• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29 hours ago

    This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.

    This is not quite as cut-and-dry. The prohibition is for civilian objects. The argument can be made that Israel rigging the communication devices of Hezbollah operatives specifically is not invalid just because communication devices are dual-use objects.

    But regardless. It’s shitty, Israel’s motives are shitty, and all most of us half a world away can do is meme to keep our sanity.

    Or lose it. Whatever.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 hours ago

      Do you know which treaty that was exactly? I also wonder if it was written at a time when opaque military supply chains and detonation by network weren’t around. A walkie-talkie that blows up on use and is sold openly would indeed be indiscriminate as hell.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 hours ago

          A link to the text that currently works, Wikipedia has some rust going on.

          It’s Article 6 section 1 subsection “a” that’s relevant here. Interestingly, it’s worded specifically about self-detonating objects, as opposed to remote controlled ones, which other parts of the text do include. Maybe there’s been updates of some kind to this, though; I defer to the actual lawyers.