Would it be moral to make people who work in israeli army explode even when not in uniform?
I am more pro-Israel in these conflicts, but you are a military target or you aren't, you don’t leave the military when you remove the uniform, only when you agree to leave the military.
In fact it is a common tactic of Hamas, when it is discovered they have passionately murdered civilians, that they immediately claim that it was an IDF soldier. Such as the case with Shanni Louk
Gets decidedly less muddy with volunteers and officers.
Attempting to pass off as fact that everyone in Israel is a reservist and are therefore legitimate targets is simple disinformation. You already knew that, though. But hey - you had a point to make, right?
This more recent (and accurate?) article based on actual numbers puts it at 69%: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/art...
So, >every other person in Israel has gone through military service. If you compare that to "collateral damage" when killing Hamas' terrorists, shooting rocets blindly is more accurate
There's a little.
That's why countries make agreements such as the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, etc. There are (meant to be) strict consequences for breaking these rules. (I noticed you change your wording from 'rules' to 'morality' - still wrong.) Breaking these rules is why we have the concept of 'war crimes'.
The word 'war' also implies two armies battling, rather than an invasion following occupation. In any case, the Geneva Conventions apply in all armed conflicts.
Since the Geneva convention still exists*, no, it is not "within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform". See Protocol I.
Targeting off-duty or non-uniformed service members violates both international law and the core moral principles of warfare, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements. Denying this isn't just factually wrong, it's deeply immoral.
* Along with the Principle of Distinction, Proportionality, Non-Combatant Immunity and Civilian Impact, etc.
> This is likely to settle out as one of the most surgical non-infantry attacks in the history of modern warfare,
No, it isn't. There's already reports of murdered children, and people as far away as Syria getting injured. The Iranian ambassador to Beirut was reportedly injured, meaning this could precipitate nuclear war.
> because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague
No, it isn't. You're literally the only person mentioning the Hague in the whole thread.
But yes, they do. That's where war crimes are prosecuted, and this is a war crime (see above), even if 'just' one of many thousands.
> Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
Huh??
Explain to me, please, how more targeted war crimes excuse completely untargeted war crimes, and war crimes targeted at journalists, aid workers, health workers, teachers, children, families, little old ladies in churches, premature babies, etc.
What I'm saying is that you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
But, they do, and you're wrong.
You're also moving goalposts. Are you still standing by your statement that war has no rules/morality?
> you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
Israel set themselves up for that belief, not me.
By doing war crimes. A lot of them. Like this one.
Consider, if you would, that this effort to move the Overton Window on what constitutes war crimes is severely misguided. And you really ought to stop.
Why would Israel fire nuclear weapons at Lebanon and Iran, two non-nuclear states?
edit: Also, can you cite anything to back this claim?
> Targeting off-duty or non-uniformed service members violates both international law and the core moral principles of warfare, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements.
I don't mean just it's in one of the articles of the Geneva Convention I mean where you're making your inference more specifically.