How Israel’s bulky pager fooled Hezbollah

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.

It has 3 sections. Section 1 looks like this:

> 1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:

and then lists 10 categories that include a wide variety of things, such as internationally recognized protective signs, dead people, children's toys, kitchen utensils (not in military locations), animals, and several others.

Then there is section 2, which the person above quoted:

> 2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.

That is the entirety of section 2. Finally there is section 3, which I'm going to quote in full:

> 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:

> (a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or

> (b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences.

So..., #1 and #2 both prohibit a bunch of booby traps. Then #3 says that it is prohibited to use weapons covered by this Article (so everything in #1 and #2?) in places with a lot of civilians unless certain precautions are taken.

If this means that the #2 items can be used in civilian areas if those precautions are taken, does it mean the same for the #1 items? With #3 being a separate section I'm not seeing how it can be limited to just modifying #2. It does say "weapons to which this Article applies".

That would result in some truly weird restrictions. It would mean for example that I cannot booby trap a corpse except in the case where I'm placing it in a place with civilians and have either placed it close to a military objective or taken measures to keep civilians from tripping it. If I wanted to place that booby trap in some remote area where only military is around I'd run afoul of #1 without the #3 exception to allow it.

It would make sense if it is an additive thing. If I say booby trap a corpse I might be charged with a violation of #1. If I do that in a civilian area I might additionally be charged with a violation of #3 unless I took the precautions listed in #3.

This was the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization.

People love to try an claim that they're anti-Israel and not antisemitic, but no other country in the world would be held to this kind of ridiculous standard in the face of constant terrorist attacks on a civilian population.