Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment. They are also already assigned to units, already have their equipment in storage, etc. Just like the Hezbollah members that got targeted in civilian areas.
Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.
Where does the Hague convention say that targeting off duty enemy fighters with explosives in civilian areas is fine? Or more precisely, what part of the Hague convention makes it fine for Israel to do that, but not for Hezbollah? Unless you are saying that every hezbollah militant with a pager is an active armed armed fighter which is completely ludicrous, considering where the explosions happened.
Basically the only way to make your argument work is by applying a double standard where everyone that could quickly become an active Hezbollah fighter is fair game, but everyone that could quickly be activated in the IDF (and has the training, assigned unit and everything else planned for for said activation) is not fine. You could hand waive about international law,but it doesn't make it more true. (Israel prefers to just call everyone around them terrorists to avoid openly breaking international law anyways)
See, now that's better. At least you are back to using the standard IDF talking points. I hope you realize that labeling an organization as terrorist is inherently an intra-national thing. For the Hezbollah, the IDF is the terrorist organization (And they have killed more civilians in a few months than the hezb ever did). So again, glad that you agree with the Hezbollah's point of view and their apologia for targeting civilians. (Hence why international law applies even when one side labels the other terrorist. Hezbollah usually fights in uniform, which means that the "non uniformed combatant" exception in war crimes does not even apply)
And the funny thing is that putting explosives in thousands of devices with 0 ways to track or make sure that they don't end up in say, an airplane, is the very definition of terrorism. It's something that even the Hezbollah hasn't done!
> Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment
Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives.
Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service.
If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.
Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives.
Every large-scale airstrike in an urban area hits random civilians, and so far the Lebanese Health Ministry has indicated that out of 558 killed so far, at least 148 (50 children, 94 women, and 4 medics) were very likely not to have been militants.
Of course these are just the initial stages of reporting, and everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this background, the idea that the strikes have hit "almost entirely" militants is highly dubious.
No, it's not a "could"
Israeli citizens are for the most part trained soldiers in what amounts to a less active reserve. It's more of a "will" than "could". In the same way that a Hezbollah militant with a pager isn't always an actual fighter on the frontline, but could be at any time.
As I said earlier, I know that not every single Israeli has been conscripted or part of the army. And I didn't say the actual official reserves. But are you saying that most Israeli citizens in a certain age bracket can't be called into active duty very quickly, and have the training to do so, and the IDF having the planning (down to unit assignments) and equipment to do just that in case of emergencies?
Because that's similar to how Hezbollah operates. Most of their militants are not actively fighting or even "reserves", but could be called into active service when required.
That's pretty ironic, considering the mental gymnastics you have been doing to justify spreading thousands of explosive devices while calling the other side terrorists.
So I guess the militants who died and were executed during the Warsaw uprising also deserved it, as they were part of a non nation state armed group and thus could be shot and executed even when unarmed. That's somehow okay according to your interpretation of international laws lol.
Did the fighters in Warsaw, if you can even call them fighters since they were a bunch of starving people with a few improvised weapons perhaps, open a war against Germany? I must have missed that.
Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.