Initial amazement at Israel’s “beeper attack,” in which Hezbollah pagers exploded on thousands of their operatives, has quickly turned into accusation of war crimes. Media reports have shifted from speculation on how Israel accomplished such a feat to human rights advocates proclaiming that these “terrifying” mini-bombings constituted “illegal,” “indiscriminate,” “disproportional,” and “unlawful” use of weapons against “illegitimate targets.” Former Secretary of Defense and CIA director Leon Panetta even condemned them as a “form of terrorism.” These misguided accusations should alarm anyone concerned with the ability of the West to fight wars against terrorist organizations.
The full details of the attack are not yet fully known. Initial reports from Lebanon indicated that three dozen were killed and thousands more wounded. A recent Reuters report suggested that 1,500 Hezbollah fighters were no longer able to fight. According to the most extensive investigation by Israel’s Channel 12 news, Israeli and foreign sources asserted that each of the pagers was individually detonated. Attackers knew who was targeted, their location, and whether others were likely in proximity. Even if that was not always the case, videos widely circulated on social media show operatives being struck in fruit stores or supermarkets while nearby cashiers escape unscathed.
Such precision would explain why there have been few reports of widespread civilian casualties, something that Hezbollah propaganda would have surely promoted had this occurred. Yes, in at least one tragic circumstance, a nine-year old girl was reportedly killed after she picked up her father’s beeper. It’s fair to assume that there were other such stories. These sad but apparently exceptional incidents support the contention that the explosions were largely contained to their intended targets.
This being the case, hasty accusations of war crimes are nonsense. Israel’s targeting of both the operatives and their communication devices conforms to major principles of the laws of war. Firstly, it fulfills the requirements of necessity that limit military activity to achieving legitimate war aims. By taking out Hezbollah’s primary communicative methods, Israel undermined the group’s ability to mobilize its operatives quickly. Many are now also wounded, further limiting Hezbollah’s response to subsequent Israeli air strikes.
Secondly, it was consistent with the principle of distinction, which requires targeting military objectives. Belligerents and their communication devices are military targets. Israel undermined Hezbollah’s capabilities through this cutting-edge maneuver.
Finally, the operation was not disproportionate: the amount of regrettable, unintended harm to noncombatants was not excessive relative to the concrete military gains achieved. Hezbollah blurs the combatant/noncombatant distinction by having its operatives wear plain clothing and operate in civilian settings. The Israeli operation was remarkable in how much it accomplished with relatively minimal harm to the surrounding noncombatants.
A different bizarre accusation is that Israel violated Amended Protocol II, a 1996 treaty that bans booby-traps. The protocol was created to limit mines and other similar devices that unexpectedly explode on noncombatants. Article Seven prohibits “the use of booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.” If you would booby-trap every beeper and cellphone in Lebanon, then many civilians would get hurt by thinking these were standard harmless objects. Such a tactic would be morally problematic. Yet Israel’s operation was limited to the communication devices distributed to the terror group’s operatives. These military devices could have been licitly targeted had they been in an airport warehouse awaiting delivery. So, too, it is legitimate to explode these tools after distribution when they were reasonably presumed to be in the hands of terrorists awaiting instructions.
Yet perhaps the most disturbing claim, offered by the prominent philosopher Michael Walzer, was that it was illegitimate for Israel to target these operatives because at that moment, they weren’t engaging in warfare. In Walzer’s words, “They had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged.” While they were in fruit shops or cafes, the argument goes, the operatives are noncombatants, not legitimate military targets.
This criticism is both misinformed and dangerous. For starters, it’s clear that some of these operatives were “at work” in their terror activity. Others might have been on a break or awaiting assignment. At any moment, they could’ve been notified to engage. That is, after all, the reason they had the beepers in the first place. Combatants—whether in uniform or street clothes—don’t need to be causing direct harm to their enemy at every given moment in order to benefit directly the active and ongoing military effort of their army. Their functional contributions to Hezbollah’s ongoing war efforts make them culpable. They contribute to the wider nexus of the military threat, particularly with their ability to join the Hezbollah attack immediately. These are combatants who can be targeted.
The alternative view, advocated by Israel’s critics, would allow these “civilians” to go in and out of fighting with impunity. During a war, terrorists could purposely blur the combatant/noncombatant distinction to advance their military goals. This would not only leave Israeli citizens vulnerable to attack but also further endanger Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah operatives blend in.
Hezbollah is arguably the most powerful nonstate actor in the world. If the world is going to take the threat of terrorist groups seriously, it must clearly assert: all terrorist operatives are legitimate targets during an ongoing war. Who knows? Perhaps that was the message that appeared on the beepers before they exploded.
Photo by Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images