this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
489 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3754 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
During the last month there were not 1, not 10, not 100 but 807 alerts in Israel for missile attacks. Some of them weren't fired by Hezbollah, and some might have been the same alert in different areas, but that's still about 7 missile PER DAY even if we assume only 1 in 4 alerts was due to an attack by Hezbollah (side note: during the entire war, about 2,000 missile were launched from Lebanon to Israel, that's an average of about 6 per day). In addition to this, there were 452 aircraft intrusion alerts. Most of these attacks are against civilian targets.
Right now, there are about 79 thousand people (around 0.8% of total population) who are still evicted for nearly a year from northern Israel.
And just in case it needs to be said - the first attack was made by Hezbollah (on Oct. 8th) and without any provocation by Israel.
Not only is this a situation no sovereign country can stand, but it's also a violation of the Lebanon-approved UN Security Council's resolution 1701, that was the basis for ending the 2006 Lebanon War. Hell, just having missiles in the area is by itself a violation of the resolution.
Regarding political reasoning - A war in Lebanon is actually bad for Netanyahu. His interest is a slow-burning war so he can prolong the current situation as much as possible (once the war is over, the pubic will demand an election). In fact, that's probably the main reason you had "a missile here and a bomb there" and not an actual war.
The current situation is that he's in a war in Gaza and that is keeping him in office. He can still spin this as "we are fighting against an existential threat". Rocket defence and retaliation strikes aka the slow burning war in Lebanon is not enough for the Israeli society to unite behind Bibi. Only if they seriously attack. And I think Netanyahu wants to provoke such an attack.
Sending thousands of bombs God knows where they land is not a proper defense. It's a huge escalation where Hezbollah will answer. I think the best argument against this strike has been thrown around everywhere: What if Hezbollah made such an attack where 3000 bombs where sent to IDF people. We would talk about a terrorist attack. Why is that different now?
First off, I think we should contextualize what happened - according to some news sources, the bombs were supposed to go off in the first days of an Israeli attack that would probably start an all out war (Some Hezbollah operatives became suspicious). The operation wasn't intended to create an "escalation where Hezbollah will answer", rather opening a full out attack against Hezbollah to force them to stop firing missiles at Israeli civilians and abide by the UN resolution.
Israel didn't send "thousands of bombs God knows where they land". They planted bombs in hardware that is used exclusively by Hezbollah operatives and their accomplices to evade gathering sigint. Yes, civilians got hurt. That's the nature of war, and what makes it so horrible - people who might hold no malice nor pose any threat to the other side get hurt and die. The modern rules of warfare aren't designed to eliminate civilian casualties, rather mainly to deter the warring parties from using civilians as a tool of war. That's why an army can't hide behind civilian population, but given an army that's hiding behind civilian population, it's acceptable for the other army to fire at them as long as they take proper measures to minimize civilian casualties (this in meant only as an example, not directly relating to Hezbollah or Hamas). If any act that results in civilian casualties is not "proper defense" I don't think there has been a single case of "proper defense" in large scale armed conflict in modern history. People in the west might not realize it because for the last decades wars are fought away form their boarders, so it's easier to view civilian casualties as optional.
And you know what? I'd WISH all civilian casualties in war would be confined to people who are in direct proximity to enemy personnel. If I could press a button and replace all Hezbollah attacks against civilian targets with bombs sent to IDF personnel, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
Regarding Netanyahu - right now, he's slowly climbing in the polls. His plan is to keep his coalition from falling apart till the next election. Anything that disturbs the current situation is not in his interests (and, on the whole, the last time Netanyahu was proactive in anything other than a political capacity was about 2 decades ago). If Netanyahu wanted a war, he would have the public's support for it months ago (in fact, the public very much supports a large scale conflict in order to stop Hezbollah targeting Israeli cities). His hand is being forced by other parties in the coalition. The obvious "culprit" are the far-right parties, but I personally think the main catalyst are the ultra-orthodox parties. This gets a bit complicated, but bear with me: The ultra-orthodox parties need to pass a law that'll exempt their constituents from military service (long story short - they were exempt for years but due to court rulings, need a new law to keep that privilege). Galant (the minister of defense) is the one stopping the law from passing. Netanyahu was about to replace him and sell it to the public as Galant being the one who was against a war against Hezbollah. Actually, I'll go as far as saying Israel being forced to activate the bombs prematurely, thus stopping Galant from being fired, makes a war a bit less likely (Though obviously other factors have also been put in play, so the government can't just do a U turn).
How is this argument different than defending the use of landmines?
So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah. You send that text you don't know if they are at a daycare picking up their kids, if they lost the pager and it's sitting on some restaurant owner's countertop next to some other family, etc etc etc.
There are so many things that can happen between when those pagers get rigged and sent out and the time they are detonated.
If Israel seemed at all like they tried to avoid bombing and shooting civilians in Gaza we could at least defend their actions there by saying "clearly they are trying to avoid civilian casualties" (we can't, but we could) - but there is nothing but hopes and prayers to avoid civilian casualties in an attack like this.
Literally if any non-governmental entity did the same thing, no one would hesitate to call it a terrorist attack. And that's what it is here, a terrorist attack.
Edit: Acknowledging that I typed Hamas out of habit instead of Hezbollah. Corrected.
The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas. They are two different entities, and while it doesn't make any difference in the narrow context I'm replying to, it's really a basic detail that anyone voicing an opinion on the matter should know.
From the Wikipedia entry about landmines: "The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow."
Planting bombs inside pagers specifically used by Hezbollah isn't indiscriminate (unless by "indiscriminate" you mean "when they go off, they harm anyone in the proximity", but going by that definition everything with an exploding charge is "indiscriminate", yet only mines are banned). And obviously exploded bombs don't remain dangerous and aren't difficult to remove.
I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.
And again - when you drop a bomb, you can credibly have made an attempt to ensure no one is in the vicinity who you don't intend to bomb. (Not that israel seems to do this) - this is especially true with modern technology.
You cannot reasonably predict the path that a pager takes once it is shipped, no matter who it is intended for, not least because no one expects a pager to be the source of a deadly threat. You control who owns that "bomb" you have just sent into the world only until the moment it is unpacked and given to the first person who takes possession of it.
Err... what circumstances? What was the purpose of drawing a parallel between Hamas and Hezbollah? What insight was I to gain by it? Asking seriously.
Sorry, were you making two arguments or one? You asked about the difference between landmines and what Israel did. I thought the rest of what you said was to show how planting bombs in pagers is like landmines, not a new argument. If there were two arguments, you didn't respond to my answer regarding landmines.
I can talk about the difference, and you'll respond with a counter argument etc. Ultimately, it'll come down to me saying Israel is able to reasonably predict who'll carry the explosive and you saying they can't. The bottom line for me is this:
Some weapons have been banned from warfare while others haven't. The banned weapons follow certain criteria for being banned. exploda-pagers don't follow the criteria under which landmines have been banned. If you know of other weapons or tactics that are banned and are akin to exploda-pagers, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I'm left with the conclusion what Israel did falls within the bounds of a legitimate military operation. You can, of course, think differently.
And I do. It's been one argument the entire time, and I don't see how it's worth reframing the parallel when you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand it the first two times.
Good day.
Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place. Will correct now. I admit that was potentially confusing.
You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah...
Me: "The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas."
You: "I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances."
Me: asking for clarification.
You: "you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times [...] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place"
It seems you've mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you're insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that's the case, you're making it so easy for me other people might think we're in cahoots[1].
Anyway, Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand the argument. And I'm pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I've explained why the pagers aren't like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that's the only argument you made ("It’s been one argument the entire time"), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.
[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don't mind the downvotes, just wondering if they're because people don't agree with me or because they think there's something wrong/harmful with my messages.
When I typed that I hadn't spotted my own typo yet. Sorry.
I don't care in the least if anyone thinks I'm in cahoots with anyone; it won't change that I'm in cahoots with no one.
Typo notwithstanding, it remains true that I do think differently, and if your argument boils down to what has actually been banned vs an understanding of how absolutely heartless and tragic it is to deploy a bunch of explosive pagers that will randomly move around a populated area because you want to kill a limited set of bad guys in that area, there is nothing left for us to discuss.
Sorry, I was trying to say - Please don't imply I might be willingly misunderstanding you when you're not communicating clearly. Even your edit is somewhat unclear, as it isn't evident if the part before the edit is still relevant.
Wait, what? The prevalent criticism against the exploding pagers (both on Lemmy and other places) is that they're akin to mines and are essentially terrorist attacks. Both of these thing are (at least somewhat) specific and objective, and that's where we started the conversation. Going from that to "It's heartless", which is a very subjective description, seems to me like moving the goalpost.
Yes, of course it's heartless and tragic. War is heartless and tragic. How else would you describe taking a kid who was in high school a few months ago, putting a rifle in his hand and telling him "See that other kid who's just like you? go shoot him because he happen to be living on the other side of an imaginary line"?
Saying "Well, this heartless and tragic thing is acceptable but I don't like that heartless and tragic thing" is arbitrary unless there's an actual criteria. Either way you're entitled to your own opinion, it's just that earlier I thought you have some criteria or test.
I did, it's been in every comment of mine and in the rest of the sentence after the bit you cherrypicked.
Once we hit this point, further discussion was likely pointless anyhow. Please let's end this discussion here. Thank you!
No one is forcing to to reply. I'm continuing it because to me the operation was extremely selective in which people it targets relative to modern warfare among civilian infrastructure, and I'm trying to understand the counter argument.
OK, it took me a while to understand this, and I'm assuming you meant "I do have some criteria". If you meant something else, I can't even guess what it was.
Ah, my bad. I mistook the "pagers that will randomly move around a populated area" part as a purely rhetorical statement and my brain kinda swept it aside. Sorry. The explosives weren't planted in a random batch of pagers. It was in a batch specifically meant for Hezbollah operatives. You could make the argument that some of the pagers got into non-Hezbollah hands (and obviously they did), but what you said is a gross and unfair exaggeration. Your criteria doesn't apply here.
Yes, I understand that. And those Hezbollah operatives can lose their pagers, have them stolen, or they themselves can move randomly through populated areas with the hidden bomb strapped to their hip. You don't think any of these "operatives" do anything but sit all day in a cartoon-style bad guy lair surrounded by other bad guys? They never go to buy groceries, or stop at a hospital or school, or have their devices stolen or lost in some random location? As I have said repeatedly, these devices were deployed in a manner that has absolutely no mechanism by which to control where they actually are and who else is in proximity to them when detonated.
Either we are just incapable of communicating effectively with each other, or you are being intentionally obtuse.
Again I say good day to you.
And you can lose your car keys. But if someone asked you where they were, you wouldn't say "Oh, they're in a random place".
The explosive charge was small enough to seriously harm only those who are in direct contact with it. There's a video of one charge going off in the middle of grocery shopping (speaking of your next point) with a person standing maybe 20 cm next to the explosion. That person was able to run away without apparent harm.
There's no method of warfare that would never harm civilians.
~~The pagers being bought by Hezbollah is the mechanism. Did you mean a real-time mechanism? Is this what it boils down to?~~ Edit: Sorry, I misread what you said. Changing my reply to: As you can see from the video, where they are and who is next to them isn't really a factor. I would agree that if they are in very close proximity to another person (hugging them of maybe riding in a crowded public transport), the explosion will probably harm the other person. Once again, relative to other methods aimed against targets operating among civilian population, this seems more selective, not less.
It's war they wanted and it's what they have. Couldn't make it work in 75 years. We've heard enough and seen enough, nobody gets the benefit of the doubt in this. And I'm scared to even post this mild critic will make me an information warfare target. So tired of this shit.