The Attack on Nasrallah and International Law

Israel’s recent strike on Beirut killing Hezbollah’s leader was welcomed by US officials and praised in Israel across the political spectrum. However, countries and political figures hostile to Israel have condemned the strike as a violation of international law. Unfortunately for them, in this case Israel is on fairly solid ground legal ground.

Israel and Hezbollah are currently in the midst of what is termed a non-international armed conflict, meaning the laws of armed conflict (as they pertain to conflicts between states and armed groups) apply. The first question that must therefore be asked about any attack is whether it was aimed at a legal target. Nasrallah, as head of Hezbollah’s military, certainly was.

Once the target is valid, we turn to the manner in which the attack was carried out and ask whether Israel took sufficient precautions against causing civilian harm.

One common way of doing this is to give a warning. However, any warning that would have enabled civilians to evacuate would also have given Nasrallah an opportunity to flee, so no warning was possible. It should also be noted that Israel seems to have carried out two attacks. The first was on Nasrallah and his bunker headquarters, while the second was directed at a stash of land-to-sea missiles stored nearby. Israel did give a warning before the second attack on the missiles. In this case the warning was possible, as evidently the missiles could not be moved in the amount of time given for people to leave.

A second question is whether an appropriate weapon was used. This is where the most intense criticism seems to be focused, as in this attack Israel dropped a series of powerful, 2000 pound bunker busting bombs on a residential area.

However, there are quite likely valid reasons why. Nasrallah was apparently in a heavily protected underground bunker, so smaller, non-penetrating bombs might not have been effective. While obviously I am not privy to intelligence about the fortifications of Nasrallah’s bunker, it seems likely that only weapons of this magnitude could ensure the attack would succeed.

If this attack required dropping such powerful bombs in close proximity to civilians, meaning that civilian casualties were inevitable, the next question becomes whether the civilian damage anticipated was proportionate to the military advantage gained from the attack. While we cannot know what planners expected, according to news reports as a result of the attack 33 people were killed and nearly 200 injured, in addition to large scale destruction of property. Of course, this number of killed and injured includes Nasrallah and his officers, and Hezbollah’s headquarters and weapons bunkers were part of the buildings that were destroyed.

Proportionality is somewhat subjective. Of course people living in that area whose loved ones were killed and homes destroyed may see the attack as way out of line. But in light of the extremely high value of the military targets, Israel can make a convincing case that the inevitable, unintended damage was in fact proportionate. That Hezbollah chose to build its command bunker and missile storage under a residential area of Beirut further complicates the equation. Israel’s position is at the very least reasonable and seems in keeping with what other Western militaries would do.

Assassination or Targeted Killing

A number of countries have condemned this as an assassination or targeted killing. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the UN General Assembly he is concerned “by the now almost commonplace practice of political killings.” The government of South Africa said, “it expresses its profound concern regarding the recent escalation of extrajudicial killings in the Middle East, most notably the tragic assassination of Hassan Nasrallah.”

But this criticism completely misses the mark. First of all, the fact that Nasrallah may have been a political leader does not mean he could not be a legal military target as well. Consider for example the United States. First and foremost the president is a politician. But according to the constitution the president is also the commander in chief of the armed forces, meaning that in case of war a military strike on the White House targeting the president could well be legal. And there is no prohibition of specifically targeting a high ranking officer or leader of the enemy’s armed forces.

An extrajudicial killing is when a punishment is carried out in the absence of due process of law. However, in the context of war this does not apply. Combatants are not entitled to a judicial process before being attacked, and the justification for attacking them is because of the war, not because they are guilty of any crime.

People can of course debate whether this attack was wise or foolish, or whether the strategy behind it was good or bad. But denouncing it as crime or violation of international law is at best a stretch. Those who reflexively do so demonstrate their prejudice against Israel.