No? This is implying that Israel has had the technology to precisely target people for months but chooses to destroy a whole region instead went it came to Palestine.
But I start to wonder if they Knees about the planed attacks and let them happen to start this massacre.
It feels like the all seeing eye of Mossad was ignored on purpose. I hope Netanjahus Name will be branded for ever. He deserves no good mention in History of humanity.
On the other side... humanity faces the biggest historic event ever and no one cares (climate change)
I am fully against this booby trapping war crime regime but the problem with your first options is that pagers don't transmit like phones do. That means there would be no way to remotely aquire the GPS or other saved data undetected.
Compared to dumping white phosphorus over hospitals and refugee camps, killing 2 (?) children during an attack that targeted hundreds/thousands is many orders of magnitude more precise. I hate dead innocents as much as anyone, but you gotta admit the pagers were effective and included way less collateral damage than the methods Isreal has employed in recent history.
The point of the post isn't to praise the pagers attack. It's to point out that Isreal is capable of causing less collateral damage in Gaza but chooses not to.
You do realise targets in Gaza and targets in Lebanon are not the same? On one hand you have fighters shielding themselves behind civilians and dont even know what a pager is and why they would use it, on the other hand you have political and operative leaders on these fighters that need these pagers to stay low profile and untaped...
It's an Obama type technique. Sure, you might blow up a few innocents, but the rate of eliminated enemies vs killed innocents is better than in traditional warfare, so a numbers guy would always go for that one.
Leaked official documents show that that wasn't really the case as the public was led to believe
Quotes
The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.
The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — “enemy killed in action” — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”
The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”
It took them years to prepare that operation. It was against Hezbollah, not Hamas, because they saw them as the bigger threat.
The war in Gazah is barbaric, but the sensible immediate alternative would have been a very targeted operation to find and rescue the hostages, not something like this.