Spare us the hand-wringing: Israel has every right to strike Hezbollah

People hang a giant Israeli flag from the roof of a damaged building in Kiryat Bialik in the Haifa district of Israel, following a reported strike by Hezbollah. Picture: AFP

There has been much hand-wringing and debate the over so-called pager attack on Hezbollah that has killed and injured significant numbers of its operatives, including speculation regarding the legitimacy of the attack under the laws of armed conflict.

There is no question that a state of armed conflict has existed between Israel and Hezbollah since missile attacks were launched against northern Israel beginning on October 8.

These attacks have been continuous until now approaching the one-year mark, amounting to more than 8000 missiles, resulting in many casualties and the displacement of 80,000 Israeli civilians.

This was an unprovoked attack that began before Israel had even reacted to the heinous invasion by Hamas on October 7. The war crimes of launching a war of aggression and indiscriminate attacks against civilians are clearly in evidence here.

Israel has been acting in self-defence in this conflict with Hezbollah, restraining its response to defeating the actual rocket, drone and ballistic missile launches. The threat of escalation of these launches has been clear and ever present throughout. Israel has the right to do this as is clear from article 51 of the UN charter, which states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

This inherent right has always included the right to respond to attacks by non-state actors emanating from source states that are unwilling or unable to prevent them, as illustrated by the so-called Caroline case in 1837 where British forces responded to activities by US citizens across the border from Canada. One of the key principles spelled out by the British was: “How long could a government, having the paramount duty of protecting its own people, be reasonably expected to wait for what they had then no reason to expect?”

Mourners attend the funeral of a Hezbollah member in the town Chaat in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Picture: AFP

Many nations, including the US, with the requisite capabilities have since established state practice in targeting individuals who are engaged in or preparing for attacks against them in similar circumstances. Effectively such actions must be limited to and directed against the threat and be proportional to it.

It should be recalled that under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, designed to resolve the 2006 Lebanon war fought by Israel to defeat cross-border attacks from Hezbollah, Israeli forces would withdraw from southern Lebanon in exchange for the beefed-up presence of UN forces (UNIFIL II) and the Lebanese army.

It also required the disarmament of Hezbollah, which was not to be present south of the Litani River, which is 29km north of the Israeli border. This resolution was never complied with by Lebanon or Hezbollah. Instead, Hezbollah has vastly increased its capability south of the Litani to between 120,000 and 200,000 ballistic missiles and rockets, and has grown to a force of around 40,000. It has militarised the south extensively with sophisticated underground infrastructure, dwarfing what Hamas has done in Gaza, maintaining vast weapons stores and above-ground airstrips and installations at enormous cost.

Hezbollah is financed and trained by Iran and earns large sums from transnational crime activities. Hezbollah’s annual military budget is estimated at $US700m ($1bn). It is listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries including Australia and is committed to Islamist fundamentalist goals and the complete destruction of Israel. It has been completely unimpeded by the 11,512-strong UNIFIL II and the UN has failed utterly to ensure compliance with resolution 1701.

There is no question Israel lawfully has been able to strike back at Hezbollah to defend itself and prevent further attacks.

Sparks fly at the site of an Israeli air strike on the outskirts of the southern Lebanese village of Zawtar. Picture: AFP

To end the ongoing displacement of its citizens and threat to life, it lawfully can target Hezbollah as a terrorist, non-state organisation. Hezbollah’s operatives may be described as “unlawful combatants”. That is, while they may be attacked, they are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured. The pager attack, which the Israelis have not confirmed was conducted by them, was perfectly designed to comply with the standards of the laws of armed conflict. These devices were ordered by Hezbollah to avoid the tracking and monitoring of its mobile phones and were issued to the most senior of its personnel.

This means using this method was as precise as it is possible to be in neutralising Hezbollah’s key command and control matrix. It delivers an outcome that prevents the risk of much greater civilian casualties by other means. The direct military advantage from such an attack is patently obvious.

The evidence is abundant, as can be seen from the funerals of individuals draped in the Hamas flag and the comments of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who stated: “There is no doubt that we have been subjected to a major security and military blow that is unprecedented in the history of the resistance and unprecedented in the history of Lebanon. Yes, we received a big and harsh blow but this is also the nature of war.”

Instead of trying to wage lawfare against Israel, the international community should focus on getting Hezbollah and Iran to end their warmongering and comply with resolution 1701.

Mike Kelly is co-convener of Labor Friends of Israel Australia. He is also a former army officer and ALP minister for defence materiel.