Part of plausible deniability is that it has to be plausible. There has been no plausible argument presented that Israel did not do the pager and walkie talkie attack. For that matter, there hasn’t even been a denial about it.
In war there are still rules of engagement and expectations about things like “child soldiers” and “civilian casualties” and “collective punishments” etc….
But also, how much to those rules actually stop people?
Which rules are worth breaking if they prevent open war and millions of deaths?
No idea. Some deep philosophising and rationalisations around all of it is required regardless of your stance
I don’t get this. It’s war, there isn’t much law. You can have agreements between countries, but is it really law if it’s not enforceable?
There’s plenty of law of war.
But you’re right, laws are worth northing if they’re not followed or enforced.
If no-one is going to stop Hezbollah, why would they stop Israel?
It’s enforceable. A war between two countries does not exist in a vacuum. The whole rest of the world can impose sanctions against the violator.
Whether they will in this case is another matter entirely.
Problem with sanctions is they haven’t proved Israel did this. Its plausible deniability
Part of plausible deniability is that it has to be plausible. There has been no plausible argument presented that Israel did not do the pager and walkie talkie attack. For that matter, there hasn’t even been a denial about it.
Then again a denial would also not be plausible. Either way, saying nothing is their best course of action.
Is that law though? No one is going to jail. Sounds more a contract or agreement.
Law between nation states is different than for citizens.
The difference is enforcement capabilities. Geopolitical enforcement is not impossible it just gets murky quick. So many different priorities.
There is international law and there are international war crimes. This could very well be a war crime. It needs to be investigated.
Well, that’s up to debate.
In war there are still rules of engagement and expectations about things like “child soldiers” and “civilian casualties” and “collective punishments” etc….
But also, how much to those rules actually stop people?
Which rules are worth breaking if they prevent open war and millions of deaths?
No idea. Some deep philosophising and rationalisations around all of it is required regardless of your stance