Samsung embeds IronSource spyware app on phones across WANA

Some of the footage coming out of Iran of the aftermath of these assinations have shown specific rooms in buildings targeted, leaving the rest of the building in-tact. For a high value military target like chief of the armed forces, it seems unlikely that would be a warcrime as the civilian casualities would be low compared to the military advantage of the target.

[The nuclear scientists on the other hand are much more questionable because its pretty unclear if they are legal targets at all]

Since Israel started the war without authorization being the security council, it's legally the aggressor. Which means the actions in of themselves are crimes, regardless of where they are conducted.

Of course, Israel has hit hospitals in Tehran. And condos. War crimes.

So, no matter how you slice it, Israel commits war crimes as a matter of course.

Now, one could object and say that Israel has to commit war crimes because it's so endangered. If that's the case, why doesn't it go to the security council and get authorization for lethal military action? Who on the security council would vote against Israel if the threat was remotely real?

I meant my response specificly in the context of the post i was responding to - namely that Israel was tracking some high level officials and then bombing the building they were in - which is what i assume the parent was claiming was a war crime.

Other actions in this conflict of course could be crimes and require appropriate analysis.

> Since Israel started the war without authorization being the security council, it's legally the aggressor. Which means the actions in of themselves are crimes, regardless of where they are conducted.

I disagree with the way you phrased this. The analysis of if the use of force is legal in general should be separate from if individual actions are war crimes. See https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/jus-ad-bellum-and-jus... which emphasizes that jus ad bellum is separate from jus in bello.

Israel is probably going to claim self-defense here (you do not need UNSC permission for a defensive war). The claim is probably pretty far-fetched unless there is some bombshell evidence we are not privy to, as the threat does not seem imminent the way self-defense normally requires.

OTOH - the last time anyone cared about the crime of agression was germany in WW2 (although there are some voices about ukraine & russia). People tend to care much more about war crimes than crimes of aggression.

> Israel has hit hospitals in Tehran

I'm not aware of this allegation. I did hear an allegation from Iran about a hospital in Kermanshah. Regardless, if it is true, it would indeed probably be a war crime. (Generally speaking. Details do matter in these sorts of things)

> And condos

I think the analysis of this would require knowing what specificly was targeted. Generally of course, civilian housing is not an acceptable target, but if for example,it was housing for senior military leadership, that might change things.

> Now, one could object and say that Israel has to commit war crimes because it's so endangered.

If by war crime you mean commit "agression" (to be clear, the crime of agression is not a war crime. These are two separate categories of crimes), this would be an argument that the act is not "agression", since defensive wars are allowed to be done without UNSC approval. You only need UNSC approval if you are not facing an imininent threat.

> Who on the security council would vote against Israel if the threat was remotely real?

Security council is largely about geopolitics, and russia & iran are allies.