Friedman has great takes on this regularly in his NYTimes column: https://www.nytimes.com/column/thomas-l-friedman
A two-state solution is a fever dream if the occupier is uninterested in it. We’ve seen that repeatedly for the past 75+ years in actions and literal words.
So the question is, if you were the subjugated population, what would you do?
Not kill 1200 people, including 815 civilians, and take an addition 251 hostage.
But I think it's really important to be clear about who "we" is here. Last I checked, a majority of Gazans are not old enough ever to have voted in an election (the last one was held almost 20 years ago). If you mean "Hamas", and you stipulate that Hamas is in any way operating in the best interests of living Gazans in the present, it's easy to give a clear answer to that question. If you mean Gazan civilians, the true victims of Hamas, it's much more complicated.
Hamas is a symptom of desperation. It certainly is not acting in the best interest of Gazans and they are suffering due to that.
But on the other hand, diplomacy has not been an effective tool for Gazans and, as all signs indicate, it never will. Not at least until US withdraws its unconditional support for Israel.
With status quo, Gazans have the choice to lie down and die or continue living under deplorable conditions under a military occupation, as Israel slowly annexes the land that, under international law, doesn’t belong to them.
I agree. Gazan civilians had no good options (though, as we've discovered, it was possible for things to get far worse for them than they had been, and I don't think it serves any purpose to sugarcoat that).
Having said that: I don't want to get into 2024 Israeli policy with regards to Gaza, because with this ruling coalition who knows anything, but in the status quo ante of this attack Israel was not in fact slowly annexing the Gaza. (They are slowly annexing the West Bank, to be sure, but these are distinct populations with distinct governance).
In the status quo ante of this attack Israel was not in fact slowly annexing the Gaza.
Not yet, as majority policy. But a sizable contingent is clamoring for exactly that (only they'd prefer it happen much more quickly):
https://archive.ph/BPP5CYes, but that is a response to the October 7 attacks, and this thread is about the antecedents of that attack.
(I question the seriousness of that movement; Likud under Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza and dismantled the settlements there, for practical reasons. It is not necessarily in the long-term interests of the Israeli state to settle in the Gaza Strip. But it doesn't matter for this thread either way. If it needs saying: all of Israeli's illegal settlement programs are bad.)
You’re right. I was referring to the Palestinian Territories in the context of annexation.
> A two-state solution is a fever dream if the occupier is uninterested in it. We’ve seen that repeatedly for the past 75+ years in actions and literal words.
First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.
Second, there was a real effort at arriving at a two state solution made by Israel. It's often debated who is "at fault" for no solution having been reached, but without rehashing it - I think it's simply false to say that "the occupier is uninterested in a two-state solution. Not when Israelis elected politicians multiple times over 15 years to seek such a solution, not when Israeli politicians multiple time reached compromises with the Palestinians.
Btw, I think both sides often claim, falsely, that the other side is incapable of compromise - I think it's important to keep pointing out that this is false and that actual meaningful steps towards peace have been achieved. Especially outsiders should be looking at this broad perspective, and not play up the "one side is inherently unreasonable" argument, which is never true.
First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.
Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.
(With Gaza one try to could quibble that there was no "effective" occupation from 2005-2023, but even that was never true in regard to control of Gaza's borders).
> Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.
Oh, I meant that it hasn't been 75 years, not that the territories aren't occupied. They've only been occupied since 1967.
This isn't just a quibble btw - it's worth asking who the territories are occupied from. Because there was never a Palestinian state, and those territories belonged to Jordan and Egypt, who don't want them and have peace with Israel. Normally "Occupied" territory is territory that is contested by the country it was occupied from.
In this case it's more complicated, because the Palestinians that live on that land consider it theirs and have nationalistic aspirations. Which I 100% support, and absolutely think an agreement should be reached.
(Btw, itt is worth asking why, in the 20 years during which Egypt and Jordan had control over those territories, a Palestinian state wasn't created.)
Oh, I meant that it hasn't been 75 years, not that the territories aren't occupied.
You are right of course. It's been so long, I lose track of the math myself.
My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.
For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.
The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.
Also, any and all attempts by Palestinians to get formal recognition in the UN have been repeatedly vetoed by the United States.
> My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.
I'm sorry, not sure how else to say this - you're simply wrong. Pretty much everyone involved in the negotiations at the time disagrees with this idea. Whether the "final" offer that Israel gave to the Palestinians was "enough" or not is of course a matter of some opinion, though many at the time, both Israelis and Americans, thought that they were given an incredibly generous offer. In any case, the Palestinians never came back with a counteroffer of what they would accept, so it's hard to say how close or far Israel was from the "minimum" that Palestinians would consider acceptable.
> For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Literally every deal is that the West Bank and Gaza become part of a Palestinian state, that's the territories that Israel has occupied since 1967. One other territory, the Sinai, was given back to Egypt as part of the peace deal with Egypt (and is, btw, 4x the size of all of Israel).
And the Palestinian authority, as part of Oslo, did get a limited sovereignity over parts of the West Bank. Israel also completely left Gaza in 2005, though it still had some control over it, and imposed a blockade when Hamas was elected (together with Egypt).
So again, I'm not sure what you mean - literally every deal starts with Israel giving the pre-1967 land to the Palestinians, with some land swaps for land that Israel prefers not to give (btw, you call it "giving back" the land, which is inaccurate - it was never the Palestinian's land, it was part of Jordan and Egypt when it was occupied).
> The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.
They are probably deeply unpopular now, but I don't think they were deeply unpopular at the time on the Israeli side. Indeed Israel elected multiple people trying to pursue peace after the Oslo accords, and while none of them had overwhelming public support, they had enough support to form majority coalitions and actually try to negotiate.
They're unpopular now because the result of what to Israelis looks like serious attempts at achieving peace with the Palestinians, ended with violence, terror and refusal to cooperate on the side of the Palestinians.
Find a way to leave, at any material cost.
That, perhaps, is the end goal.
> In the end we need a two-state solution with Israel and the Palestinians have self-determination and security
The problem is the history of extracting a region from this miasma has involved (a) invasion and unconditional surrender to an outside power or (b) subjugation and thus the erasure of the divide. We decided after WWII the latter is unacceptable. That leaves the former.
The proper parties to do it would be the Middle Eastern military powers. But they, being monarchies and dictatorships, lack the legitimacy and stability to engage in such projects.
I agree wholeheartedly.
> I don't approve of Hezbollah or Hamas; but if you strip away the violence and Islamic extremism and all of that then the uncomfortable reality is ... they're not wrong in their core objections. Israel has consistently maintained that no, actually, the core problem is that Hezbollah and Hamas exist, and once we get rid of these people all the problems will be gone.
Let me offer you a counter-perspective on this. Israel and the PA actually worked to achieve peace - beginning with the Oslo accords that officially recognized the PA as the representative of the Palestinian people, and in which they officially recognized Israel on the '67 borders.
There followed a more than a decade of attempts at reaching an agreement for a two-state solution, which would have ended Israel's settlements and given the Palestinians what they ostensibly want.
Except this isn't the core objective of Hamas and Hezbollah. Their core objective has always been to eliminate Israel entirely. Which is why Hamas helped stop the very peace agreements which could've led to a two-state solution, by starting a wave of terror attacks. It's unclear to what extent the PA itself was involved, but Hamas was absolutely involved, and their stated goal was to not achieve peace, but rather scuttle any peace so that the fight could be a fight to the death of Israel, instead.
(And of course, Israeli extremists were working on the Israeli side to stop the peace process, with much fewer attacks and far less success, except for the one terrible blow they did manage to dish out - assassinating the Prime Minister that would've most likely been able to get a peace deal done!)
That is the sense in which many Israelis feel like - yeah, if Israel destroys the group that is actively seeking to disrupt peace and working towards Israel's destruction - we can actually negotiate with the reasonable people that are left. (I don't think this is correct or Netanyahu's full motivations, but it's not completely wrong, either.)
> Israel must resolve the settlement issue first, and THEN we can dismantle the violent extremist groups (which will take time and won't happen overnight – there will be a "Real Hamas" splinter group just as there was a "Real IRA"). This is the only way peace can happen.
Israelis believe that without those settlements, a far more massive attack would happen.
And they are probably right! Israel remvoed the settlements from Gaza, removed all military presence from Gaza, and the Gazans elected Hamas, which took over the Gaza strip (killing all PA members), then spent 15 years shooting rockets at Israel continuously, and spent billions of dollars of aid that was supposed to help Palestinians on, instead, building up towards the October 7th attack.
You're effectively saying to Israelis "if you want peace, just try to repeat this, except on a far more massive scale in the West Bank", and to trust that somehow, this won't turn out exactly the same as in Gaza. Israelis have good reason to mistrust this idea!
(For the record, I do think there are good counterarguments against this, and I am very much against the settlements, as are many Israelis. But the concerns I outline are real, legitimate concerns, and they have to be addressed or at least, understood.)
> And they are probably right! Israel remvoed the settlements from Gaza, removed all military presence from Gaza, and the Gazans elected Hamas, which took over the Gaza strip (killing all PA members), then spent 15 years shooting rockets at Israel continuously
It probably would have been a good idea to:
NOT bulldoze Gaza's airport ( https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/08/31/344329313/... )
NOT bulldoze the foundations of Gaza's seaport ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/148375... )
Enact revenue sharing for the offshore natgas income partially extracted from Palestinian waters ( https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/08/how-gaza-marine-de... )
Of course the outcome will be the same as Gaza if the period after negotiations fail is contemporaneous with "grind their economic opportunities into the dust....literally". If an asshole moves into your master bedroom and you want him GONE.....but he proceeds to hook you up with a FAANG job that prints money (and no, "aid" is not the same as the self-respect that comes with controlling your own destiny via hard work)....you'll be more inclined to tolerate living with him, after a period of extended mutual disdain, of course.
I'm not sure anybody on this thread disagrees with you about the airport and the seaport and the economic blockade.
It’s refreshing to hear from someone else what I’ve been thinking and saying for a while now.
This perspective is conspicuously missing from all narrative you hear and read in the media, as well as the administration. The gaslighting is hard to ignore.
The pager attack cannot be considered a discriminating attack as they had no idea where the explosions would happen. Even assuming that only military personnel used the pagers they had no way to know where they would be or who else would be near them, especially since a pager is something you always carry with you.
I for one am much more comfortable with the military nature of the radio/pager attack as legitimately military now than I was in the days after it happened.
But I completely agree with your last point. It makes the Gaza invasion look _more_ like collective punishment than it already did (which is pretty wild).
In the same spirit I should say I'm in a much different place with respect to Gaza now than I would have been 6 months ago; I might not have fully agreed with your take back then, but clearly do now.
What makes you think that the Iraq war was not terrorism? You're comparing Israeli terrorism to United States terrorism. Israel and the United States are a prominent terrorist alliance, and they have been terrorizing the Middle East for decades.
It seems the Middle East has been terrorizing itself a lot as well:
https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks...
tptacek, it’s hard to take any of your analysis seriously when you label Hezbollah, a non-state controlled armed resistance militia , with no tanks, fighter jets or submarines a “neer-peer military adversary” of Israel, which essentially has full & unlimited access to US weapons stockpiles and latest defence technology (minus nukes and subs).
You are wittingly or unwittingly utilizing the same propaganda strategy of the IDF to lionize their enemies and exaggerate threats so they can use it as an excuse to commit war crimes and inflict severely disproportionate attacks on civilians. With all due respect, we can’t all be experts in everything so please stick to talking about tcp.
One reason I call them that is that they fought Israel to a standstill in southern Lebanon not long ago; the missile attacks were presumably an attempt to lure the IDF into a similar confrontation. Hezbollah is Iran; they are an instrument of the IRGC. Israel and Iran aren't near-peer military forces; they are peers. Israel cannot unilaterally overwhelm Iran.
[flagged]
The end of your comment was a shameful personal attack* and disgustingly anti-semitic**, made worse (if possible) by internet insults. If you pull a trick like that on HN again, we will ban you.
I don't see how it's in your interest to discredit your own argument with gutter-level slurs, but if that's what you want to do, please do it elsewhere. I wonder how the many Jewish people arguing for the same position that you are, some of whom even have "jewish names", feel about posts like yours.
(* the tinyurl.com link at the end points to a "let me google that for you" with the query "is Ptacek a jewish name".)
(** I don't use language like this in HN mod comments very often, because I don't want to cheapen it, but this is an exception.)
[flagged]
Please keep this stuff on reddit. HN is one of the last few remaining high-quality social websites precisely because we shun comments like this. It should go without saying, but if you disagree, please do so in a civil manner.
> Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism:
This was the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization.
People love to try an claim that they're anti-Israel and not antisemitic, but no other country in the world would be held to this kind of ridiculous standard in the face of constant terrorist attacks on a civilian population.
>The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization.
And the people who happened to be next to them when they went off?
> the people who happened to be next to them when they went off?
Collateral damage. Same as in any war.
This discussion belies a naivete about how wars are fought. War--theconventional, legal, internationally-sanctioned kind--is horrible. The moment any side commits to war, it's committed to committing atrocities. You can't fight war without being shockingly cruel and inhumane.
We have certain limits that have been internationally agreed. But let's be honest, nobody in the Middle East is following them. (The difficulty being compounded when one side is filled with quasi-insurgent/quasi-state participants.) And let's be more honest: nobody has treated them as totally binding ever.
Are the Israeli civilians killed October 7th also collateral damage?
No, they were the intended targets of those attacks. The term "collateral" means "unintended".
If a similar and equally large-scale attack was done by a nation at war with US, targeting US military command, would that be a low-casualty operation or an act of terrorism?
And would it matter if the technical interpretation differed wildly from the general perception?
For what it's worth, I consider both parties in their forever war to be irredeemable bastards. As I learned early on, the network of tunnels in Gaza has no civilian shelter space, a clear indication that their general population's safety has not been a concern. On the upside, if there is any to be found, at least it means there won't be human shields to speak of down there.
That said, I don't know if that would make a difference. Both sides have demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to slaughter civilians.
If there is a declared state of war between two countries, than someone else doing what Israel did to Hezbollah would be considered a valid act of war.
The problem is that Israel and Hezbollah are currently in a state of informal hostilities but are not in a state of declared war. That distinction matters at the international level.
In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. It turns out Hamas had been using the most recent truce to build up its forces and plan those terrorist attacks, which is why Israel is unwilling to enter into a new truce. (And on a historical note, Hamas has unilaterally broken or violated every truce and peace treaty it has negotiated with Israel.) Given that the Gazan civilian population was openly sheltering and supporting the Hamas forces, the international rules of war hold that Gazan civilians are legitimate collateral damage so long as there was no intent by Israel to deliberately attack civilian targets. Importantly, Israel is formally at war with Hamas, so the legal framework is different from what happened with Hezbollah.
Nations do not declare wars anymore, because wars are illegal since WW2. Quoting Wikipedia:
> Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations
So since then, wars are now called "counter-terrorist operations", "peace enforcement operations", "special military operations" — you name it.
Nobody "declares war" anymore. See, for a defensive war (when a nation is being attacked) there is no legal need to declare it in the first place — and this is why Ukraine does not "declare war on Russia", and this is why Israel does not declare war against Hezbollah (and Hezbollah is not even a state to begin with) — it is a defensive war from the legal standpoint.
You declare an offensive war. And this is illegal. Once you do it, there will be legal repercussions, like troubles with purchasing weapons from other countries (as they often have laws prohibiting from selling weapons to countries at war). So why would anybody do it? It would be silly.
Sure they do - but they tend to declare abstract "states of war" without a stated goal or timeline. Like the State of Israel, for example, on Oct 8.
Israel actually didn't do that - Netanyahu literally said "this is not another skirmish, this is a war" and gave explicit goals to the war (bringing back the hostages and dismantling Hamas). Later on an additional goal was added - allowing the return of Israeli internal refugees to their homes in the North.
Yeah, but that is for "internal consumption" and it doesn't affect any international relations, unlike "declaring war".
An interesting example is the U.S. which has been in a "state of war" (official term is "period of hostility") since 2001, a.k.a. "War on Terrorism" — and it still is! Which, by the way, gives a nice bonus of immediate citizenship for signing up for the military, without the need to wait for 5 years.
> In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023.
This is one of the things that keep getting repeated which I've found no source for. "There was a ceasefire on October 6"
I'm aware of a 1-month ceasefire in 2014, which I believe was respected by both parties.
There was a 6-month ceasefire in 2008 which was broken by Israel shortly before its completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_ceas...
Show me a source for a ceasefire/truce that was in effect on October 6 2023?
I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. Are other members of Hezbollah considered legitimate targets? From memory, the Iranian ambassador had one. Were they a legitimate target?
> I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case.
4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities. I am not sure of final tallies, but the source is here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
> 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities
A 3:1 CCR is close to par for the course for NATO and positively honourable for e.g. Russia [1].
Tptacek's take is correct. (Of course it's Patrick.) One can reasonably disagree with the strike, even if limited to the precedent it set for plastic detonators that most countries' scanners can't pick up. But as a military tactic, even taking Hezbollah's numbers at face value, it was normally discriminating for a Western power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_I...
You have to think about the counterfactual. If Israel hadn’t utilized the pagers what would they do instead? The obvious answer is that they would bomb the residences where these people live. That would cause much much worse collateral damage than the pagers did.
Uh, does anybody not "consider this to be a form of terrorism"?
Of course it is terrorism, very much by definition. Obviously, it would be very unpalatable for any involved politician to call it as such, because of the connotations the word has (or rather "has assigned"), so they will exercise doublespeak, doing which perfectly is their core expertise. But it would be funny, if anybody at all buys into that.
[dead]
There's absolutely no doubt that it's terrorism.
Key components are 6 grams of white pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and "highly flammable material" as a detonator. PETN was developed in 1906, and is accessible to more advanced hobby chemists.
So we have explosive device that passes through airport security scanner. And can be made at home by dedicated individuals... What are the implications for air travel?
The trick is probably not to make PETN, but to package it in such a way there are no traces of it outside?
There are likely no implications for air travel. At least I always assumed that advanced state actors can make explosives that are undetectable by airport security scanners.
> we have explosive device that passes through airport security scanner
I don't think it passes through modern American scanners--they can theoretically discriminate plastic explosives (and presumably detonators) from water, though whether it gets caught is a matter of TSA competence.
The explosive is completely sealed inside the battery casing. It's highly likely to be undetectable.
Part of the reason why this is one of those "cat out of the bag" type things.
Airlines are already banning pagers and walkie talkies.
I wonder how many duds are currently being processed by Hezbollah right now.
(0): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/world/middleeast/emirates...
> Airlines are already banning pagers and walkie talkies
The threat vector OP refers to is a terrorist packaging this into e.g. a laptop.
Nitrated explosives are detectable by airport security scanners. Dogs also pick up the scent of nitrates in seconds.
I mean, the implication is that they either tested the pagers on an airport's security scanner (pointing to state built explosive devices making their way onto consumer flights).
Or they tested them on their airport security scanners (and the question of why this group needs an airport security scanner to test things on).
Either way, the implications for air travel are not all that great!
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/ANNIVER... linked from there was also worth reading. Staggering.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Would you please stop posting this sort of battle comment to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly and breaking the site guidelines in the process. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for—regardless of which war, or which side you're for or against.
I know other commenters have been doing it too, but your comments (and comment history) stand out among the ones I've looked at in this thread so far.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Wow, they did a licensing deal with a legitimate manufacturer in Taiwan to get the battery listed on official websites? This runs so much deeper than I expected.
Supply chains are one heck of an attack surface...
I wonder who else bought such special batteries, whether they were/are aware of that...
The battery wasn't actually for sale; they just created fake product pages for it so that if anyone looked up the part number, it wouldn't be immediately obvious that it was fake.
Supply chains aren't perfect. There is legitimacy to asking if any of the pagers or walkie talkies wound up elsewhere.
> Gold Apollo’s chairman, Hsu Ching-kuang, told reporters a day after the pager attack that he was approached about three years ago by a former employee, Teresa Wu, and her “big boss, called Tom” to discuss a licence agreement.
> Hsu said he had scant information about Wu’s superior, but he granted them the right to design their own products and market them under the widely distributed Gold Apollo brand. Reuters could not establish the identity of the manager, nor whether the person or Wu knowingly worked with Israeli intelligence.
These make me wonder whether major players would quickly allocate production to their own countries as well as their vassal countries where they can comfortably spy on. It is not that difficult for a major player to infiltrate a foreign civilian product factory, say, produces lower end MCUs that are used in infrastructure, find a list of customers and plan accordingly.
And in this case it is very suspicious that Hsu did not even ask any questions.
If these pager explosives were invisible to x-ray machines then hopefully the TSA has a way to detect them. Seems like a pretty clear attack vector.
My thought: what if some extremists, who are not in short supply given the current condition decide to do a copy-cat attack on major airports simultaneously? Are the machines guaranteed to identify each one of them? I mean the tech doesn't look too hard even for dedicated individuals, let alone quasi-state actors.
It was lucky none of the thousands of pagers employed in this terror attack blew inside some airplane and made it much worse. It's dismaying we have a state doing this.
Well done Israel !!!
So did Mossad listen to the pagers ? I mean, instead of putting a bomb inside, spying would make more sense to me...
Technically speaking that would be much harder: pagers don’t have microphones, and most don’t transmit - and those that do send very small messages.
You’d have to add significant new capabilities to pull off surveillance, which would increase the risk of detection.
> spying would make more sense to me..
Probably they did. The problem with pager like communication is that it is very easy to employ codewords. Something like "if we send orange, bring your weapon and meet us at the market, if we send pear pack a week worth of stuff and meet us at the pumping station, if we send melon disappear to the countryside for two days". Monitoring that can give you a sense that "something is happening" but it won't tell you exactly what. So all in all it is not terribly valuable.
But if I would be working for Hez I would assume that all communication over the pagers have been completely compromised.
Of important note, none of that requires any modification to the pager. Paging protocols are ancient and unencrypted: a little SDR stick and you can run your own sigint on your local pager network.
That seems like a big risk to take though? The best scenario is they get these out to all the leaders and do what they did. Why would you risk that with “random” signals coming out of the pagers occasionally that might get spotted by the some Hezbollah member who also is good at radio/digital comms. It seems unlikely they did anything other than what they did which was set them all up for a crotch bomb.
thats the point of the bombs -- they can't be listened in on, so it's the only way to compromise them
Yes, the WaPo and NYT both reported that Mossad spent a fair amount of time eavesdropping on the communications between these two devices.
The eavesdropping played a significant role in the decision to detonate the devices.
Did they want a war
Maybe they sent coded messages. Pager communications would be easily decryptable without having supplied the pagers.
The term "terrorism" is often misused. According the the actual definition, terrorism is about inciting fear and the unintended consequences that this entails, and it does not necessarily have to involve civilian casualties.
For example, imagine firing a gun in a shopping mall without killing anybody. The entire mall still has to be evacuated, people start screaming, the firefighters, paramedics, and SWAT team show up, the stores have to hire a security guard, and shoppers are afraid to return. Everyone blames the mayor for not preventing the incident from occurring in the first place, and the mayor is pressured to enact new gun laws and set up a new checkpoint. These things happen even if there was no actual danger because it was a blank cartridge and not live ammunition.
The same effect occurs when you drop bombs on a city. All of the sudden it is no longer desirable to live in that city, even if it was a very precise bombing.
If you infiltrate supply chains and plant bombs, nobody trusts the global markets, people have to spend more money on inspections, manufacturers have to pay more for insurance, there are endless consequences
This section of the literal Geneva Convention [1], which Israel is a signatory of [2] seems rather relevant. While this article's breakdown of the what's and how's is quite interesting, keeping international law in mind while talking about the attack seems important.
- "2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material."
[1]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p...
[2]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-amended-p...
Not taking sides on the attack, but, wow, you ommited half the text - important in this context:
"unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences."
Please elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of.
Weeks out, with more facts settled, it does appear that this was one of the most (if not the most) precisely targeted attacks in the history of modern warfare, measured either by ratio of combatants to noncombatants injured, or by the measures used to target it (which included creating a fake pager distributor that sold legitimate pagers to legitimate sources and selectively delivered compromised pagers specifically to Hezbollah, which used them on a private military network it fought a civil war in Lebanon to maintain).
What isn't captured in these threads but should be obvious to anyone looking 150 miles south is that conventional warfare, as conducted by every military power in the world, kills children and noncombatants in vastly higher numbers.
Use this attack to disqualify Israel's reckless and militarily pointless continued campaign in Gaza. Clearly, they had the capability not to conduct warfare the way they are there. Or, if you like, to condemn all warfare worldwide. But the attempt to single out the pager/radio attack as distinctively amoral is unpersuasive.
FYI I disagree that this necessarily means that in Gaza.
Israel has spent 18 years fairly convinced that Hamas isn't a major threat and that Hezbollah is, so most resources were spent on preparing for war with Hezbollah. This is maybe even mostly correct.
That means Israel was far more prepared to attack Hezbollah, and it shows.
If the US were ever attacked by Russia, it has battle plans in place. If it were attacked by Argentina, I don't think it has nearly as many plans/assets/intelligence/etc. So a counterattack on Argentina would have to look very different.
(Though of course this mostly explains the initial response, and as you say, is far less convincing one year in!)
Israel spent 18 years willfully not addressing Hamas the way it did Hezbollah, as a mechanism to prevent a 2-state solution. Israel is responsible for the fact that it did not have the level of seriousness and preparation for Hamas that it did for Hezbollah, knowing full well that it would ultimately end up fighting Hezbollah in the sparsely populated hills of southern Lebanon, and Hamas in dense urban areas. It is culpable for the civilian toll in Gaza that resulted.
What Israel's leadership did here goes beyond not caring about civilian lives in Gaza. They cynically abetted Hamas's strategy to sacrifice those lives in a bid to start a world war that would bring on the end times, knowing that Hamas was absolutely batshit crazy and would thus keep Palestinians permanently destabilized.
Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
> Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.
That's fair enough, many Israelis feel likewise. You shouldn't mistake me for liking the Israeli leadership either.
That said - Hamas played a game of pretending to be appeased, and it worked. I agree that Israel has been absolutely immoral over the last 18 years, though I think the bigger problem was closing off avenues for peace and not (as Israel should've done as the stronger party) aggressively pushing for peace.
That said - I do wonder what you think Israel should've done differently. Because to address Hamas earlier would've meant invading Gaza years ago. Certainly Israelis can and are upset that its leaders let Hamas build up so much strength, but do you think anyone in the world would've had any sympathy for Israel had it done a ground invasion to root out Hamas fifteen years ago? Even after October 7th there was barely sympathy to root out Hamas.
This is like, imagine David Koresh's Branch Davidian cult took over Waco, and then the entirely of Texas CD17, and the Republican governor of Texas deliberately made space for the cult for electoral reasons. Later, Koresh starts a march towards Austin, making it as far as Temple, which he sacks before being turned back; the ensuing effort to apprehend him in Waco kills 5% of the its entire civilian population.
Who do I blame for this situation? There's a lot to go around. Certainly, I do not come out thinking Koresh's Branch Davidians were the victims. I am also not so much interested in the percentage of blame allocated to each culpable party; they're all awful.
Well, I agree, the current government of Israel is awful, as is Hamas.
But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
In your scenario, if the governor of Texas had decided not to make space for the cult, and had instead rooted them out, I don't think anyone would've been upset. But do you honestly think that if, after Hamas won the elections in Gaza and kicked out the PA, that Israel had decided to invade Gaza and fought with Hamas - without direct provocation - do you think in that scenario people wouldn't be just as upset at Israel?
I say this as a Netanyahu-hating leftist "peace-advocate" (mostly). I think most of us would've been upset at the "war-mongering" Netanyahu in that situation. That's why I hard on this - it's a self-criticism as much as it is a criticsm of others. The truth is, pre-emptive war might've been the correct move against Hezbollah and against Hamas, but I honestly don't think anyone would've been ok with Israel doing it. Do you think otherwise?
> But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.
They could have not actively worked to foster the networks in Gaza that became Hamas in order to both split Palestinian opposition and have a less sympathetic, more extremist, more Islamic opposition to deflect international pressure to make peace with the Palestinians.
That they are capable of this level of precision but choose not to use it in Gaza seems to imply that destroying and depopulating Gaza is the military goal there.
The pagers were sold to Hezbollah. The military objectives achieved were: a) to prevent the combatants holding the pagers from being able to attack Israel in the future b) to disrupt the communications of Hezbollah, therefore, making it more difficult for them to coordinate attacks Israel.
Also, the explosives used were weak such that most people near them were maimed rather than killed. Meaning, it is reasonable to assume that alternative methods of eliminating the Hezbollah operatives, such as airstrikes or a ground invasion, would end up with a significantly higher civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio than what we saw with the pager attack.
The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero. The recent terrorist attack committed by Israel in Lebanon and Syria breaks every respectable moral compass. Innocent people, including children, were harmed and continue to be harmed by Israel's ongoing war campaign. And I can't believe I have to say this, but "maiming" children is not any less morally bankrupt than killing them.
> The only acceptable "civilian casualty per targeted combatant ratio" is zero.
A lot of German civilians were killed during World War 2. Would you have preferred handing the Germans all of Europe to prevent that? As others have noted, reality is significantly more complex than theoretical ethics. Often times your choice is not between right and wrong, but between wrong and somewhat less wrong.
[flagged]
> Israel is attempting to stop further attacks on the only place that Jews are allowed to protect themselves.
We have the 2nd Amendment in the United States. Jews are quite able to protect themselves there. Israel isn't the only place. I liked Ari Shaffir's light-hearted retorts to Howie Mandell on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNieyWrZ0c (Jimmy Dore commentary on their segment)
> I consider them righteous.
This is arguably why Israel exists at all: "righteous" Christian fundamentalists including Harry Truman himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elQGTyqx2x8
> elaborate on the measures taken to protect and warn civilians, or which specific military objectives the children hurt by those exploding pagers were in the close vicinity of
This paragraph doesn't require proactive measures be taken to protect civilians. It just suspends its own restriction on booby-trapped items if there is a military objective.
There is a sleigh of hand expression change in many texts where “operative” becomes “combatant” therefore all locations become military and all assassinations legitimate. There is no way anyone could claim they knew where they would go off and towards what kind of casualties military combatants or civilian authority or anybody standing by. Also nobody claimed there were warmings to civilians as per the text quoted, not even the standard “Every person not leaving is considered a combatant” which has been the standard public announcement during the forced relocations and refugee areas bombings.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in the race so I might be missing many details and nuances
Hold on a second. That's not the second half of what they quoted. It is in a separate section. I'm having trouble figuring out what it actually applies to, because Article 7 is written in a very confusing fashion.
It has 3 sections. Section 1 looks like this:
> 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:
and then lists 10 categories that include a wide variety of things, such as internationally recognized protective signs, dead people, children's toys, kitchen utensils (not in military locations), animals, and several others.
Then there is section 2, which the person above quoted:
> 2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.
That is the entirety of section 2. Finally there is section 3, which I'm going to quote in full:
> 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
> (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
> (b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences.
So..., #1 and #2 both prohibit a bunch of booby traps. Then #3 says that it is prohibited to use weapons covered by this Article (so everything in #1 and #2?) in places with a lot of civilians unless certain precautions are taken.
If this means that the #2 items can be used in civilian areas if those precautions are taken, does it mean the same for the #1 items? With #3 being a separate section I'm not seeing how it can be limited to just modifying #2. It does say "weapons to which this Article applies".
That would result in some truly weird restrictions. It would mean for example that I cannot booby trap a corpse except in the case where I'm placing it in a place with civilians and have either placed it close to a military objective or taken measures to keep civilians from tripping it. If I wanted to place that booby trap in some remote area where only military is around I'd run afoul of #1 without the #3 exception to allow it.
It would make sense if it is an additive thing. If I say booby trap a corpse I might be charged with a violation of #1. If I do that in a civilian area I might additionally be charged with a violation of #3 unless I took the precautions listed in #3.
Why am I not surprised
> Not taking sides on the attack, but, wow, you ommited half the text
Regarding anything Israel/Palestine related, nuance and good faith left the chat a long time ago.
This is not "the literal Geneva Convention" but rather a UN convention held in Geneva.
Does it apply to unlawful combatants?
Yeah, it's the definition of a terror attack.
The really bad part is how lauded the Mossad was for it's 'precision' by the western media. Geneva convention violations, random children killed because Hezbollah militant were shopping/walking nearby, really 'precise'...
On the other hand killing only 5 children for two hundred opposants, and not at least twice as much is proof that Mossad is a hundred of time more precise than tsahal. But maybe that's a low bar.
> it's the definition of a terror attack
No, it's not. We don't have to twist the definitions of prohibited acts of war for a war to be deplorable. Legal warfare is still horrendous.
> random children killed because Hezbollah militant were shopping/walking nearby, really 'precise'
To be clear, if those same targets were hit conventionally--by air-launched missile, for instance--that would somehow be better?
Yes it is, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
> terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
They want to push the non-Chia in Lebanon against the Chia, probably hoping for an organisation like "Phalanges Libanaises" to come back and restart the civil war. If a new civil war start, it will be the second Israel deliberatly started in lebanon (yeah, the "Phalangistes" did the massacre, but the Mossad actually planned it and gave the target (mostly palestinians btw). This time it will be harder though.
A terror attack definitionally targets civilian noncombatants, deliberately.
No, a terror attack is an attack that create a fear amongst noncombatants in order to push political objectives.
Easy example: Attacking a hospital that healed an enemy combatant is a terror attack, even if you missile is very precise and only kill the combatant and people sharing his room. You didn't aim for civilians, but your goal with this attack is to coerce civilians (doctors and nurses here) into refusing to heal combatant again, using fear. That's the definition. In both the French dictionary, and britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism).
Not necessarily. The attack on USS Cole is considered a terror attack despite its explicitly military target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like?
You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition.
> Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it.
That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases where this was argued it was about the rights granted to prisoners of war. (That is, do the members of these organisations when captured count as prisoners of war? Should they be granted the same kind of protections?)
https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222...
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003
> This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity.
Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, The Regular Armed Forces, Uniforms, and Prisoner of War Status In: Prisoners of War in Contemporary Conflict. Edited by: Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003
Your quote concerns the convention on POWs
His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield.
This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org.
I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here
I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege...
That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/
> Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.
I read the site you linked and it was very interesting
I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.
In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
> On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II.
> The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis.
Both above quotes from the West Point link.
Another view:
https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t...
> Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties).
Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.
I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that clause
Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?
Israel is a signatory nation as I have laid out in quotes from the West Point article above. Lebanon may or may not be from what I can tell, but that doesn't affect whether or not Israel is bound.
I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article.
https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/
> Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934
> Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced.
What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.
My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed
Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
The booby trap clause as you refer to it binds nations regardless of whether or not the target(s) of the booby traps are themselves nations. Just because you're fighting irregular forces and/or terrorists doesn't give a country license to ignore UN obligations regarding use of weapons.
I can see why many may not care about that. I can also see that you do care about this topic and appreciate the discussion.
I am glad we aren't using mustard gas today, like we did in World War I. America caught some flak for using shotguns versus Nazi Germany in trench warfare in World War II, which was apparently outlawed at the time. Did the ends justify the means? I don't really like that framing because it denies combatants dignity, whether or not we agree or disagree about whether or not a specific law of war should apply in a given circumstance.
Laws of war such as these are not likely enforceable given the limited targeted use of the pagers, but that doesn't mean that laws weren't violated. Furthermore, it represents an escalation of sorts on the Israeli side.
I guess I'm trying to reason about your position. Do you find that the pagers don't constitute booby traps, or that Israel isn't bound regardless of whether or not they are booby traps? Or do you find that due to the international non-state actor target of the pager strike, that it logically follows that Israel is not violating any applicable law or treaty because the target isn't themselves party to the same laws? Help me understand your view and position.
> He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
> Friedrich Nietzsche
Per these links, Israel and Lebanon are bound to Amended Protocol II to my reading:
https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conv...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Tra...
(If you want to reply and find that the 'reply' button is missing, click the timestamp of this comment to reply directly.)
I can sum up my position as this:
1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention.
2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces
3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition.
If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative
1. I would disagree. These aren't mines, as they aren't triggered by the target. They're similar to the booby trapped tobacco pipes mentioned in one of my links, which were triggered by the trapper.
2. Intelligence agencies don't get POW protections, so that point is not really relevant. Treaties bind you, even if your enemy is not similarly bound.
3. If the targeted assassinations with booby trapped pagers didn't have civilian casualties, I might agree, but in this case, I don't.
I tend to agree with you that the outcome was about as good as could be expected, and likely much better than could be achieved with traditional munitions. However, the escalatory effect of using booby traps, legal usage/legal target or not, is not ideal.
1. Then we will have to disagree, for me it was quite obvious what scenario they had in heart when writing the convention. While the difference here would at least mean a court will need to decide this applies here, as this is not clear cut relevant in any way
2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex
3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.
About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.
Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation
1. It is pretty clear that it does apply to me, so agree to disagree.
2. I linked why both Israel and Lebanon are both bound? Not sure why it would matter whether it's international or not, but it crossed borders, so to me it seems clear.
3. I agree, it was an amazing feat, and minimal casualties considering the impact. Also, due to suspected/impending exposure of pager operation, there was no time to delay without exposing the operation for no impact. It was a massive military/intel win for Israel, and I can't think of a more deserving target. I don't take any joy in the civilian casualties, but I'm not sure that was even a factor due to the potential imminent exposure to the operation, and they already decided to put the operation in motion. At that point, no real compelling reason not to follow through.
I agree with you that it was entirely unsurprising that something would happen involving disrupting continued strikes. I'm more surprised that we found out as much as we have in the original post than I am surprised that it happened.
2. I think the issue is whether it is an armed conflict between nations (but i am not a lawyer)
While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)
2. To my reading, there are two issues being conflated - the POW rights of non-state organizations, and separately, the booby trap clause.
The POW rights issues do have considerations for the actions of you and your enemy, and whether either are non-state organizations or members of such, etc.
The booby trap clause is simply equally binding against all signatories, regardless of who you are employing booby traps against, and regardless of whether or not you or the target is or isn’t a non-state organization or member thereof.
I honestly feel like this whole conflict has been on a repeated loop since second intifada in 80s, mostly due to Israel not wanting a one or two state solution on Israel’s side, Palestinian government or representatives not wanting their trade or money to have to flow through Israel, and everyone else trying to keep the current 40 year loop on repeat because it is a useful wedge issue for political bargaining. It’s like Henry Kissinger knew that the delicate balance of terror was the least-bad outcome, and now we are unable to break free of adversarial approaches to the conflict due to the continuing hostilities on all sides.
The status quo sucks for all involved, but all involved think that it would be worse for their team if there were peace in the Mid East, so no one is interested in broader peace process beyond immediate Palestine-Israel conflict, which itself is a covert proxy war between Israel and rest of Mid East, which itself is the overt proxy war proper between Israel and rest of Mid East.
I didn't realize Hamas and Hezbollah were wearing clearly identifiable uniforms. They're terrorists so nothing applies.
> They're terrorists so nothing applies.
"Nothing"? So not even basic human rights? Or what are you saying?
Also both Hamas is de-facto the government of Gaza, and Hezbollah is kind of a "state within a state". They do terror attacks, yes, but a lot is also just about the boring business of running a bureaucracy.
Israel is the #1 terrorist in the region by any intellectually honest definition of the term. This article is about a terrorist attack by Israel that injured many civilians. And let's not forget when Israeli soldiers dressed up as doctors to murder someone lying in a hospital bed.
[flagged]
Curious why this is currently flagged. It’s an in-depth look at what is almost certainly the most sophisticated and consequential physical supply-chain attack in history, and will be covered in security textbooks for years to come.
Pretty sure our own NSA is doing way more advanced stuff. This is just a peek (from 10 years ago):
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...
[flagged]
Let's not go down this route here.
Israel has killed (and still is) killing tens of thousands of women and children, and starving the rest of the population.
In Lebanon? We are talking about Hizbollah and Israel not Palestinians
If this were true you would see a lawsuit based on Leahy law in the states. The fact is it's just not. Israel has held aid occasionally but most of the problem with supplies have to do with Hamas stealing them.
https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-r...
I don't support a lot of the stuff Israel is doing but painting it in this light is deeply incorrect and unfortunately hurts Palestinians. Both sides escalate and the result of such escalations are always worse for the weaker side.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/us-supply-weap...
I'll leave these here if you are willing to accept that Laws can and will be selectively applied by governments.
[flagged]
A law in the states against Israel? Are you trying to be funny?
Did you bother reading that link?
I suggest sticking to facts rather than biases and fake information online.
[flagged]
Alright boomers, if your website has “contact us” for pricing instead of a two-click way to order it digitally then I’m going to assume you are placing bombs inside your electronics
"contact us" means that they don't want _you_ to contact them.
Where I work "contact us" usually means more than €5000 in sales and there is too much to negotiate on price to give a quote.
It also usually indicates that prices are based on who you are instead of what you're buying.
For many business the relationship is more important than the product (they'll probably send you free units if you're considering a large order).
Hence why this has pretty much destroyed these businesses.