Is Netanyahu's plan to make Israel a terrorist state? (the booby-trapped pagers affair)

[Feynman Lives!]

The Geneva convention defines "booby-trap" as

"Any device or material designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless objects or performs an apparently safe act. Booby-traps also include manually-emplaced devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time. Their use is prohibited by precise rules."​

So if the Israeli government is responsible for this act, they have committed an act of terrorism. And, unfortunately, it looks like they have.

Don't get me wrong: I support Israel. Israel was the victim on October 7. But ever since then, Netanyahu has done the WRONG things over and over. If he ordered this, or if he even KNEW of this, he is officially a terrorist.

This is yet another reason why the israeli people need to get rid of this creep! Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine. This will not end until there is a two-state solution. I don't know if that's possible or not, but it's clear that Bibi is the biggest impediment.

 

[Felis Leo]

The Geneva convention defines "booby-trap" as

"Any device or material designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless objects or performs an apparently safe act. Booby-traps also include manually-emplaced devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time. Their use is prohibited by precise rules."​

So if the Israeli government is responsible for this act, they have committed an act of terrorism. And, unfortunately, it looks like they have.

Don't get me wrong: I support Israel. Israel was the victim on October 7. But ever since then, Netanyahu has done the WRONG things over and over. If he ordered this, or if he even KNEW of this, he is officially a terrorist.

This is yet another reason why the israeli people need to get rid of this creep! Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine. This will not end until there is a two-state solution. I don't know if that's possible or not, but it's clear that Bibi is the biggest impediment.

Does the Geneva Convention apply to recognized militant terror organizations that are not part of any sovereign nation's official military? I was under the impression that non-state actors acting outside the capacity of a sovereign nation's armed forces are not given the considerations of the Geneva convention.

 

[TangoNoCash]

The Geneva convention defines "booby-trap" as

"Any device or material designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless objects or performs an apparently safe act. Booby-traps also include manually-emplaced devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time. Their use is prohibited by precise rules."​

So if the Israeli government is responsible for this act, they have committed an act of terrorism. And, unfortunately, it looks like they have.

Don't get me wrong: I support Israel. Israel was the victim on October 7. But ever since then, Netanyahu has done the WRONG things over and over. If he ordered this, or if he even KNEW of this, he is officially a terrorist.

This is yet another reason why the israeli people need to get rid of this creep! Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine. This will not end until there is a two-state solution. I don't know if that's possible or not, but it's clear that Bibi is the biggest impediment.

If that attack happened in the US we would call it terrorism. I suppose the caveat people are using is terrorism doesn’t apply to terrorizing terrorists. This falls under the category of should police do illegal things to catch criminals in my book. I say no but others don’t always agree.

 

[Cosmo]

Is there a blanket ban on booby traps, or are there specific circumstances when they are banned specified by "precise rules?"

 

[Cosmo]

If that attack happened in the US we would call it terrorism.

You mean if someone from a country with which we are in a hot war blew up the cellphones of the operatives of our federal terrorist organization after they launched some rockets at their civilians?

 

[Sweden]

The Geneva convention defines "booby-trap" as

"Any device or material designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless objects or performs an apparently safe act. Booby-traps also include manually-emplaced devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time. Their use is prohibited by precise rules."​

So if the Israeli government is responsible for this act, they have committed an act of terrorism. And, unfortunately, it looks like they have.

Don't get me wrong: I support Israel. Israel was the victim on October 7. But ever since then, Netanyahu has done the WRONG things over and over. If he ordered this, or if he even KNEW of this, he is officially a terrorist.

This is yet another reason why the israeli people need to get rid of this creep! Israel has a right to exist. So does Palestine. This will not end until there is a two-state solution. I don't know if that's possible or not, but it's clear that Bibi is the biggest impediment.

Nope. No one is planning to make Israel a terrorist state. Your state, Florida, umm ....

 

[Surrealistik]

Does the Geneva Convention apply to recognized militant terror organizations that are not part of any sovereign nation's official military? I was under the impression that non-state actors acting outside the capacity of a sovereign nation's armed forces are not given the considerations of the Geneva convention.

The problem is fundamentally with how this attack was done of course, employing the use of booby traps that Israel could not reasonably control civilian exposure to:

Lebanon: Exploding Pagers Harmed Hezbollah, Civilians

Thousands of pagers simultaneously exploded across Lebanon and parts of Syria on September 17, 2024, resulting in at least 12 deaths, including at least two children and two health workers, and at least 2,800 injuries, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health.

www.hrw.org

There are no special exemptions for the use of booby traps.

Even if you don't want to call this state terrorism, these attacks are definitely not kosher in the slightest with international humanitarian law and are clearly illegal. Moreover, while exact casualty counts haven't yet been tallied (though 4 of the 14 dead thus far include children and healthcare workers), I would be very unsurprised if the supermajority of casualties/victims of these attacks were civilians, either caught up in the blasts, or possessing adulterated devices that found their way to them. Again, this fits the pattern, beliefs and MO of present Israeli leadership, namely that outsized and excessive collateral damage and international law simply do not matter if there's even an outside chance that their conduct may kill at least a couple of the right people; better 100 innocents die than one guilty militant live.

 

[Mr Person]

Blowing up terrorists dedicated to your destruction is not "terrorism".

It's amazing the way things change when the country doing the thing is majority-Jewish. Suddenly, you're the very worst of humanity if you dare fight back. I continue to be absolutely disgusted at how the same considerations apply to everyone else suddenly don't apply so much if the actor is the only majority-Jewish state. Hezbollah specifically uses pagers and walky-talkies because Israel would work out how to track their cellphones.

Israel wouldn't have to fight back if its arab neighbors didn't try to destroy Israel and kill the Jews from the moment of its founding. Yet the bulk of them did just that, and did it after the would-be Palestinians refused a state of their own in 1947 because, you see, they didn't want not dirty stinkin' Israel next to it. Instead, they chose to band up and immediately try to destroy Israel. They haven't stopped.

Fortunately, they know that those left-lean westerners who absolutely hate Israel are more concerned about feeling themselves to be morally superior to everyone else than they are an honest assessment of the situation: a country, majority-Jewish, on attack from all sides from the moment of its creation, fighting back against those trying to destroy it.



This doesn't mean Israel has a blank check. And Netanyahu is undeniably awful. Likud does undeniably terrible things, like encouraging the lunatic ultra-ortho West Bank settlers who prey on the Palestinians there.

But none of that changes the fundamental nature of the situation: Hamas and Hezbollah want Israel destroyed and all Jews dead, and they sure as **** aren't going to stop trying to achieve those goals if Israel drops all security measures, stops fighting, and gives in to every demand. They'll keep right on attacking, because they're not the ****ing freedom fighters left-lean Westerners like to pretend they are.

 

[Surrealistik]

Blowing up terrorists dedicated to your destruction is not "terrorism".

It's amazing the way things change when the country doing the thing is majority-Jewish. Suddenly, you're the very worst of humanity if you dare fight back.

The problem of course arises when most of the people killed and wounded during your egregious violation of international law are civilians, because you cannot control exactly who has and is in the kill radius of your rigged devices at the time of detonation. It has zero to do with Israel's Jewishness, and everything to do with their willful violation of international law and open willingness to victimize civilians for merely a chance, not a surety, of killing/maiming combatants; this would be a travesty no matter who did it.

 

[TangoNoCash]

You mean if someone from a country with which we are in a hot war blew up the cellphones of the operatives of our federal terrorist organization after they launched some rockets at their civilians?

Sounds like terrorism yes. Blowing up phones of targets with indiscriminate concern for the innocent people around them is terrorism in my book.

 

[Deuce]

Does the Geneva Convention apply to recognized militant terror organizations that are not part of any sovereign nation's official military? I was under the impression that non-state actors acting outside the capacity of a sovereign nation's armed forces are not given the considerations of the Geneva convention.

"Technically these rules about us acting like monsters don't apply because we don't recognize your flag. So we're gonna act like monsters." Hmmm maybe not the strongest position.

 

[Deuce]

You mean if someone from a country with which we are in a hot war blew up the cellphones of the operatives of our federal terrorist organization after they launched some rockets at their civilians?

That's not what Israel did.

 

[Mr Person]

If that attack happened in the US we would call it terrorism. I suppose the caveat people are using is terrorism doesn’t apply to terrorizing terrorists. This falls under the category of should police do illegal things to catch criminals in my book. I say no but others don’t always agree.

Well I'm sure Hezbollah would call it "terrorism", but then Hezbollah calls all the rockets it fires at Israel in an attempt to murder Jews "divine justice"....

Countries are allowed to fight back against terrorists. And terrorists should not get an out simply because they hide among civilians rather than forming up like a proper army and fighting army to army. First they targeted pagers, then walkie-talkies. Not cellphones. The former are used by Hezbollah to avoid tracking, the latter are used by civilians.

 

[Cosmo]

Sounds like terrorism yes. Blowing up phones of targets with indiscriminate concern for the innocent people around them is terrorism in my book.

If they're blowing up phones of targets, then it's not indiscriminate. Nearby incidental victims = collateral damage.

 

[TangoNoCash]

Fight terror with terror. Combat killing innocent people with killing innocent people. Isn’t this world great?

 

[Sweden]

The problem of course arises when most of the people killed during your egregious violation of international law are civilians, because you cannot control exactly who has and is in the kill radius of your rigged devices at the time of detonation. It has zero to do with Israel's Jewishness, and everything to do with their willful violation of international law and open willingness to victimize civilians for merely a chance, not a surety, of killing/maiming combatants; this would be a travesty no matter who did it.

Israel ingeniously finds a way to attack terrorists and minimise other casualties and the Jew haters whine about an imaginary willingness to victimise civilians. The supporters of those who wish for the death of Jews an d the destruction of Israel lie and distort on a truly trumpian scale.

 

[TangoNoCash]

If they're blowing up phones of targets, then it's not indiscriminate. Nearby incidental victims = collateral damage.

And the victims injured or killed standing next to them? What did they do?

 

[Cosmo]

Fight terror with terror. Combat killing innocent people with killing innocent people. Isn’t this world great?

Right no difference between intentionally targeting civilians and collateral damage while targeting combatants hiding amongst civilians.

Let me try this reductivism myself: USA and Nazi Germany killed civilians in WWII, therefore USA = Reinhardt Heydrich. Right?

 

[Sweden]

Sounds like terrorism yes. Blowing up phones of targets with indiscriminate concern for the innocent people around them is terrorism in my book.

Denying Israel's right to kill terrorists is in the books of all Jew haters.

 

[Cosmo]

And the victims injured or killed standing next to them?

Collateral damage.

What did they do?

Tolerated (and probably supported) terrorists amongst them.

 

[Surrealistik]

Israel ingeniously finds a way to attack terrorists and minimise other casualties and the Jew haters whine about an imaginary willingness to victimise civilians. The supporters of those who wish for the death of Jews an d the destruction of Israel lie and distort on a truly trumpian scale.

But they didn't minimize civilian casualties while violating international law in the process; that's exactly the issue!

 

[Deuce]

If they're blowing up phones of targets, then it's not indiscriminate. Nearby incidental victims = collateral damage.

They blew up thousands of pagers. That's indiscriminate.

 

[Surrealistik]

And the victims injured or killed standing next to them? What did they do?

Nevermind that not everyone with an affected pager or walkie talkie was Hezbollah to begin with.

 

[Deuce]

Israel ingeniously finds a way to attack terrorists and minimise other casualties and the Jew haters whine about an imaginary willingness to victimise civilians. The supporters of those who wish for the death of Jews an d the destruction of Israel lie and distort on a truly trumpian scale.

You're defending an act of terrorism that primarily harmed civilians.

 

[TangoNoCash]

Collateral damage.

Tolerated (and probably supported) terrorists amongst them.

This is the indiscriminate part for those wondering.