• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Sabotaging dual-use communications devices that are used, specifically, by members of an enemy paramilitary group is not a clear-cut war crime. On the other hand, there is a very strong argument that ‘blind-firing’ such devices en-masse without regard for the proximity of civilians or possibility of civilian harm is a war crime via insufficiently discerning use of force. But even that is something that could probably be argued in a legitimately-unbiased international court - not that it’ll ever fucking get to one, considering Israel’s history with international courts.

    Either way, it’s a shite move that was only meant to escalate the situation so Bibi can stay in power a few more minutes. Vile shit.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “stress that booby-traps associated with objects in normal civilian daily use are prohibited, and that booby-traps must not be used in association with protected persons, protected objects (such as medical supplies, gravesites and cultural or religious property) or internationally recognized protective emblems or signs (such as the red cross and red crescent).[3] Several manuals further specify that booby-traps must not be used in connection with certain objects likely to attract civilians, such as children’s toys.”

      A cell phone is a normal civil daily use item and would attract use by civilians.

      This specifically would come from Rule 80, pertaining to booby traps. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago
        1. “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

        As these were remotely detonated, they do not fit the definition of a booby trap. Rather, the issue becomes a war crime because of Israel’s choice to detonate, which was very likely done in a manner that was reckless and without regard for collateral damage.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          So would you classify them as an improvised explosive device instead? That the department of homeland security says are used by “criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and insurgents”

          That wouldn’t be a good look either

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Didn’t say it was a good look. In fact, I quite explicitly noted that it was a shit move and likely a war crime. Just probably not because of international law on booby traps, but because of international law on discriminate use of force.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

          You’re forgetting a couple or statements there. These were absolutely booby traps and command detonated traps exist.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      No. The distribution is as indiscriminate as leaving command detonated mines in place. (also a war crime). You cannot ensure those mines only target combatants after you leave. The indiscriminate distribution is a war crime as much as the indiscriminate activation.