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
I admire the clarity of your moral compass. But consequently if that is ok, then targeting reservists is also ok, right? And since almost everyone in Israel is a reservist there are really no civilians in Israel only military targets, right? So, Hamas an Hezbollah blindly firing rockets are actually striking military targets with surgical precision
The problem for your “argument” comes when you apply the harsh light of actual fact to it. Israel has 169,500 active personnel and 465,000 reservists. This represents 6.6% of their population. Furthermore, those age 18-40 can be called up in a national emergency just as most countries can call up a draft. This is not the same as reservists and still represents a fraction of the population.
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?
I probably haven't used the right term, I thought reservists are people who went through military service. This article (with obvious agenda)
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-myth-of-compulsory-militar...
says that the enlistment rate plummeted from 75% to 50%.
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
That's a weird question. It's war. There's no morality involved. But if your question is "is it within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform", then the answer is emphatically "yes".
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, and because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague. Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
None of that changes the facts stated, or makes any substantial argument as to how this doesn't constitute a war crime.
> 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 you're doing here is establishing yourself as someone who believes a weirdly, ahistorically, spectacularly surgical attack on Hezbollah fighters is a "war crime". Which is fine, but people are going to point that out when you call other things a war crime, and you might care about that, because in those other instances you might actually be right (if it's Israel you're talking about, it's very likely you will be right), and the extra credibility might be helpful.
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".
If the Geneva Conventions (among other agreements) which you're so determined to ignore didn't exist, then you may have been right.
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.
> 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.
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.
