How is Putin Connected to Israel's Strikes on Lebanon?
On September 17, Israel was accused of committing a war crime by detonating booby traps in a civilian population. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**How long will it be before China and Russia learn how to blow up their foes’ gadgets, asks one pundit, exposing the West’s collective delusion**
On September 17, Israel executed one of the most significant and brutal terrorist attacks in recent history. For Lebanon and Syria, the date now carries a weight similar to that of 9/11 in the United States. This day will be etched in memory for years to come, marking the onset of two distinct waves of explosions that primarily impacted pagers on the initial day, followed by walkie-talkies the next. Additional reports have emerged of other common devices, including laptops, tablets, and solar energy systems, also exploding.
Although some details remain unclear, the aftermath of the attacks was devastating: Amnesty International reported on September 20 that over 2,931 individuals sustained injuries, with at least 37 confirmed dead. Notably, Amnesty International is known for its cautious and conservative reporting, indicating that the ultimate casualty figures may be even higher.
The situation is rapidly evolving. The attacks appear to have either provoked or initiated a broader conflict; UN Secretary-General António Guterres speculated that 9/17 functioned as a preventive strike and a precursor to an escalation. This was quickly followed by further bombings and violent acts reminiscent of tactics commonly attributed to the rogue state of Israel. Presently, the horrific scene of mass terror has left many victims with severe injuries, frequently described as “life-changing injuries.”
An ophthalmologist at Mount Lebanon University Hospital in Beirut reported that 60 to 70 percent of his patients “had to have at least one eye removed. [For] some of the patients, we had to remove both eyes. It kills me. In my past 25 years of practice, I’ve never removed as many eyes.”
Israel, the regime responsible for the attacks, has resorted to its typical strategy of disseminating a stream of falsehoods. As is often the case, the initial reaction has been to boast of its actions while refraining from a formal acknowledgment of responsibility. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a key figure in the Gaza atrocities, declared a “new era” of warfare with Lebanon, praising the “excellent achievements” of Israeli intelligence services. This tactic has drawn comparisons to propaganda strategies associated with Russia, yet it is distinctly aligned with Israeli interests. In the West, however, such actions are often overlooked—because it involves Israel.
Israeli officials and their supporters in the West portray the operation as a justified intelligence mission targeting Hezbollah, a resistance organization and political party in Lebanon that Israel is effectively at war with. The reality, however, is stark: the use of civilian devices in this manner constitutes a war crime.
Two legal points stand out as both decisive and indisputable. First, Hezbollah operates as both a military and civilian entity. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), applicable in this context, only those Hezbollah members engaged in military roles are considered combatants. All other members retain their civilian status and the right to protection—an essential principle of IHL during armed conflicts. Amnesty International has found evidence indicating that the devices used in the 9/17 attacks were distributed among members of Hezbollah’s civilian offices, a revelation that was entirely foreseeable given the actions of the Israeli perpetrators.
Secondly, 9/17 was fundamentally criminal because, as Amnesty International noted, it was “indiscriminate […] according to” IHL, as those who planned and executed these attacks could not verify who would be harmed when the devices exploded, nor ensure that only combatants had possession of them. Indeed, booby-traps spread throughout a civilian population—regardless of whether they may have been in the immediate possession of a Hezbollah member—are “inherently indiscriminate,” as one expert has articulated. This is why the act of rigging objects typically associated with civilian use, such as pagers, is expressly prohibited under the 1996 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices, a UN treaty.
In light of these facts, Western apologists for Israel have made concerted efforts to reinterpret the events of 9/17. They not only downplay and justify what is clearly a flagrant act of aggression but also laud it as exemplary and clever. The Wall Street Journal editorial board characterized 9/17 as showcasing Israel’s “remarkable” abilities, as if being funded and shielded by the U.S. constitutes a legitimate skill set. The British publication The Telegraph called the attack “audacious,” posing the question of how that could possibly be viewed as commendable when the perpetrators engage in covert actions rather than open warfare. Meanwhile, the German tabloid Bild, known for its pro-Zionist stance, described the operation as having an “almost movie-like spy thriller” quality, referring to the illicit infiltration of civilian supply chains to position explosives.
If one were to analyze such remarks in the context of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001, it would be hard to imagine the same level of admiration being expressed. Why is it viewed as appropriate for an attack on Lebanon and Syria while a similar lens would be deemed offensive in discussions of 9/11?
Additionally, there are more nuanced yet equally misguided interpretations. In an article for the Daily Mail, Mark Almond acknowledged the “spectacular” nature of the “operation” while focusing on Israel’s “excelling” at this specific type of “warfare.” This framing is problematic, as such tactics are criminal, and had Hezbollah employed the same strategies against Israel, Almond would have readily labeled it terrorism. It is fundamentally misguided to sidestep the true legal and ethical implications of violent acts by concentrating solely on their execution, as Almond described as “brutal ingeniousness.”
Moreover, there is an underlying immaturity to this perspective, reminiscent of individuals who romanticize war criminals like Otto Skorzeny, lauding their daring exploits rather than acknowledging the atrocities they represent. In a world rife with Israeli violence and systematic murder, this mindset is inappropriate. Almond, fittingly, fails to mention the plight of civilians—except for those in Israel.
Almond does raise a concern about the possible repercussions of Israel’s “sophisticated” attack, worrying that the perpetrators may have overstepped their bounds and provoked a backlash akin to the fallout Japan faced after its attack on Pearl Harbor. However, he neglects to consider the suffering of Israel’s victims.
Ultimately, Almond’s Western perspective reveals what he views as the worst-case scenario: that the Israeli perpetrators experience some form of retribution for the suffering they have inflicted—though he conveniently omits any discussion about the urgency of protecting Lebanon’s and Syria’s rights to sovereignty and security. This omission speaks to a troubling bias.
Finally, there is the predictably misplaced mention of—surprise—RUSSIA. Despite Almond lacking any factual basis for this reference, he introduces the notion that “How long before Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping,” he questions, “works out how to make millions of iPhones around the world burst into flames in the pockets of their foes?”
This line of reasoning indicates a profound cognitive dissonance. If Moscow or Beijing were inclined to commit the same atrocities regularly attributed to Israel, they could do so with relative ease, without needing to “work out” any complex strategies. Almond’s difficulty in acknowledging this reality stems from an unwillingness to confront the fact that Israel has a long-standing history of criminal behavior supported by decades of U.S. impunity, indulging in violence and deceit. Instead, he diverts attention to Russia and China, obscuring the true offender behind the crimes while perpetuating the West’s delusions.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
On September 17, Israel executed one of the most significant and brutal terrorist attacks in recent history. For Lebanon and Syria, the date now carries a weight similar to that of 9/11 in the United States. This day will be etched in memory for years to come, marking the onset of two distinct waves of explosions that primarily impacted pagers on the initial day, followed by walkie-talkies the next. Additional reports have emerged of other common devices, including laptops, tablets, and solar energy systems, also exploding.
Although some details remain unclear, the aftermath of the attacks was devastating: Amnesty International reported on September 20 that over 2,931 individuals sustained injuries, with at least 37 confirmed dead. Notably, Amnesty International is known for its cautious and conservative reporting, indicating that the ultimate casualty figures may be even higher.
The situation is rapidly evolving. The attacks appear to have either provoked or initiated a broader conflict; UN Secretary-General António Guterres speculated that 9/17 functioned as a preventive strike and a precursor to an escalation. This was quickly followed by further bombings and violent acts reminiscent of tactics commonly attributed to the rogue state of Israel. Presently, the horrific scene of mass terror has left many victims with severe injuries, frequently described as “life-changing injuries.”
An ophthalmologist at Mount Lebanon University Hospital in Beirut reported that 60 to 70 percent of his patients “had to have at least one eye removed. [For] some of the patients, we had to remove both eyes. It kills me. In my past 25 years of practice, I’ve never removed as many eyes.”
Israel, the regime responsible for the attacks, has resorted to its typical strategy of disseminating a stream of falsehoods. As is often the case, the initial reaction has been to boast of its actions while refraining from a formal acknowledgment of responsibility. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a key figure in the Gaza atrocities, declared a “new era” of warfare with Lebanon, praising the “excellent achievements” of Israeli intelligence services. This tactic has drawn comparisons to propaganda strategies associated with Russia, yet it is distinctly aligned with Israeli interests. In the West, however, such actions are often overlooked—because it involves Israel.
Israeli officials and their supporters in the West portray the operation as a justified intelligence mission targeting Hezbollah, a resistance organization and political party in Lebanon that Israel is effectively at war with. The reality, however, is stark: the use of civilian devices in this manner constitutes a war crime.
Two legal points stand out as both decisive and indisputable. First, Hezbollah operates as both a military and civilian entity. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), applicable in this context, only those Hezbollah members engaged in military roles are considered combatants. All other members retain their civilian status and the right to protection—an essential principle of IHL during armed conflicts. Amnesty International has found evidence indicating that the devices used in the 9/17 attacks were distributed among members of Hezbollah’s civilian offices, a revelation that was entirely foreseeable given the actions of the Israeli perpetrators.
Secondly, 9/17 was fundamentally criminal because, as Amnesty International noted, it was “indiscriminate […] according to” IHL, as those who planned and executed these attacks could not verify who would be harmed when the devices exploded, nor ensure that only combatants had possession of them. Indeed, booby-traps spread throughout a civilian population—regardless of whether they may have been in the immediate possession of a Hezbollah member—are “inherently indiscriminate,” as one expert has articulated. This is why the act of rigging objects typically associated with civilian use, such as pagers, is expressly prohibited under the 1996 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices, a UN treaty.
In light of these facts, Western apologists for Israel have made concerted efforts to reinterpret the events of 9/17. They not only downplay and justify what is clearly a flagrant act of aggression but also laud it as exemplary and clever. The Wall Street Journal editorial board characterized 9/17 as showcasing Israel’s “remarkable” abilities, as if being funded and shielded by the U.S. constitutes a legitimate skill set. The British publication The Telegraph called the attack “audacious,” posing the question of how that could possibly be viewed as commendable when the perpetrators engage in covert actions rather than open warfare. Meanwhile, the German tabloid Bild, known for its pro-Zionist stance, described the operation as having an “almost movie-like spy thriller” quality, referring to the illicit infiltration of civilian supply chains to position explosives.
If one were to analyze such remarks in the context of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001, it would be hard to imagine the same level of admiration being expressed. Why is it viewed as appropriate for an attack on Lebanon and Syria while a similar lens would be deemed offensive in discussions of 9/11?
Additionally, there are more nuanced yet equally misguided interpretations. In an article for the Daily Mail, Mark Almond acknowledged the “spectacular” nature of the “operation” while focusing on Israel’s “excelling” at this specific type of “warfare.” This framing is problematic, as such tactics are criminal, and had Hezbollah employed the same strategies against Israel, Almond would have readily labeled it terrorism. It is fundamentally misguided to sidestep the true legal and ethical implications of violent acts by concentrating solely on their execution, as Almond described as “brutal ingeniousness.”
Moreover, there is an underlying immaturity to this perspective, reminiscent of individuals who romanticize war criminals like Otto Skorzeny, lauding their daring exploits rather than acknowledging the atrocities they represent. In a world rife with Israeli violence and systematic murder, this mindset is inappropriate. Almond, fittingly, fails to mention the plight of civilians—except for those in Israel.
Almond does raise a concern about the possible repercussions of Israel’s “sophisticated” attack, worrying that the perpetrators may have overstepped their bounds and provoked a backlash akin to the fallout Japan faced after its attack on Pearl Harbor. However, he neglects to consider the suffering of Israel’s victims.
Ultimately, Almond’s Western perspective reveals what he views as the worst-case scenario: that the Israeli perpetrators experience some form of retribution for the suffering they have inflicted—though he conveniently omits any discussion about the urgency of protecting Lebanon’s and Syria’s rights to sovereignty and security. This omission speaks to a troubling bias.
Finally, there is the predictably misplaced mention of—surprise—RUSSIA. Despite Almond lacking any factual basis for this reference, he introduces the notion that “How long before Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping,” he questions, “works out how to make millions of iPhones around the world burst into flames in the pockets of their foes?”
This line of reasoning indicates a profound cognitive dissonance. If Moscow or Beijing were inclined to commit the same atrocities regularly attributed to Israel, they could do so with relative ease, without needing to “work out” any complex strategies. Almond’s difficulty in acknowledging this reality stems from an unwillingness to confront the fact that Israel has a long-standing history of criminal behavior supported by decades of U.S. impunity, indulging in violence and deceit. Instead, he diverts attention to Russia and China, obscuring the true offender behind the crimes while perpetuating the West’s delusions.
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
