Israel’s escalation in Lebanon: quid iuris?

Israel and Hezbollah – a long-standing conflict 

The current flare-up in violence between Israel and Hezbollah is just the latest chapter in a long and bitter history of conflict, with Hamas’ attack on Israel on the 7th of October serving as a catalyst. Hezbollah, seeking to bolster its Palestinian ally, initiated its own assaults against Israeli positions, leading to immediate and brutal retaliation from Israel. The two parties have been trading attacks across the southern Lebanese border for nearly a year.

While this blog focuses on the IHL aspects of the Israeli actions and analyses the Swiss response thereto, this does not imply that the Hezbollah may not also have IHL responsibilities to face or that the Swiss response to Hezbollah actions is not equally deserving of analysis.

What are Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law? 

For over a year, Israel has been invoking its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, while carrying out its attacks on Gaza. As UN experts have pointed to Israel’s increasing disregard for international law in Lebanon, Netanyahu’s government is continuing with the same rhetoric. 

This principle must be weighed against the conditions of necessity and proportionality. Israel has repeatedly justified its military campaigns by pointing to the need to neutralise a terrorist threat. However, international law is clear that self-defense does not grant a carte blanche for mass destruction, particularly when it results in large-scale civilian deaths and displacement.

The scale of the Israeli airstrikes raises serious questions about the legality of these actions under international law. The principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law (IHL) demands that any military action must weigh the military advantage gained against the harm caused to civilians. Israel’s continued bombardment of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, including residential buildings, medical facilities, critical infrastructure, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon headquarters and non-profit-organisations suggests a disregard for this key principle. 

Although Israel continues to assert that it issues warnings to the population to evacuate their homes and avoid buildings allegedly used by Hezbollah, these fall short of international law requirements, as they must be effective, giving civilians a genuine opportunity to find safe shelter elsewhere. However, an analysis by Amnesty International shows that these warnings have been misleading and inadequate. 

In any event, under IHL, the principle of distinction under the Geneva Conventions, according to which the parties to a conflict must distinguish between military and civilian targets, continues to apply, even when civilians remain in the zone of operations after a warning has been issued. Despite claims of precision targeting, Israel’s operations have consistently resulted in large-scale civilian casualties. Further, the legality of the recent bombardment of branches of Qard-al-Hassan, a non-profit association affiliated with Hezbollah serving as an economic lifeline for Lebanese civilians is being questioned, as these may not fall under the definition of military objects. While civilian harm keeps being dismissed as “collateral damage,” such harm has become the defining feature of Israel’s operations. 

Switzerland’s deafening silence 

Ignazio Cassis’ foreign policy in the Middle East has found many critics, including his predecessors, Federal Councilors Micheline Calmy Rey and Joseph Deiss, who see it as incoherent and laden with double standards. 

While Cassis has pledged to promote IHL during Switzerland’s mandate within the UN Security Council, and further reiterated the importance of respecting the Geneva Conventions, during the 75th anniversary of these back in August, his lack of clear positioning vis-à-vis Israel leaves one puzzled. 

Over the past year, Swiss foreign policy on the Middle East has been failing these promises. While Switzerland has undermined its position as a mediator, by officially designating Hamas as a terrorist organisation, even more concerning was the Parliament’s decision to halt its funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a critical lifeline for Palestinians in dire need of humanitarian assistance. While many other nations have reinstated their funding, Switzerland continues to lag behind. 

The official declarations from Switzerland remain limited to ’deploring’ the situation and ’calling on all parties’ to protect of civilians and respect humanitarian law. However, it never formulated a clear condemnation or critique towards Israel. It is therefore unsurprising that, while Israel escalates the situation in Lebanon, Switzerland once again remains silent. 

As Switzerland took up the presidency of the UN Security Council at the beginning of October, it would have been an opportunity to put forward its humanitarian agenda. While its quiet diplomacy work ‘behind the scenes’ over the past month is undisputed, it failed however yet again to clearly condemn Israeli violations of international law in the Middle East. This, all the while international bodies find war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel.