Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

the307.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 832 posts

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#531

Post by amitport »

verteu wrote: post #509
N19PEDL2 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have questions about the concept of legality in a war like the one between Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel. The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other, with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give. But does it still make sense to t…

Yes, humanitarian law explicitly applies to enemies who do not, themselves, follow it. It's called [non]-reciprocity: "The obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law does not depend on reciprocity" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule140 Nations who break international law frequently spread misconceptions about this.

[flagged]

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#532

Post by bjourne »

N19PEDL2 wrote: post #502
justin66 wrote: post #448

Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countries base this stuff on the same international treaties they've all signed, it's a guide to Israel's conduct during war (or just about anyone's) as well as the US's. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46147605 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-…

I have questions about the concept of legality in a war like the one between Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel. The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other, with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give. But does it still make sense to t…

The Nazis tried the same argument at the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they weren't bound by the laws of war (e.g., Hague regulations) since Poland and other states hadn't signed them. The court dismissed the argument and stated that certain rules are binding whether both parties are signatories or not. In Israel's case it is even worse since indiscriminate attacks have been outlawed since basically forever. At the Nuremberg trials, the argument "there is no precedent" had some merit, today it certainly does not.

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#533

Post by bjourne »

parineum wrote: post #456
muvlon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the Israeli terror of lobbing 2000lb bombs at random housing blocks for that matter.

I suspect that "random housing block" was on top of some non-random tunnels full of non-uniformed military intentionally using the occupants of those houses as human shields. Otherwise there's no reason to use such a large bomb on some houses.

A state that considers its enemies to be the modern day incarnation of "Amalek" may use such bombs...

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#534

Post by bjourne »

justin66 wrote: post #448

Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countries base this stuff on the same international treaties they've all signed, it's a guide to Israel's conduct during war (or just about anyone's) as well as the US's. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46147605 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-…

Another legal analysis on the attack: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/10/15/is-it-cake-on-boobytrappe...

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#535

Post by pbiggar »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #336
pbiggar wrote: post #108

[flagged]

Calling people psychopaths isn't productive.

In my opinion, it's important to call out extreme abhorrent behaviour. A disregard of international humanitarian law and human rights qualifies imo.

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#536

Post by blks »

dralley wrote: post #95
zug_zug wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's "legal" or not and by who's laws, but it certainly seems like terrorism to me (i.e. intentionally creating a state of terror). I think if Lebanon found a clever way to assassinate the top 45 military commanders in Israel the same people who are defending this wouldn't be calling it a "Legal act of war".

Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be considered terrorism. But it wasn't random devices, it was communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members for their own purposes.

Not only military leadership was killed, there was a significant amount of civilians being harmed.

Even if you drop a bomb to target a military personnel, but you drop it in the middle of busy city, this will be a war crime, as you didn’t do anything to avoid civilian casualties, and disregarded them.

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#537

Post by blks »

tptacek wrote: post #367
jackling wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that Israel has no idea where those pagers were at the time of the attack, civilians were directly hurt by the explosions: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-page...

Israel had in fact very clear intelligence that the specific pagers they were detonating were overwhelmingly going to be in the custody of combatants. This was very probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years. That's not a value judgement; it's a descriptive claim.

They knew who purchased those devices. Did they know that at the moment of detonation only military personnel had those devices on them? Military propaganda of course will nod at “intelligence” to defend any actions in public, as there is no way to prove these statements.

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#538

Post by justin66 »

N19PEDL2 wrote: post #502
justin66 wrote: post #448

Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countries base this stuff on the same international treaties they've all signed, it's a guide to Israel's conduct during war (or just about anyone's) as well as the US's. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46147605 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-…

I have questions about the concept of legality in a war like the one between Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel. The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other, with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give. But does it still make sense to t…

> The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other

This is not true (the laws of war work and have been applied successfully in conflicts not involving two or more legitimate states) and it's an assumption that seems to have negatively informed the questions that followed.

> with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give.

Holding leaders accountable ("legitimate" political leaders, terrorist leaders, rebel leaders, we can do it) is good, but we also hold individuals accountable.

> But does it still make sense to talk about legality and international treaties when on one side there is a terrorist organization whose method of warfare consists of kidnapping or killing civilians?

Of course it does. The notion that one side is no longer accountable for harm done to civilians in violation of the law because the other side has harmed civilians in violation of the law is wrong.

> At this point, doesn't complying to international treaties only mean further endangering their own population?

Sometimes yes. It certainly does put troops in danger often enough. Everyone who is party to these treaties is well aware that a country could be safer in a conflict if they just quickly incinerated the other side, and they've chosen to be bound by these laws anyway.

Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

#540

Post by SomeUserName432 »

ignoramous wrote: post #392
kyboren wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not a lawyer. Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Anyway it seems to me that it was: - highly discriminatory - only Hezbollah commanders received these devices - it's an essential piece of military C2 gear so you'd expect they would keep possession of them at all times - the explosive was small enough to mitigate any risk to bystanders - targeted at combata…

> Passes the smell test to me Gotcha. Thanks. > Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious. > Would you still have a bone to pick with my credentials if I said that I thought the Dresden firebombings Felt the need to know whether I was mistaking an arm-chair opinion for an expert opinion, is all.

> Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious.

He did prefix it with "I think", highlighting that "this is my opinion / my interpretation", not that he is issuing a ruling as a judge in an international court.

Post reply on HN