Sure, my point is that this is still terrorism and a violation of international humanitarian law. It’s worth noting that Hezbollah members aren’t just militant fighters. There are also social services and Parliamentary members, which are not combatants.
Hezbollah organizes and maintains an extensive social development program and runs hospitals, news services, educational facilities, and encouragement of Nikah mut’ah. One of its established institutions, Jihad Al Binna’s Reconstruction Campaign, is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon. Hezbollah controls the Martyr’s Institute (Al-Shahid Social Association), which guarantees to provide living and education expenses for the families of fighters who die in battle.
“Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings - it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country’s private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members”.
Hezbollah holds 14 of the 128 seats in the Parliament of Lebanon and is a member of the Resistance and Development Bloc. According to Daniel L. Byman, it is “the most powerful single political movement in Lebanon.” Hezbollah, along with the Amal Movement, represents most of Lebanese Shi’a. Unlike Amal, Hezbollah has not disarmed. Hezbollah participates in the Parliament of Lebanon.
Edit: your linked Westpoint article is proving my point
See Quotes
International humanitarian law does not outlaw booby-traps altogether. However, given the grave risks booby-traps pose to the civilian population, IHL places stringent restrictions on their use. The ICRC, for instance, has concluded, correctly so, that the “use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians” is a violation of customary IHL (Customary IHL Study, rule 80).
Second, booby-traps may not take the “form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed or approached” (art. 7(2)). The U.S. Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual provides the example of “booby-traps manufactured to resemble items, such as watches, personal audio players, cameras, toys, and the like.” It observes that 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” (§ 6.12.4.8).
Third, booby-traps may not be attached or associated with the following specified objects (art. 7(1)). Including medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
It’s worth noting that Hezbollah members aren’t just militant fighters.
The SS also included members that weren’t ‘militant fighters’, running a vast economic, political, and charitable apparatus, but few would dispute that attacking members of the SS would be attacking members of a paramilitary organization and legitimate targets.
Every part of the SS was engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, even the medical corp. How are you comparing them to Hezbollah, which only exists out of resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Lebanon?
You haven’t made an argument for why they should not be considered non-conbatants
Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities; persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties (as currently described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977); combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864.
Every part of the SS was engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, even the medical corp.
Only if you assume that all support for the institutions of the SS was in some indirect way ethnic cleansing and genocide.
How are you comparing them to Hezbollah, which only exists out of resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Lebanon?
Do I have to quote Hezbollah’s extensive history of antisemitism and calls for ethnic cleansing of Israel?
You haven’t made an argument for why they should not be considered non-conbatants
I quite literally did.
-According to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, combatants are:
the armed forces of a party to a conflict, and also groups and units that are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that party is answerable to a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system, which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict
No, I mean I can’t find a single part of the SS that wasn’t engaged in Ethnic Cleansing. Nor can I find any sources for ‘non-militant’ SS personnel being attacked, do you have a source for this? I can find of attacks on civilians, like the bombing of Dresden, that are war crimes. There is also the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which does not distinguish any German causalities as ‘non-militant,’ however that situation is much more similar to Gaza’s situation in relation to Israel than Israel’s relation to Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s ideology is both Anti-zionist and anti-judiaism, which Amal Saad-Ghorayeb can analyze and describe far better than I can.
Anti-Zionism and Israel (Chapter 7)
Hizbu’llah’s reluctance to grant Israel recognition is rooted in its rendition of the origins of the Israeli state, which it unequivocally portrays as a ‘rape’ or ‘usurpation’ of Palestinian land, there by rendering it a state which ‘is originally based on aggression’. By extension, the continued existence of the Israeli state constitutes ‘an act of aggression’, insofar as it represents a perpetuation of the original act of aggression. Therefore, Hizbu’llah ‘does not know of anything called Israel’. It only knows a land called ‘occupied Palestine’. In fact, the party never refers to the state of Israel as such, but to ‘occupied Palestine’ or ‘the Zionist entity’.
pg 134
Based on the party’s delegitimisation of the Israeli state, its excoria-tion of Israeli state and society and its emphasis on the Zionist essence of both, certain existential elements of Hizbu’llah’s conflict with Israel can be readily discerned. Upon closer examination of these elements, the following three existential themes emerge: the party’s legitimisation of the use of violence against an essentially Zionist society; its rejection of the notion of a negotiated peace settlement with the Israeli state; and its pursuit of the liberation of Palestine.
pg 142
According to the party, this aspiration to return ‘every grain of Palestinian soil’ to its rightful owners necessitates Israel’s ‘oblit-eration from existence’. Put simply, the reconstitution of one state is contingent upon the annihilation of another. The only way that the Palestinians can return to Jerusalem, and the ‘original Palestineof 1948’ generally, is for all Jews, with the exception of those native to Palestine, to ‘leave this region and return to the countries from whence they came’
pg 162
Anti-Judaism (Chapter 8)
Although Zionism and Judaism are synonymous in Hizbu’llah’s lexicon, the resulting confluence of the party’s anti-Zionism and anti-Judaism does not render the latter contingent upon the former. While there may be some truth in the contention propounded by some scholars that the conflict with Zionism has been the chief cause of Arab anti-Semitism, in the case of contemporary Islam, and Hizbu’llah in particular, it would be more appropriate to state that Zionism has greatly impacted on an existing, yet latent, anti-Judaism. Although this might be hard to determine, especially since Hizbu’llah owes its birth to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon, and hence to Zionism, the anti-Judaism of Hizbu’llah is detached from Zionism insofar as Islam is staunchly anti-Judaic.
If we are to employ Lewis’ criteria for anti-Semitism, we would be led to the ineluctable conclusion that Islamic anti-Judaism closely resembles anti-Semitism in that it both demonises the Jews and, according to at least to one Qur’anic verse, accuses them of conspiring against humanity. The following excursus will strive to illustrate Islam’s deep-rooted animosity towards the Jews by examining several Qur’anic verses which pertain to the Jews or the Children of Israel. The objective of this analysis is to show that, while Hizbu’llah’s anti-Judaism is to a considerable extent influenced by Zionism, it is not contingent upon it.
Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II, of which details are discussed here of which pagers, that include the use by health care workers, certainly apply, especially when detonated in civilian spaces.
See Quotes
International humanitarian law does not outlaw booby-traps altogether. However, given the grave risks booby-traps pose to the civilian population, IHL places stringent restrictions on their use. The ICRC, for instance, has concluded, correctly so, that the “use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians” is a violation of customary IHL (Customary IHL Study, rule 80).
Second, booby-traps may not take the “form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed or approached” (art. 7(2)). The U.S. Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual provides the example of “booby-traps manufactured to resemble items, such as watches, personal audio players, cameras, toys, and the like.” It observes that 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” (§ 6.12.4.8).
Third, booby-traps may not be attached or associated with the following specified objects (art. 7(1)). Including medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
The indiscriminate use of weapons to which this Article applies is prohibited. Indiscriminate use is any placement of such weapons:
(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective. In case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used; or
(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
You also can’t just consider all of Hezbollah to be combatants, things are not that simple. Not all of Hezbollah are militants, there are many social workers and politicians. And even if they were, there are zero guarantees that all the pagers ended up in the hands of Hezbollah members. And even if that was the case, detonating them in public spaces is still a violation of international humanitarian law. By it’s nature this was a massive terrorism attack
Hezbollah organizes an extensive social development program and runs hospitals, news services, educational facilities, and encouragement of Nikah mut‘ah. Some of its established institutions are: Emdad committee for Islamic Charity, Hezbollah Central Press Office, Al Jarha Association, and Jihad Al Binaa Developmental Association. Jihad Al Binna’s Reconstruction Campaign is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon. Hezbollah has set up a Martyr’s Institute (Al-Shahid Social Association), which guarantees to provide living and education expenses for the families of fighters who die in battle.
Hezbollah holds 14 of the 128 seats in the Parliament of Lebanon and is a member of the Resistance and Development Bloc. According to Daniel L. Byman, it is “the most powerful single political movement in Lebanon.” Hezbollah, along with the Amal Movement, represents most of Lebanese Shi’a.
Sure, my point is that this is still terrorism and a violation of international humanitarian law. It’s worth noting that Hezbollah members aren’t just militant fighters. There are also social services and Parliamentary members, which are not combatants.
Edit: your linked Westpoint article is proving my point
See Quotes
The SS also included members that weren’t ‘militant fighters’, running a vast economic, political, and charitable apparatus, but few would dispute that attacking members of the SS would be attacking members of a paramilitary organization and legitimate targets.
Every part of the SS was engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, even the medical corp. How are you comparing them to Hezbollah, which only exists out of resistance to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Lebanon?
You haven’t made an argument for why they should not be considered non-conbatants
Only if you assume that all support for the institutions of the SS was in some indirect way ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Do I have to quote Hezbollah’s extensive history of antisemitism and calls for ethnic cleansing of Israel?
I quite literally did.
No, I mean I can’t find a single part of the SS that wasn’t engaged in Ethnic Cleansing. Nor can I find any sources for ‘non-militant’ SS personnel being attacked, do you have a source for this? I can find of attacks on civilians, like the bombing of Dresden, that are war crimes. There is also the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which does not distinguish any German causalities as ‘non-militant,’ however that situation is much more similar to Gaza’s situation in relation to Israel than Israel’s relation to Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s ideology is both Anti-zionist and anti-judiaism, which Amal Saad-Ghorayeb can analyze and describe far better than I can.
Anti-Zionism and Israel (Chapter 7)
Anti-Judaism (Chapter 8)
You quite literally didn’t, Protocol 1 is describing militant forces, not social workers, doctors, politicians, or their families.
Removed by mod
Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II, of which details are discussed here of which pagers, that include the use by health care workers, certainly apply, especially when detonated in civilian spaces.
See Quotes
Removed by mod
Per Article 3:
(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective. In case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used; or
(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
© which may 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 anticipated.
You also can’t just consider all of Hezbollah to be combatants, things are not that simple. Not all of Hezbollah are militants, there are many social workers and politicians. And even if they were, there are zero guarantees that all the pagers ended up in the hands of Hezbollah members. And even if that was the case, detonating them in public spaces is still a violation of international humanitarian law. By it’s nature this was a massive terrorism attack