Comment by bjourne
4 days ago
The Nazis tried the same argument at the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they weren't bound by the laws of war (e.g., Hague regulations) since Poland and other states hadn't signed them. The court dismissed the argument and stated that certain rules are binding whether both parties are signatories or not. In Israel's case it is even worse since indiscriminate attacks have been outlawed since basically forever. At the Nuremberg trials, the argument "there is no precedent" had some merit, today it certainly does not.
How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71
I don't see how that would apply at all. These aren't nuclear weapons that take out entire populations, these are tiny munitions used to target Hezbollah operatives.
6 replies →
For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting them than by being indifferent.
How was this not targeted? I was the most targeted military operation we know of. Give me any example of anything in warfare that is close to that.
23 replies →
Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossible standard.
2 replies →