they claimed they had to change planes though
i had selected that seat when booking the flight, and there were no humans available to address such issues
I remember experiencing this in one of the German airports/airlines and having that exact thought.
It was this fully automated airport, where the checkin is self serviced and you only interact with computers.
Eventually, when I inserted my boarding pass I had a printed piece of paper back that said that they had to change my seat from aisle to midseat
I then tried to find someone to talk to the entire way, but computers can only interact in the way the UI was designed, and no programmer accounted or cared for my scenario
The ground attendant couldn't have done anything of course because it wasn't part of the scope of her job, and this was the part of germany where nice was not one of their stereotypes.
Eventually I got a survey a week later about a different leg of the flight, so could I really complain there? that one was fine? I had a paranoid wonder if that was intentional
in your opinion these are settlers illegally occupying land, in their opinion they came back after they were ethnically cleansed from Hebron in the 1929 and 1936 massacres
2. I think the issue is whether it is an armed conflict between nations (but i am not a lawyer)
While even though hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, their entire modus operandi is based on being a non-state organization, which helps them keep the conflict low intensity (until at least up until this year)
1. Then we will have to disagree, for me it was quite obvious what scenario they had in heart when writing the convention. While the difference here would at least mean a court will need to decide this applies here, as this is not clear cut relevant in any way
2. And so do terrorist organizations. As this does not qualify as an international conflict this does not apply without the annex
3. The civilian casualties are absolutely minimal in proportion to the military usefulness much more than a classic attack.
About the escalatory nature, this is purely my opinion but after 1 year of open conflict that left many refugees, Israel would have to attack eventually.
Also when looking at this entire conflict as an Iran-Israel confrontation, this is merely a natural continuation
1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention.
2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces
3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition.
If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative
My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed
Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that clause
Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?
I read the site you linked and it was very interesting
I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal.
In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original