The United Nations human rights chief says weaponizing ordinary communication devices represents a new development in warfare.
    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      55·
      2 years ago

      What is the UN human rights chief supposed to do about it?

      He did all that was in his power:

      Volker Türk told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council there must be an independent and transparent investigation of the two attacks in Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday where these devices exploded, reportedly killing 37 people and injuring more than 3,400 others.

      • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 years ago

        They could all say they are going to disband if Israel doesn’t stop. Why even have the UN if they can’t do anything

        Or better yet expel isreal

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          38·
          2 years ago

          First of all, that’s also not in his power.

          Secondly, how would disbanding the part of the UN that investigates human rights abuses help Palestinians?

          Edit: Wait, you think the entire UN should be disbanded over this?

          The UN is the only reason we haven’t had a nuclear war yet. Otherwise, countries wouldn’t have a neutral world forum.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              34·
              2 years ago

              That’s not what the UN is for… it’s not a military force… it’s a round table for nations to work their differences out via words and not nuking each other.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 years ago

          How would you react if the UN becomes the world government, so that they would finally have the power to stop wars and hunger that people always complain about?

          Precisely.

          • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
            6·
            2 years ago

            I may be ok with that depending on the governing structure they came up with for a world government. Like would it be a democracy? Socialism? It really depends lol

            But right now it seems very ineffective if America or Israel does something horrible they can just veto or whatever and nothing gets done.

            As an American myself I would love it if the UN actually had powers to keep my government in line. they sure as hell don’t listen to the will of the people.

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              5·
              2 years ago

              There is no reason why the UN as a world government could not be a democracy. After all, the institution has always been parroting about the rule of law; ending world hunger and poverty; and the UN General Assembly rightfully called out blatant violations of international laws. The WHO is the most successful organisation by containing and eradicating many diseases including smallpox and COVID.

              People complain of the UN being powerless, and yet distrustful of giving it more power. Either it has to remain powerless or furnish it with actual power. The doublethink should end and people have to make up their minds.

              Edit: grammar

        • azuth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          The UN should disband for not stopping Israel, something the US (Biden right now) would stop yet when Biden was criticized you defended him as ‘there was nothing he could do’.

          Love Americans and their hypocrisy.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      2 years ago

      The US will veto any action.

      It’s them you should be criticizing. It’s always them or Russia/China for the other team.

  • blady_blah@lemmy.world
    94·
    2 years ago

    Honestly, the real question to me is how many innocent people were maimed, injured, or killed in this attack. This is incredibly indiscriminate, even though the idea is that only the bad guys are holding the pages or walkie-talkies, but if they’re in a cafe they’re not the only ones getting hurt. Think of it as attaching an explosive to a thousand Hezbollah people, and then exploding them as they wander through a city. That’s the true crime, the potentially disproportionate massacre of innocent civilians.

  • DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world
    30·
    2 years ago

    We’re talking double secret probation. Super cereal shit man.

    Constantly wringing my hands at the lack of adults in leadership. Accountability ends atrocity.

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
    27·
    2 years ago

    All you have to do to realize that this is a terrorist attack is to close your eyes and imagine the media response if Hezbolah did this to the IDF.

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      6·
      2 years ago

      If they did it to the IDF, I doubt many would have an issue with it. Military is always a valid target in war.

      If it was done to random civilians, then most would.

      It all hinges on just how targeted the attack is, and how much you believe Mossad’s claims that it was all Hezbollah. We’ve seen their claims on bombing Hamas militants, and I doubt everyone in those 8 floor residential buildings were all Hamas members.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        4·
        2 years ago

        Doubt.

        If they had snuck explosives into cell phones of IDF soldiers and then detonated them in mass while the soldiers were at home with their families it would not be acceptable.

        I totally agree that this attack was indiscriminate. I think part of the point was the psychological impact of being attacked that way. How could you ever feel safe again after knowing anything around you could be a small explosive device.

        It is a huge escalation that will undoubtedly created another huge wave of terrorism. Israel has always been its own worst enemy.

  • 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org
    171·
    2 years ago

    Yeah right…

    Ukraine using publicly available camera Drones to drop grenades on russian invaders?

    Bravo Ukraine! Very creative self-defending!!

    Mossad putting explosives in items terrorists ordered to specifically to coordinate their terrorrism?

    Booh! Not allowed, bad Israel!!

    • zbyte64
      50·
      2 years ago

      I don’t think they’re talking about buying something normal and turning it into a weapon. But buying something normal and getting a weapon instead.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        38·
        2 years ago

        And also, the drone allows you to pick your target.

        You don’t know who’s holding or near the walkie talkie.

        I’m not for or against it, I don’t feel qualified to make a judgement, but I can see the differences.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          18·
          2 years ago

          Exactly. If your drone shows children and you still Boom, you’ve chosen to commit a war crime. But with this plus the indiscriminate bombing of humanitarian centers in Gaza, it’s all war crimes all day every day. The numbers of dead children are exponentially higher than the numbers of dead Hamas, and once the critically injured innocents in Lebanon die the same may be true for Hezbollah.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      39·
      2 years ago

      You do know that Israel is not fighting against an invading force, right? That might be a slight difference when it comes to morality.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        2 years ago

        You do realize Hezbollah even having possession of those rockets was in violation of UN resolutions. The fact they’ve been launching them for nearly a year now is also a violation. Israel’s actions here are far more justifiable than Gaza.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
            5·
            2 years ago

            They’ve been bombing Israel for nearly a year - since Oct 8, well before Israel went into Gaza. Actually, even before Israel completely recaptured the areas captured by Hamas in southern Israel.

            What choice does Israel have other than to give up on 60,000 of their own citizens permanently displaced by Hezbollah?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              5·
              2 years ago

              I think they have a choice to not use exploding pagers regardless of any bombing.

              Also, their citizens are almost never even at risk of being injured by those bombs, unlike what happened in Lebanon.

              • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
                2·
                2 years ago

                You’ve only described an inaction as Israel’s choice. Do you believe Israel should do nothing? Or do you believe that this attack was particularly egregious? The question stands. What choice of action does Israel have?

                By all accounts, this was an incredibly precise attack, harming thousands of terrorists and very few civilians who likely chose knowingly to be in the immediate vicinity of terrorists. It has caused a major interruption in their ability to coordinate future terror attacks.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  2 years ago

                  I believe this attack is particularly egregious.

                  By all accounts, this was an incredibly precise attack, harming thousands of terrorists and very few civilians who likely chose knowingly to be in the immediate vicinity of terrorists.

                  That is absolutely not what I read. Furthermore, it is not a crime to live near bad people and expecting people to just leave their homes, which may have been in their family for generations, because of who their neighbors are is unreasonable. On top of that, how could they have possibly guaranteed every person with an exploding pager would be away from innocent people?

                  It also normalizes this sort of attack. That is not a good thing for the world.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
        7·
        2 years ago

        Men with tactical coordination, trained and armed with automatic weapons, crossed an internationally recognized border by land, sea, and air. They launched thousands of ballistic missiles, killed, captured and held territory, and have repeatedly given assurances that they will do the same again and again.

        If that’s not an invasion then we are just arguing semantics.

        • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
          10·
          2 years ago

          I think you missed an important qualifier in the statement you’re responding to. I feel if you reread the statement you’d find you’re probably both on the same page of this book.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
            4·
            2 years ago

            Hamas invaded Israel last October 7 by land, sea, and air. They captured territory, however briefly. Hezbollah has been a part of the military campaign against Israel since Oct 8, weeks before Israeli troops entered Gaza (Oct 27). 60,000 Israelis have been displaced by Hezbollah attacks, and dozens killed or injured.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldBanned
      21·
      2 years ago

      Many were not used by the military and the explosions happened during the day in uncontrolled circumstances. Many civilians got hurt.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      7·
      2 years ago

      under international law if a device is used for military transmissions it is a valid target and can be attacked.

      I think this means that if an Israeli sells you a phone, they become a valid target for military strikes.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    13·
    2 years ago

    Attacking a civilian population of a country you’re not at war with is a violation of international law.

    And Isreal has done it at least nine times in the last year.

    • ehxor@lemmy.ca
      7·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for sharing this. My gut reaction is that that these attacks were unreasonable and careless in who they impacted and should be criminal. But it’s very interesting to read an analysis of the actual law - even if I don’t agree with it

    • gedhrel@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 years ago

      It comes to the same conclusion regarding the illegality of the weapons, even if it’s pretty lenient in its interpretation of how thousands of devices can be “reasonably expected” to all end up in the hands of combatants.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    12·
    2 years ago

    As if Israel suddenly is going to care about international law. They have been committing war crimes and crimes against humanity for a long time now. This is telling nazis “hey, what you are doing is bad mkay?” like they would give a fuck.

    • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
      1·
      2 years ago

      absolutely. i mean it is not as shitty as cutting of the breasts of women who attended that festival back then. but I do not understand how pagers are “ordinary devices”. what a joke. and why does iranian ambassador have one?

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        9·
        2 years ago

        Just because terrorists are doing horrible acts, doesn’t mean you are free to do whatever you want. Crimes against humanity and war crimes do not have an asterisk saying “except when the enemy commits crimes too”.

        About the pagers, are they specifically made for the military? Or are they commercially available? Just because terrorists use them doesn’t mean no one else does. There are still many hospitals for example using pagers. Does that make doctors terrorists or military?

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    12·
    2 years ago

    I don’t get this. It’s war, there isn’t much law. You can have agreements between countries, but is it really law if it’s not enforceable?

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
      46·
      2 years ago

      It’s enforceable. A war between two countries does not exist in a vacuum. The whole rest of the world can impose sanctions against the violator.

      Whether they will in this case is another matter entirely.

        • homura1650@lemmy.world
          22·
          2 years ago

          Part of plausible deniability is that it has to be plausible. There has been no plausible argument presented that Israel did not do the pager and walkie talkie attack. For that matter, there hasn’t even been a denial about it.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            4·
            2 years ago

            Then again a denial would also not be plausible. Either way, saying nothing is their best course of action.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            4·
            2 years ago

            The difference is enforcement capabilities. Geopolitical enforcement is not impossible it just gets murky quick. So many different priorities.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      23·
      2 years ago

      There’s plenty of law of war.

      But you’re right, laws are worth northing if they’re not followed or enforced.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      15·
      2 years ago

      There is international law and there are international war crimes. This could very well be a war crime. It needs to be investigated.

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      10·
      2 years ago

      Well, that’s up to debate.

      In war there are still rules of engagement and expectations about things like “child soldiers” and “civilian casualties” and “collective punishments” etc….

      But also, how much to those rules actually stop people?

      Which rules are worth breaking if they prevent open war and millions of deaths?

      No idea. Some deep philosophising and rationalisations around all of it is required regardless of your stance

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldBanned
    9·
    2 years ago

    Yes. But do pants! That would be fun…

    ok sir your shoes go in this bin. We want your pants, underwear and belt in that other one. Those will be returned to you after the flight reaches Michigan…

    Oh. We’re sorry sir, your luggage is here, but your pants, belt and underwear were flown to Michoacan. Very common occurrence. You may take this pair of paper pants with our Logo while we wait for several connection flights for your belongings…