Connor Hartigang, an O'Hare Fellow and former editorial intern at America Media, writing for America Magazine summarizes an interview with Maryann Cusimano Love, associate professor of International Relations at the Catholic University of America; and Richard A. Love, a professor in the College of Information and Cyberspace at National Defense University, about the ethics in the light of international law of the pager attack in Lebanon.
People gather as a man donates blood in Beirut Sept. 18, 2024, following pager detonations across Lebanon. The pagers exploded nearly simultaneously in Lebanon and Syria in an apparent Israeli operation targeting Hezbollah's communications network, killing at least 12 people and wounding nearly 3,000. (OSV News photo/Mohamed Azakir, Reuters)
America Media interprets the church for the world and the world for the church. It is a forum for discussion of religion, society, politics and culture from a Catholic perspective.
The apparent deployment of remotely detonated explosive devices in pagers and two-way radios used by Hezbollah members in Lebanon has raised concerns over the ethics and legality of the tactic, particularly given the civilian casualties among Lebanese resulting from these explosions. No party has claimed credit for the pager attack, but Hezbollah blames Israel, and U.S. officials on background have said that Israeli intelligence intercepted a shipment of pagers and inserted explosives into them.
Maryann Cusimano Love agrees that Israel has a right to self defense, and civilians have a right to protection. Israel’s self defense actions are limited by ethics and law. After suffering a horrific terrorist attack, there is pressure to “respond in kind.” Many argue that since terrorists fight dirty, the “gloves should come off” in response.
This approach is self-defeating. You can’t argue that terrorism is wrong, that killing civilians in terrorist attacks is immoral, illegal, and that the world should come together against terrorism, while engaging in attacks that kill civilians. (Hartigan, n.d.)
Richard Love notes that Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization by the United States and many other states, but Israel and Lebanon are signatories to the 1983 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans remotely delivered mines. Many academics include booby traps in this definition, which arguably makes Israel’s use of explosives in pagers and walkie-talkies illegal.
But perhaps the most concerning aspect of the attack was in how it was targeted, since non-combatants were certainly injured in great numbers and some noncombatants were killed. A fundamental tenet of humanitarian law rests on distinction, the requirement to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and not target non-combatants with military assets.
After the September 11 attacks, the United States faced similar questions in assessing how to respond. These are challenges governments face in conducting counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations. (Hartigan, n.d.)
Maryann Cusimano Love comments that the U.S. general who was in charge of the war in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, repeatedly noted that “every civilian death diminishes our cause,” and “you can’t kill your way out” of this conflict.
If the United States were engaged in a conflict with a state adversary, an attack like this would raise a lot of questions about whether this was a targeted assassination.
Richard Love comments that by policy, the United States prohibits the assassination of political leaders in a country with which we are not at war. Whether you assassinate a political leader in times of war is largely a matter of politics because once you do that, you open your side to reprisals. (Hartigan, n.d.)
Connor Hartigan asks how might the Catholic tradition of just war theory be applied to this case?
Maryann Cusimano Love allows that Just war tradition is necessary, but insufficient, in describing the ethical terrain.
Just war tradition is institutionalized in the Geneva Conventions, in international law of war and in domestic codes of military justice. The tradition requires the right intention of seeking a positive peace, rather than revenge, but it also requires positive actions to protect noncombatants, the criteria of discrimination and proportionality.
The Biden administration has spent a lot of time and energy trying to get the two parties to negotiate an end to this conflict, so when Israelis say, “escalate to de-escalate,” they’re signaling to the Biden administration that they’re trying to get to the table.
Richard Love comments “But I don’t see any evidence of that happening. All the evidence that I’ve laid out points to an escalation that’s not going to de-escalate. There is a real fear within Washington that this thing could get out of control.”
I suspect there’s a lot of pressure within Israel to use this dominance while they still have it. We’ve seen this play out in Gaza, where I don’t believe anyone believed that the I.DF. was going to bulldoze and blow up the entire Gaza Strip before they did it. Where we are now, as far as the humanitarian crisis and catastrophe Gaza has become is almost unbelievable. (Hartigan, n.d.)
The problem is confronting Hezbollah is a far more risky proposition. It is a far more savvy adversary; it’s funded and armed by Iran and Hezbollah will be a much more difficult target. You’re not just going into the Gaza Strip; this would require an invasion of Lebanon, and you can draw on the history of how that’s played out in the past. It’s been very risky, it’s been very bloody, and it’s always resulted in an indeterminate outcome.
Richard Love asks: “But is the Israeli strategic objective here to make Hezbollah incapable of delivering their missile strikes?” Part of that would be to look at what they’ve done: on Sept. 17, they went after pagers; on Sept. 18, walkie-talkies; on Sept. 20, you have airstrikes. Are they preparing the battlespace for an invasion? Is their strategic goal to go in and conduct operations similar to what they’re doing in Gaza? Because I’m here to tell you: that is very risky. Every time the I.D.F. has tried a ground invasion in Lebanon, they’ve gotten mired down and were not able to achieve their strategic objectives. (Hartigan, n.d.)
A final observation is an invasion would be catastrophic both for the people of Lebanon, for the people of Israel who are fighting a hidden organization which has vastly greater capabilities than Hamas. So don’t fall under the illusion that the next step for Israel is just to replicate what they did in the Gaza Strip. It will be a far greater, bloodier and riskier campaign.
Who’s standing behind Hezbollah? Iran.
And who’s standing behind Iran? Russia.
References
Hartigan, C. (n.d.). Did Israel’s pager attack break international law? America Magazine | The Jesuit Review of Faith & Culture. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2024/09/26/maryann-cusimano-love-richard-love-israel-lebanon-pager-explosions
No comments:
Post a Comment