[leereeves]

In terms of international law (for what that's worth), that is a dangerous precedent. Is a US general a legitimate target for Russia now, because we're arming their enemy?

AFAIK, even during the Cold War, when the US was arming Russia's enemies (like Afghanistan) and Russia was arming the US's enemies (like Vietnam), neither nation went so far as to assassinate generals from the other.

We even asked Ukraine not to attack a Russian general.[1]

So, historically, it seems like what Israel did would not generally be considered justified.

(OTOH, we did assassinate Yamamoto, but we were actively at war with Japan.)

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=40049703

[edanm]

I mean, the US did assassinate Soleimani, an Iranian general, in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima... . So I wouldn't exactly call this a precedent.

But yes, this is a complicated issue.

[leereeves]

That link does say:

> Some experts, including the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, considered the assassination [of Soleimani] as a likely violation of international law as well as U.S. domestic laws.

[edanm]

Yeah, I was only pointing out that it wasn't a precedent.

(And btw, imagine Iran having then sent 150 missiles aimed at the US. Seems to me like the US would respond.)

[datascienced]

Is there any gentlemanlyness at play in those examples or is it just all tactics.