[rougka]

1. Then we will have to disagree, for me it was quite obvious what scenario they had in heart when writing the convention. While the difference here would at least mean a court will need to decide this applies here, as this is not clear cut relevant in any way

2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex

3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.

About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.

Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation

[aspenmayer]

1. It is pretty clear that it does apply to me, so agree to disagree.

2. I linked why both Israel and Lebanon are both bound? Not sure why it would matter whether it's international or not, but it crossed borders, so to me it seems clear.

3. I agree, it was an amazing feat, and minimal casualties considering the impact. Also, due to suspected/impending exposure of pager operation, there was no time to delay without exposing the operation for no impact. It was a massive military/intel win for Israel, and I can't think of a more deserving target. I don't take any joy in the civilian casualties, but I'm not sure that was even a factor due to the potential imminent exposure to the operation, and they already decided to put the operation in motion. At that point, no real compelling reason not to follow through.

I agree with you that it was entirely unsurprising that something would happen involving disrupting continued strikes. I'm more surprised that we found out as much as we have in the original post than I am surprised that it happened.

[rougka]

2. I think the issue is whether it is an armed conflict between nations (but i am not a lawyer)

While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)

[aspenmayer]

2. To my reading, there are two issues being conflated - the POW rights of non-state organizations, and separately, the booby trap clause.

The POW rights issues do have considerations for the actions of you and your enemy, and whether either are non-state organizations or members of such, etc.

The booby trap clause is simply equally binding against all signatories, regardless of who you are employing booby traps against, and regardless of whether or not you or the target is or isn’t a non-state organization or member thereof.

I honestly feel like this whole conflict has been on a repeated loop since second intifada in 80s, mostly due to Israel not wanting a one or two state solution on Israel’s side, Palestinian government or representatives not wanting their trade or money to have to flow through Israel, and everyone else trying to keep the current 40 year loop on repeat because it is a useful wedge issue for political bargaining. It’s like Henry Kissinger knew that the delicate balance of terror was the least-bad outcome, and now we are unable to break free of adversarial approaches to the conflict due to the continuing hostilities on all sides.

The status quo sucks for all involved, but all involved think that it would be worse for their team if there were peace in the Mid East, so no one is interested in broader peace process beyond immediate Palestine-Israel conflict, which itself is a covert proxy war between Israel and rest of Mid East, which itself is the overt proxy war proper between Israel and rest of Mid East.