If it was israel at all then consistent with USA president - it was a job well done against these Islamic terrorists ….. ( of-course Irans allies will condemn - tell us something surprising like Tibet and the millions of Uyghurs in detention camps ( it’s hardly like beautiful Ramallah ) or what Gaza could have been but for Hamas and Islamic jihad stealing bullions and attacking Israel for 20 years
If it was israel at all then consistent with USA president - it was a job well done against these Islamic terrorists ….. ( of-course Irans allies will condemn - tell us something surprising like Tibet and the millions of Uyghurs in detention camps ( it’s hardly like beautiful Ramallah ) or what Gaza could have been but for Hamas and Islamic jihad stealing bullions and attacking Israel for 20 years
The Pager pogrom was a war crime, targeting civilians and an act of terrorism which will go down as one of the worst.
Israel carried out its pager and radio attacks. Many initially thought the pagers’ batteries exploded, but this is nonsense. They planted explosives inside and activated them likely with a phone call. The reason we know this is one of the videos of them exploding, one can hear various beeping sounds or ringing mere seconds before the explosion.
Secondly, there was a preponderance of eye injuries, which appears to imply the pagers rang or beeped, causing the victims to bring them up toward their face to inspect the number or message, after which the explosion hit them directly in the eyes:
A child picked up a pager and it blew her face off. She was eight years old. Driver had phones explode and their car killed people. Solar panels in hospitals exploded as did pagers, laptops, phones.
Israel blew up doctors, medical workers, teachers and children in Lebanon. They targeted a brand of pager that wasn't exclusively held by Hezzbollah, and indiscriminately attacked civilians in the process.
A member of the home front command carries a fragment from a rocket following missile strikes by Hezbollah in Kiryat Bilaik, northern Israel, on Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024. The exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah intensified on Sunday as the Lebanon-based group launched about 115 rockets, missiles and drones toward vast areas of Israel's north. Photographer: Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Last week the world watched as the terrorist army Hezbollah was hit by an attack that was equal parts debilitating and humiliating. On Tuesday, September 17, the special pagers carried by Hezbollah operatives suddenly exploded. Then, on Wednesday, their walkie talkies literally blew up.
Although Israel has not claimed responsibility for the operation, in the event they did carry out this historically unprecedented strike, it was entirely justified and in full accordance with international law.
It is not surprising that it did not take long for the usual chorus of anti-Israel politicians and pundits — those who only remember International Humanitarian Law (IHL) whenever they think it might hurt the Jewish State — to find some obscure provision, divorced from context, that they might deceptively latch onto and accuse Israel of violating, knowing full well that the uneducated armchair ‘experts’ who blindly follow them would thoughtlessly amplify their claims, muddy the waters of good vs. evil, and somehow make Israel the bad guy again.
This time, the frenzied cries centered around Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of booby-traps in certain circumstances. Pseudo-academics like Kenneth Roth could not wait to tell their breathless adherents that IHL unequivocally “prohibits the use of booby traps” — even though it is obvious that if booby traps are prohibited in certain circumstances, they must be permitted in others.
For the record, this is one of those permitted times, and here, with citations, is why.
First, it is important to establish that communication devices ordered by terrorists, issued to terrorists, for terrorist purposes, do not count as harmless civilian objects. Under Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to Geneva Convention I, the communication devices that a designated foreign terrorist organization issues to its operatives are legitimate military targets, and this should not be controversial. The fact that civilians may also use cell phones does not mean that you cannot target a terrorist call center.
Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II provides certain restrictions as to the use of booby traps and other similar devices. Paragraph 1 lists certain categories of objects — religious objects, children’s toys, etc. — for which it is prohibited to use booby traps in all circumstances. The devices in question do not fall under any of those categories.
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 prohibits using booby traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material. As the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual explains:
The prohibition is intended to prevent the production of large quantities of dangerous objects that can be scattered around and are likely to be attractive to civilians, especially children.
It has nothing to do with communications devices procured by terrorists for terrorists, devices that were not specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material, and were instead modified to detonate once they clearly became military objects.
Paragraph 3 of Article 7 reminds us that even when permissible any such weapon must be placed “in the close vicinity of a military objective.” It is hard to imagine a more surgically precise procedure than the destruction of personal devices that were (literally) held by terrorists.
Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!
Analyzing the legality of a military operation also requires factoring in the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality. The principle of necessity permits actions necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose. In this instance, in a single operation, an entire enemy army was significantly impacted, and not only physically – the attack also exposed the Hezbollah network, in Lebanon but also throughout the Middle East where Hezbollah agents or affiliates were carrying these specific Hezbollah issued pagers. The devastating psychological impact also cannot be discounted; Hezbollah can no longer trust their own equipment, cannot communicate (ironically, they are rumored to have switched to pagers out of concerns Israel was monitoring their comms!), and will have to change many elements of their operations with the potential to make further mistakes that can then be exploited.
The principle of distinction requires combatants to distinguish between civilians and military objectives during armed conflict. Here, the attack specifically targeted combatants, members of the Hezbollah army who had received specific Hezbollah equipment that is usually kept on their person. The law does not require perfect accuracy, which is impossible, and that leads to the principle of proportionality: Would such an attack be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects or a combination thereof which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is anticipated In this case, not a chance. Recall that Hezbollah has been bombing Israel incessantly for almost a year. In a swift and defensive maneuver — fully legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter — Israel (allegedly) immobilized a large segment of a terrorist organization actively hellbent on the genocidal elimination of the country.
Reports say that a few civilians, including two children, were tragically hurt as well. Innocent civilians getting hurt is absolutely tragic, but not in any way unlawful or Israel’s fault.
The truth is that the entire booby trap framework of analysis is wrong. IF Israel did commit these actions, then it was perhaps the finest and cleanest act of lawful sabotage in military history. As the ICRC explains:
Sabotage is generally the work of individuals or small formations operating in enemy-controlled territory and taking advantage of clandestinity, surprise, and ruses of war. It is generally carried out with great precision and therefore does not usually harm the civilian population. The targets of sabotage must form part of the enemy’s material infrastructure, that is, they must be military objectives. To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
To quote one actual international humanitarian law expert, Eugene Kontorovitch:
Those protesting the attack on Hezbollah cell phones would have been crying over bombs placed on Nazi Germany’s train tracks.
The sad conclusion is this: if you are among those who were silent while Hezbollah committed thousands of undeniable, uncontested, and unprovoked war crimes against innocent Israeli civilians — killing men, women, and children in the process — and yet now find yourself horrified that Israel finally responded in a lawful, targeted manner by neutering (in some cases literally) hundreds of the terrorists who had been indiscriminately attacking them for months — your problem is not with Israel’s actions under international law; it is with Israel’s very existence.
* * *
John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and host of the ”Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He is the co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.”
Mark Goldfeder is a law professor and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Arsen Ostrovsky is a human rights attorney who serves as CEO of The International Legal Forum and senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
No it clear wasn’t and you are not a lawyer - only anti Israel anti zionsts would say that
The Law Of Exploding Pagers
John Spencer, Mark Goldfeder, and Arsen Ostrovsky
Sep 25, 2024
A member of the home front command carries a fragment from a rocket following missile strikes by Hezbollah in Kiryat Bilaik, northern Israel, on Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024. The exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah intensified on Sunday as the Lebanon-based group launched about 115 rockets, missiles and drones toward vast areas of Israel's north. Photographer: Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Last week the world watched as the terrorist army Hezbollah was hit by an attack that was equal parts debilitating and humiliating. On Tuesday, September 17, the special pagers carried by Hezbollah operatives suddenly exploded. Then, on Wednesday, their walkie talkies literally blew up.
Although Israel has not claimed responsibility for the operation, in the event they did carry out this historically unprecedented strike, it was entirely justified and in full accordance with international law.
It is not surprising that it did not take long for the usual chorus of anti-Israel politicians and pundits — those who only remember International Humanitarian Law (IHL) whenever they think it might hurt the Jewish State — to find some obscure provision, divorced from context, that they might deceptively latch onto and accuse Israel of violating, knowing full well that the uneducated armchair ‘experts’ who blindly follow them would thoughtlessly amplify their claims, muddy the waters of good vs. evil, and somehow make Israel the bad guy again.
This time, the frenzied cries centered around Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of booby-traps in certain circumstances. Pseudo-academics like Kenneth Roth could not wait to tell their breathless adherents that IHL unequivocally “prohibits the use of booby traps” — even though it is obvious that if booby traps are prohibited in certain circumstances, they must be permitted in others.
For the record, this is one of those permitted times, and here, with citations, is why.
First, it is important to establish that communication devices ordered by terrorists, issued to terrorists, for terrorist purposes, do not count as harmless civilian objects. Under Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to Geneva Convention I, the communication devices that a designated foreign terrorist organization issues to its operatives are legitimate military targets, and this should not be controversial. The fact that civilians may also use cell phones does not mean that you cannot target a terrorist call center.
Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II provides certain restrictions as to the use of booby traps and other similar devices. Paragraph 1 lists certain categories of objects — religious objects, children’s toys, etc. — for which it is prohibited to use booby traps in all circumstances. The devices in question do not fall under any of those categories.
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 prohibits using booby traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material. As the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual explains:
The prohibition is intended to prevent the production of large quantities of dangerous objects that can be scattered around and are likely to be attractive to civilians, especially children.
It has nothing to do with communications devices procured by terrorists for terrorists, devices that were not specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material, and were instead modified to detonate once they clearly became military objects.
Paragraph 3 of Article 7 reminds us that even when permissible any such weapon must be placed “in the close vicinity of a military objective.” It is hard to imagine a more surgically precise procedure than the destruction of personal devices that were (literally) held by terrorists.
Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!
Analyzing the legality of a military operation also requires factoring in the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality. The principle of necessity permits actions necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose. In this instance, in a single operation, an entire enemy army was significantly impacted, and not only physically – the attack also exposed the Hezbollah network, in Lebanon but also throughout the Middle East where Hezbollah agents or affiliates were carrying these specific Hezbollah issued pagers. The devastating psychological impact also cannot be discounted; Hezbollah can no longer trust their own equipment, cannot communicate (ironically, they are rumored to have switched to pagers out of concerns Israel was monitoring their comms!), and will have to change many elements of their operations with the potential to make further mistakes that can then be exploited.
The principle of distinction requires combatants to distinguish between civilians and military objectives during armed conflict. Here, the attack specifically targeted combatants, members of the Hezbollah army who had received specific Hezbollah equipment that is usually kept on their person. The law does not require perfect accuracy, which is impossible, and that leads to the principle of proportionality: Would such an attack be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects or a combination thereof which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is anticipated In this case, not a chance. Recall that Hezbollah has been bombing Israel incessantly for almost a year. In a swift and defensive maneuver — fully legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter — Israel (allegedly) immobilized a large segment of a terrorist organization actively hellbent on the genocidal elimination of the country.
Reports say that a few civilians, including two children, were tragically hurt as well. Innocent civilians getting hurt is absolutely tragic, but not in any way unlawful or Israel’s fault.
The truth is that the entire booby trap framework of analysis is wrong. IF Israel did commit these actions, then it was perhaps the finest and cleanest act of lawful sabotage in military history. As the ICRC explains:
Sabotage is generally the work of individuals or small formations operating in enemy-controlled territory and taking advantage of clandestinity, surprise, and ruses of war. It is generally carried out with great precision and therefore does not usually harm the civilian population. The targets of sabotage must form part of the enemy’s material infrastructure, that is, they must be military objectives. To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
To quote one actual international humanitarian law expert, Eugene Kontorovitch:
Those protesting the attack on Hezbollah cell phones would have been crying over bombs placed on Nazi Germany’s train tracks.
The sad conclusion is this: if you are among those who were silent while Hezbollah committed thousands of undeniable, uncontested, and unprovoked war crimes against innocent Israeli civilians — killing men, women, and children in the process — and yet now find yourself horrified that Israel finally responded in a lawful, targeted manner by neutering (in some cases literally) hundreds of the terrorists who had been indiscriminately attacking them for months — your problem is not with Israel’s actions under international law; it is with Israel’s very existence.
* * *
John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and host of the ”Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He is the co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.”
Mark Goldfeder is a law professor and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Arsen Ostrovsky is a human rights attorney who serves as CEO of The International Legal Forum and senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
An American surgeon who volunteered in Gaza https://www.cbsnews.com/video/children-of-gaza/ in an interview that aired Sunday that Israeli snipers were purposely shooting Palestinian children, including toddlers.
“I had children who were shot twice,” said Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who said he was in Gaza at the end of April and the first couple weeks of May. “I have two children that I have photographs of that were shot so perfectly in the chest I couldn’t put my stethoscope over their heart more accurately and directly on the side of the head in the same child.”
In his interview, Perlmutter, vice president of the International College of Surgeons, said what he saw in Gaza was worse than all of the disaster zones he’s seen combined. “Forty mission trips, 30 years, Ground Zero, earthquakes. All of that combined doesn’t equal the level of carnage that I saw against civilians in just my first week in Gaza,” he said.
When asked if the civilians he saw wounded or killed were mostly children, Perlmutter said, “Almost exclusively children. I’ve never seen that before. Never seen that. I’ve seen more incinerated children than I’ve ever seen in my entire life combined. I’ve seen more shredded children in just the first week.”
Asked what he meant by “shredded” children, Perlmutter explained, “Missing body parts, being crushed by buildings, the greatest majority, or bomb explosions, the next greatest majority. We’ve taken shrapnel as big as my thumb out of eight-year-olds.”
You repeat constantly disinformation and a fringe belief that israel is not even Jewish state and should not exist - that is hardly the push among western governments not now and not ever.
The disputed Palestinian territories outside Israel proper borders THAT CAN ONLY BE NEGOTIATED BY ISRAEL AND NON JIHADI MODERATE PALESTINIANS with land swaps a different story and we can endless debates about that ( sure the consensus has been for a two state solution and a future Palestinian seperate Arab state within the disputed territories that already partly have autonomy rule within a state of Israel which I and countless of Israelis and other Arab states believed should finally happen in for example 2000 that Arafat rejected after the most left wing Israel governments offered them 94 % of WB with land swaps and proceeded with Passover type massacres for 5 years ( - but cannot happen now with Islamic terrorism oh Oct 7 ) not your tripe nonsense that Israel shouldn’t exist at all - that’s hardly the mainstream push by sensible Westen government around the world only extreme radical left types like you and Islamist jihadi with manifesto to destroy Israel )
Alternatively there is some push to have a type of confederate confederation two nations within seperate state with a costs rica system again more autonomy with a PALESTINIAN Authority and UAE and Saudia arabia / Jordan helping to administer with Palestinian governing entity in area a and b and Gaza - Israel being more stable stronger state in the area helping security and ridding the place of Islamic jihadi extremists..
There can no longer be the slightest doubt that the Exodus never happened. Neither the Exodus, nor the wandering in the desert, nor the conquest of Canaan.
The Egyptians were obsessive chroniclers. Many tens of thousands of tablets have already been deciphered. It would have been impossible for an event like the exodus to pass without being reported at length. Not if 600,000 people left, as the Bible tells it, or 60,000, or even 6000. Especially if during the flight a whole Egyptian army contingent, including war chariots, was drowned.
The same goes for the Conquest. Because of acute security concerns, after being invaded once from there, the Egyptians employed a host of spies, - travelers, merchants and others - to follow closely the events in neighboring Canaan, in every single one of its towns and at all times. An invasion of Canaan, even a minor one, would have been reported. Except for the periodic incursions of Bedouin tribes, nothing was recorded.
Moreover, the Egyptian towns mentioned in the Bible did not exist at the time the event is supposed to have happened. They did exist, however, when the Bible was written, in the first or second century BC.
There is no need to point out that in a hundred years of frantic archaeological searching by devout Christians and Zionist zealots, not a shred of concrete evidence for the conquest of Canaan has been found (nor that the Kingdoms of Saul, David or Solomon ever existed).
If it was israel at all then consistent with USA president - it was a job well done against these Islamic terrorists ….. ( of-course Irans allies will condemn - tell us something surprising like Tibet and the millions of Uyghurs in detention camps ( it’s hardly like beautiful Ramallah ) or what Gaza could have been but for Hamas and Islamic jihad stealing bullions and attacking Israel for 20 years
The Pager pogrom was a war crime, targeting civilians and an act of terrorism which will go down as one of the worst.
Israel carried out its pager and radio attacks. Many initially thought the pagers’ batteries exploded, but this is nonsense. They planted explosives inside and activated them likely with a phone call. The reason we know this is one of the videos of them exploding, one can hear various beeping sounds or ringing mere seconds before the explosion.
Secondly, there was a preponderance of eye injuries, which appears to imply the pagers rang or beeped, causing the victims to bring them up toward their face to inspect the number or message, after which the explosion hit them directly in the eyes:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/israel-putters-into-crisis-zelensky
A child picked up a pager and it blew her face off. She was eight years old. Driver had phones explode and their car killed people. Solar panels in hospitals exploded as did pagers, laptops, phones.
Israel blew up doctors, medical workers, teachers and children in Lebanon. They targeted a brand of pager that wasn't exclusively held by Hezzbollah, and indiscriminately attacked civilians in the process.
The Law Of Exploding Pagers
John Spencer, Mark Goldfeder, and Arsen Ostrovsky
Sep 25, 2024
A member of the home front command carries a fragment from a rocket following missile strikes by Hezbollah in Kiryat Bilaik, northern Israel, on Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024. The exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah intensified on Sunday as the Lebanon-based group launched about 115 rockets, missiles and drones toward vast areas of Israel's north. Photographer: Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Last week the world watched as the terrorist army Hezbollah was hit by an attack that was equal parts debilitating and humiliating. On Tuesday, September 17, the special pagers carried by Hezbollah operatives suddenly exploded. Then, on Wednesday, their walkie talkies literally blew up.
Although Israel has not claimed responsibility for the operation, in the event they did carry out this historically unprecedented strike, it was entirely justified and in full accordance with international law.
It is not surprising that it did not take long for the usual chorus of anti-Israel politicians and pundits — those who only remember International Humanitarian Law (IHL) whenever they think it might hurt the Jewish State — to find some obscure provision, divorced from context, that they might deceptively latch onto and accuse Israel of violating, knowing full well that the uneducated armchair ‘experts’ who blindly follow them would thoughtlessly amplify their claims, muddy the waters of good vs. evil, and somehow make Israel the bad guy again.
This time, the frenzied cries centered around Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of booby-traps in certain circumstances. Pseudo-academics like Kenneth Roth could not wait to tell their breathless adherents that IHL unequivocally “prohibits the use of booby traps” — even though it is obvious that if booby traps are prohibited in certain circumstances, they must be permitted in others.
For the record, this is one of those permitted times, and here, with citations, is why.
First, it is important to establish that communication devices ordered by terrorists, issued to terrorists, for terrorist purposes, do not count as harmless civilian objects. Under Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to Geneva Convention I, the communication devices that a designated foreign terrorist organization issues to its operatives are legitimate military targets, and this should not be controversial. The fact that civilians may also use cell phones does not mean that you cannot target a terrorist call center.
Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II provides certain restrictions as to the use of booby traps and other similar devices. Paragraph 1 lists certain categories of objects — religious objects, children’s toys, etc. — for which it is prohibited to use booby traps in all circumstances. The devices in question do not fall under any of those categories.
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 prohibits using booby traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material. As the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual explains:
The prohibition is intended to prevent the production of large quantities of dangerous objects that can be scattered around and are likely to be attractive to civilians, especially children.
It has nothing to do with communications devices procured by terrorists for terrorists, devices that were not specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material, and were instead modified to detonate once they clearly became military objects.
Paragraph 3 of Article 7 reminds us that even when permissible any such weapon must be placed “in the close vicinity of a military objective.” It is hard to imagine a more surgically precise procedure than the destruction of personal devices that were (literally) held by terrorists.
Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!
Analyzing the legality of a military operation also requires factoring in the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality. The principle of necessity permits actions necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose. In this instance, in a single operation, an entire enemy army was significantly impacted, and not only physically – the attack also exposed the Hezbollah network, in Lebanon but also throughout the Middle East where Hezbollah agents or affiliates were carrying these specific Hezbollah issued pagers. The devastating psychological impact also cannot be discounted; Hezbollah can no longer trust their own equipment, cannot communicate (ironically, they are rumored to have switched to pagers out of concerns Israel was monitoring their comms!), and will have to change many elements of their operations with the potential to make further mistakes that can then be exploited.
The principle of distinction requires combatants to distinguish between civilians and military objectives during armed conflict. Here, the attack specifically targeted combatants, members of the Hezbollah army who had received specific Hezbollah equipment that is usually kept on their person. The law does not require perfect accuracy, which is impossible, and that leads to the principle of proportionality: Would such an attack be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects or a combination thereof which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is anticipated In this case, not a chance. Recall that Hezbollah has been bombing Israel incessantly for almost a year. In a swift and defensive maneuver — fully legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter — Israel (allegedly) immobilized a large segment of a terrorist organization actively hellbent on the genocidal elimination of the country.
Reports say that a few civilians, including two children, were tragically hurt as well. Innocent civilians getting hurt is absolutely tragic, but not in any way unlawful or Israel’s fault.
The truth is that the entire booby trap framework of analysis is wrong. IF Israel did commit these actions, then it was perhaps the finest and cleanest act of lawful sabotage in military history. As the ICRC explains:
Sabotage is generally the work of individuals or small formations operating in enemy-controlled territory and taking advantage of clandestinity, surprise, and ruses of war. It is generally carried out with great precision and therefore does not usually harm the civilian population. The targets of sabotage must form part of the enemy’s material infrastructure, that is, they must be military objectives. To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
To quote one actual international humanitarian law expert, Eugene Kontorovitch:
Those protesting the attack on Hezbollah cell phones would have been crying over bombs placed on Nazi Germany’s train tracks.
The sad conclusion is this: if you are among those who were silent while Hezbollah committed thousands of undeniable, uncontested, and unprovoked war crimes against innocent Israeli civilians — killing men, women, and children in the process — and yet now find yourself horrified that Israel finally responded in a lawful, targeted manner by neutering (in some cases literally) hundreds of the terrorists who had been indiscriminately attacking them for months — your problem is not with Israel’s actions under international law; it is with Israel’s very existence.
* * *
John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and host of the ”Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He is the co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.”
Mark Goldfeder is a law professor and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Arsen Ostrovsky is a human rights attorney who serves as CEO of The International Legal Forum and senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
No it clear wasn’t and you are not a lawyer - only anti Israel anti zionsts would say that
The Law Of Exploding Pagers
John Spencer, Mark Goldfeder, and Arsen Ostrovsky
Sep 25, 2024
A member of the home front command carries a fragment from a rocket following missile strikes by Hezbollah in Kiryat Bilaik, northern Israel, on Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024. The exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah intensified on Sunday as the Lebanon-based group launched about 115 rockets, missiles and drones toward vast areas of Israel's north. Photographer: Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Last week the world watched as the terrorist army Hezbollah was hit by an attack that was equal parts debilitating and humiliating. On Tuesday, September 17, the special pagers carried by Hezbollah operatives suddenly exploded. Then, on Wednesday, their walkie talkies literally blew up.
Although Israel has not claimed responsibility for the operation, in the event they did carry out this historically unprecedented strike, it was entirely justified and in full accordance with international law.
It is not surprising that it did not take long for the usual chorus of anti-Israel politicians and pundits — those who only remember International Humanitarian Law (IHL) whenever they think it might hurt the Jewish State — to find some obscure provision, divorced from context, that they might deceptively latch onto and accuse Israel of violating, knowing full well that the uneducated armchair ‘experts’ who blindly follow them would thoughtlessly amplify their claims, muddy the waters of good vs. evil, and somehow make Israel the bad guy again.
This time, the frenzied cries centered around Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of booby-traps in certain circumstances. Pseudo-academics like Kenneth Roth could not wait to tell their breathless adherents that IHL unequivocally “prohibits the use of booby traps” — even though it is obvious that if booby traps are prohibited in certain circumstances, they must be permitted in others.
For the record, this is one of those permitted times, and here, with citations, is why.
First, it is important to establish that communication devices ordered by terrorists, issued to terrorists, for terrorist purposes, do not count as harmless civilian objects. Under Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to Geneva Convention I, the communication devices that a designated foreign terrorist organization issues to its operatives are legitimate military targets, and this should not be controversial. The fact that civilians may also use cell phones does not mean that you cannot target a terrorist call center.
Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II provides certain restrictions as to the use of booby traps and other similar devices. Paragraph 1 lists certain categories of objects — religious objects, children’s toys, etc. — for which it is prohibited to use booby traps in all circumstances. The devices in question do not fall under any of those categories.
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 prohibits using booby traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material. As the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual explains:
The prohibition is intended to prevent the production of large quantities of dangerous objects that can be scattered around and are likely to be attractive to civilians, especially children.
It has nothing to do with communications devices procured by terrorists for terrorists, devices that were not specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material, and were instead modified to detonate once they clearly became military objects.
Paragraph 3 of Article 7 reminds us that even when permissible any such weapon must be placed “in the close vicinity of a military objective.” It is hard to imagine a more surgically precise procedure than the destruction of personal devices that were (literally) held by terrorists.
Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!
Analyzing the legality of a military operation also requires factoring in the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality. The principle of necessity permits actions necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose. In this instance, in a single operation, an entire enemy army was significantly impacted, and not only physically – the attack also exposed the Hezbollah network, in Lebanon but also throughout the Middle East where Hezbollah agents or affiliates were carrying these specific Hezbollah issued pagers. The devastating psychological impact also cannot be discounted; Hezbollah can no longer trust their own equipment, cannot communicate (ironically, they are rumored to have switched to pagers out of concerns Israel was monitoring their comms!), and will have to change many elements of their operations with the potential to make further mistakes that can then be exploited.
The principle of distinction requires combatants to distinguish between civilians and military objectives during armed conflict. Here, the attack specifically targeted combatants, members of the Hezbollah army who had received specific Hezbollah equipment that is usually kept on their person. The law does not require perfect accuracy, which is impossible, and that leads to the principle of proportionality: Would such an attack be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects or a combination thereof which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is anticipated In this case, not a chance. Recall that Hezbollah has been bombing Israel incessantly for almost a year. In a swift and defensive maneuver — fully legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter — Israel (allegedly) immobilized a large segment of a terrorist organization actively hellbent on the genocidal elimination of the country.
Reports say that a few civilians, including two children, were tragically hurt as well. Innocent civilians getting hurt is absolutely tragic, but not in any way unlawful or Israel’s fault.
The truth is that the entire booby trap framework of analysis is wrong. IF Israel did commit these actions, then it was perhaps the finest and cleanest act of lawful sabotage in military history. As the ICRC explains:
Sabotage is generally the work of individuals or small formations operating in enemy-controlled territory and taking advantage of clandestinity, surprise, and ruses of war. It is generally carried out with great precision and therefore does not usually harm the civilian population. The targets of sabotage must form part of the enemy’s material infrastructure, that is, they must be military objectives. To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
To quote one actual international humanitarian law expert, Eugene Kontorovitch:
Those protesting the attack on Hezbollah cell phones would have been crying over bombs placed on Nazi Germany’s train tracks.
The sad conclusion is this: if you are among those who were silent while Hezbollah committed thousands of undeniable, uncontested, and unprovoked war crimes against innocent Israeli civilians — killing men, women, and children in the process — and yet now find yourself horrified that Israel finally responded in a lawful, targeted manner by neutering (in some cases literally) hundreds of the terrorists who had been indiscriminately attacking them for months — your problem is not with Israel’s actions under international law; it is with Israel’s very existence.
* * *
John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and host of the ”Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He is the co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.”
Mark Goldfeder is a law professor and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Arsen Ostrovsky is a human rights attorney who serves as CEO of The International Legal Forum and senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH IS ONE BIG WAR CRIME LOL
The Israeli state is the war crime.
American Surgeon Who Volunteered in Gaza Says IDF Snipers Shoot Toddlers
'No toddler gets shot twice by mistake,' said Dr. Mark Perlmutter
https://news.antiwar.com/author/dave_decamp/ July 22, 2024 at 5:30 pm ET Categorieshttps://news.antiwar.com/category/news/
An American surgeon who volunteered in Gaza https://www.cbsnews.com/video/children-of-gaza/ in an interview that aired Sunday that Israeli snipers were purposely shooting Palestinian children, including toddlers.
“I had children who were shot twice,” said Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who said he was in Gaza at the end of April and the first couple weeks of May. “I have two children that I have photographs of that were shot so perfectly in the chest I couldn’t put my stethoscope over their heart more accurately and directly on the side of the head in the same child.”
Perlmutter added, “No toddler gets shot twice by mistake by ‘the world’s best snipers.’ And they’re dead-center shots.” Other foreign doctors who volunteered in Gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-warhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war back in April, saying Israeli snipers were shooting children in the head.
Earlier this month, https://www.972mag.com/israeli-soldiers-gaza-firing-regulations/https://www.972mag.com/israeli-soldiers-gaza-firing-regulations/https://www.972mag.com/israeli-soldiers-gaza-firing-regulations/published a report citing Israeli soldiers that detailed how the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza essentially had no restrictions on who they could shoot. The report said the IDF “routinely executes” civilians who enter areas the military deemed “no-go zones,” and it detailed shootings where young children were killed.
In his interview, Perlmutter, vice president of the International College of Surgeons, said what he saw in Gaza was worse than all of the disaster zones he’s seen combined. “Forty mission trips, 30 years, Ground Zero, earthquakes. All of that combined doesn’t equal the level of carnage that I saw against civilians in just my first week in Gaza,” he said.
When asked if the civilians he saw wounded or killed were mostly children, Perlmutter said, “Almost exclusively children. I’ve never seen that before. Never seen that. I’ve seen more incinerated children than I’ve ever seen in my entire life combined. I’ve seen more shredded children in just the first week.”
Asked what he meant by “shredded” children, Perlmutter explained, “Missing body parts, being crushed by buildings, the greatest majority, or bomb explosions, the next greatest majority. We’ve taken shrapnel as big as my thumb out of eight-year-olds.”
According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/-suffering-horrifically-10-months-of-israel-s-war-on-children-in-gaza/3272681, and about 38,000 have been wounded, which includes many amputees. Due to the Israeli siege, children’s limbs https://news.sky.com/video/children-in-gaza-experience-physical-injuries-and-deep-trauma-as-childrens-limbs-are-amputated-without-anaesthetic-13148350#:~:text=Politics-,Children%20in%20Gaza%20experience%20physical%20injuries%20and%20deep%20trauma,limbs%20are%20amputated%20without%20anaesthetic
You repeat constantly disinformation and a fringe belief that israel is not even Jewish state and should not exist - that is hardly the push among western governments not now and not ever.
The disputed Palestinian territories outside Israel proper borders THAT CAN ONLY BE NEGOTIATED BY ISRAEL AND NON JIHADI MODERATE PALESTINIANS with land swaps a different story and we can endless debates about that ( sure the consensus has been for a two state solution and a future Palestinian seperate Arab state within the disputed territories that already partly have autonomy rule within a state of Israel which I and countless of Israelis and other Arab states believed should finally happen in for example 2000 that Arafat rejected after the most left wing Israel governments offered them 94 % of WB with land swaps and proceeded with Passover type massacres for 5 years ( - but cannot happen now with Islamic terrorism oh Oct 7 ) not your tripe nonsense that Israel shouldn’t exist at all - that’s hardly the mainstream push by sensible Westen government around the world only extreme radical left types like you and Islamist jihadi with manifesto to destroy Israel )
Alternatively there is some push to have a type of confederate confederation two nations within seperate state with a costs rica system again more autonomy with a PALESTINIAN Authority and UAE and Saudia arabia / Jordan helping to administer with Palestinian governing entity in area a and b and Gaza - Israel being more stable stronger state in the area helping security and ridding the place of Islamic jihadi extremists..
There can no longer be the slightest doubt that the Exodus never happened. Neither the Exodus, nor the wandering in the desert, nor the conquest of Canaan.
The Egyptians were obsessive chroniclers. Many tens of thousands of tablets have already been deciphered. It would have been impossible for an event like the exodus to pass without being reported at length. Not if 600,000 people left, as the Bible tells it, or 60,000, or even 6000. Especially if during the flight a whole Egyptian army contingent, including war chariots, was drowned.
The same goes for the Conquest. Because of acute security concerns, after being invaded once from there, the Egyptians employed a host of spies, - travelers, merchants and others - to follow closely the events in neighboring Canaan, in every single one of its towns and at all times. An invasion of Canaan, even a minor one, would have been reported. Except for the periodic incursions of Bedouin tribes, nothing was recorded.
Moreover, the Egyptian towns mentioned in the Bible did not exist at the time the event is supposed to have happened. They did exist, however, when the Bible was written, in the first or second century BC.
There is no need to point out that in a hundred years of frantic archaeological searching by devout Christians and Zionist zealots, not a shred of concrete evidence for the conquest of Canaan has been found (nor that the Kingdoms of Saul, David or Solomon ever existed).
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1522418784