That's obviously not an outcome Israel is overly concerned about.
…this sounds like a valid military target. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that, bewilderingly, has declared war on Israel. Whether or not Israel should be mucking around in southern Lebanon is somewhat orthogonal to the validity of an attack on such a man. (And being able to reduce civilian casualties with a phone call is a good thing.)
Given the IDF’s record, I’d assume a more-sympathetic target could be found.
Like it or not, Hezbollah serves a number of functions in Lebanon. They have civil servants (think trash collectors, postal delivery representatives, etc.) They also have politicians.
A corollary would be if the Democratic Party in the United States had a militarized wing, politicians, and civil servants.
It's a structure that those in the West don't recognize or understand, and leads you to the conclusion that anyone killed in the pager attack, for instance, is just terrorist adjacent. So a trash collector who's killed in the pager attack, and their family, are not in fact, 'terrorists'.
Also worth investigating in all of this are the structures and centers of power that are labeling them as a terrorist organization and why.
The late Yeshayahu Leibovitch called certain behaviors "judonazism". And currently this is the mainstream of the Israeli society. Everyone in Israel knows it (though they would try to cast it in different terms), few speak about it, the ones who do get silenced, most simply don't care (who cared in nazi Germany about jews massacred in the woods or starved to death and killed in concentration camps?). The government, the judicial system, and of course the army (just check Haliva's interview on Guardian, and he is, I suspect, "a moderate"..)
It's basically the mafia approach. They are known to help people and stuff sometimes, does it mean we should condone them and protest when they are targeted?
The key people in mafia are also always in "administrative" roles. If you only target the guy pulling the trigger, you would be a fool since he is pretty low among the pawns.
ISIS also had trash collectors. Are you saying ISIS should have been left alone?
No. But if he’s still on the Army payroll, yes?
But is it a battlefield situation too? What's the line between "we had no other choice" versus "we could have arrested them and had a trial but murdering them with soldiers is easier"?
For example, suppose a mugger waves a knife at your face, and takes your stuff. Sure, they were "a valid self-defense target"—for thirty seconds—but that can't justify following them home and killing them in their sleep.
Hezbollah could significantly reduce collateral damage by choosing to sleep in designated bases separated from civilian buildings. It would also make killing them much easier.
Knowing that you can be killed is a very powerful deterrent for most criminals.
Aren’t they? Particularly if they’re still doing work for the IDF or are active reservists.
They have a bunch of dumb react components that can become the gui for live targeting systems, but that all happens post contract and in the liability of their customers, the organizations willing to expend human capital coming and going, e.g. militaries
Classic New York Times style writing. This sentence should say “Israel attacked this village as part of its invasion of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah defended it”
Imagine if this whitewashing were done to Russia: Karkiv, a small city 10 miles from the Russian boarder which had turned into a battlefield during Russia’s campaign against Zelenski in 2022”
And to think many would cheer if it were being applied to ends they approve of (enforcing some petty domestic law with fines and bureaucrats instead of taking foreign soil with bombs and soldiers, or whatever).
I'm obviously not arguing that this is a good idea, but I wouldn't be that surprised if this is the future trajectory (sorry for the pun) of "smart weapons".
An appeals process isn't a magic uno reverse card that makes a morally reprehensible fact pattern ok. Capricious and/or vibe and/or "Signature based" (vibes with extra steps IMO) application of government violence is reprehensible regardless of the amount of violence applied.
Trying to anchor the discussion around "whole lives" is just lying MBA accounting but for social issues. At the state level life, limb, quality of life and wealth (monetary or otherwise) are all subject to inter related tradeoffs and are somewhat fungible and convertible.
I understand that they are in a difficult position for a force that wants to place itself as the legitimate resistance to an invading army, in fact that's the same situation that Hamas finds itself in but with a more obvious occupation (it's not clear to most people that parts of Lebanon are under Israeli occupation, or at least contested).
But what's the end result of fighting? Death and ruin. Nothing else. For Hamas, they had their little "triumph" in October 7 23 and then they lost half of Gaza and the other half is a wasteland. How is that "defending" anything, either the territory or the people? The same thing is happening in Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah are just as incapable of doing anything to stop the IDF advance as Hamas were in Gaza. They can't defend a thing.
If we are to have any sympathy for the cause, if not the tactics or the ideology, of terrorist resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, we have to also understand that their struggle is hopeless. Violence is clearly not the way for them to win, because the force they are fighting has all the violence. Non-violence is also not an answer because the force they fight has all the violence. They're screwed, quite bad, and there's no way out.
I think it's clear they don't fight to defend anything, just because there's nothing they can do and they might as well go down fighting, or they'll go insane. Or more insane.
Hezbollah, whatever you may think of them, are the main security actor in the South. Why should they not defend their civilian population?
Everything else is just marketing and right sizing. For most things yeah, data bricks and no code sounds right. Most of their work is over the counter benign, but that’s to lend credibility to their other initiatives while funding their quite literal war coffers.
The rocket attacks come because Israel periodically invades, as it is now.
It has murdered UN peacekeepers, journalists, medics, aid workers, and so many civilians. And this is before what it does internally.
It is utterly transparent that land is being grabbed, up to the Litani. Next will come settlers.
There is no justifying this flagrant aggression, nor the countless atrocities Israel has committed in the last few years.
You should be ashamed.
Also to be even more clear: while I recognise that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists I am not on the side of Israel, either. Israel is a militaristic, belligerent nation that seems to have convinced itself that the only answer to all its problems is to be in a constant state of war against all its neighbours. Prime Minister Netanyahu recently compared Israel's future to Sparta; I'm from Athens. And I'm a peacenick and an anti-nationalist on top of that. The ideology promulgated by Israel's ruling class is against everything I stand for, everything my history and my culture has taught me is sane, and reasonable, and productive.
Anyway when two people (or more, as the case may be) are fighting a war, the last thing that those who wish for peace must do is take a side. Taking a side can only encourage the belligerents to fight even more, because now they have supporters for their cause (safely, from a distance, without skin in the game, but supporters). Again, war is against everything I am for, and so I must stand against war and not on the side of anyone fighting a war.
As to being antisemitic or holding Israel to a special standard, we can talk about Iran, and Russia, and the US, and China, and Darfur, and Nigeria, and everything else that's rotten and makes me angry in the world right now if you want, but of course this discussion is about Israel's use of technology in its current campaign in Lebanon.
Sorry to disappoint you.
It’s been the primary source of netenyahu’s ability to stay in power.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly580gkd9ro
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/12/g-s1-121631/israel-military-u...
Until about 50-100 years ago, I’d say that’s when people started fuzzing the realities of death and war.
There was a comment by an Israeli soldier way back at the start of the Gaza thing that stayed with me but I can't find it now of course. He was commenting on the tactic of bombing residential buildings at night with everyone inside asleep to get one Hamas operative. He said something along the lines "imagine if they came after us when we were at home on vacation" or something like that. I don't believe anyone thinks that's fair, or legitimate, or anything of the sort, it's just something that can be done, so it's done.
The way I understand the article above is that there's not even a clear motive anymore. The AI says "bomb them", so they're bombed, end of.
So anyone who is collecting a military pension is a valid military target when traveling abroad and you’ll have no issues with their murder? Why am I struggling to believe you really believe that.
And Hezbollah has consistently done worse than going after retired military men.
But you and I both know that we live in a "rules for thee not for me" world.
The outstanding hypocrisy and lies is why they hate us and international law is a joke.
Not GP, but no... a pension is not similar to an administrative role.
> So anyone who has ever served in the IDF is fair game? Got it
Has that changed in any way? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that there was always a massive distinction between a service member who is currently serving, regardless of whether it's a combat or hq role, and a veteran.
The Internet/OSINT, primarily, if you want an honest answer.
They’re looking for lots of people with security clearances, right now, reportedly…kind of the same thing. Once you’re under the flag, you’re on the board - right, wrong, or indifferent.