Critics ignore the key justification for Israel’s attack on Iran

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar sent a letter on Wednesday to the president of the UN Security Council, explaining Israel’s decision to launch operation “Rising Lion” against Iran. Sa’ar’s letter was preceded by two letters sent by Iran alleging that in attacking Iran, Israel had acted illegally and in violation of the UN Charter. All three of the letters touch upon a growing controversy in the international community and among legal scholars: Is this operation justified?

From the perspective of the vast majority of Israeli citizens, the operation against Iran is more than just justified – it is existential. And while some Western countries have expressed their support for Israel, many around the world disagree.

Putting aside political positions that routinely demonize Israel and cast it as a rogue nation that is never in the right, many of those honestly attempting to evaluate the legality of the operation point to the very strict conditions for using force in self-defense under the UN charter. These conditions include several requirements that have been called into question in this context, two of which are most significant. First, the use of force should be limited to “repelling” an attack or an “imminent” attack; and second, under the principle of proportionality, force should only be applied to the extent needed to repel an attack.

Critics have accused Israel of contravening both requirements. They cite the fact that Iran’s nuclear weapons project has not yet borne fruit, and certainly is not on the verge of actually deploying such a weapon to attack Israel. The same applies to Iran’s ballistic missile project, intended to achieve a deadly number of rockets that could literally annihilate Israel. In addition, some claim that the scale of the attack is unjustified, that the Israeli onslaught is neither defending against an imminent threat nor is it proportionate.

Sa’ar’s letter takes a different approach. Although it also relates to the issues of urgency and proportionality under the self-defense paradigm, it offers an entirely different perspective. Israel, Sa’ar reminds the world, is already in an armed conflict with Iran. Not only does Iran openly admit that it seeks to destroy Israel, but it is also actively implementing a program to do so by directly attacking Israel and by using its proxies to strike it. Open your eyes, says Sa’ar, don’t you see we’re already at war? The entire self-defense paradigm (to which the letter implies Israel also conforms) is redundant.

Read: Iran’s efforts to ‘annihilate’ Israel justify offensive, Sa’ar tells UN Security Council

For most Israelis, the international response to Israel’s attack on Iran doesn’t matter much. They recall the condemnations leveled at Israel when it acted against the nuclear programs of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad. Some argue that in retrospect, most agree, even if they won’t admit it, that Israel did the world a huge favor. So, let the world condemn us now, and thank us again later. Others are just fed up with the anti-Israel bias rife in the international community against Israel – the demonization and the lies – and don’t care anymore.

Yet, Israel’s image in the international system does matter. Making the case for Israel is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of those who remain fair and impartial, and there are still many of them around the world. No one will persuade the haters or eliminate the political bias against Israel, but many still have the chance to step up on behalf of Israel. This is what makes the Sa’ar letter so vitally important.