The news regarding Israel's impending implementation of a nationwide "emergency drill" due to the threat of attack that Hezbollah and the countries that back that terrorist group (namely Syria and Iran) pose brings up both the issue of the influence that terrorists, as non-state actors, have on actual state actors and whether or not a war between Israel and those countries/Hezbollah would constitute jus ad bellum.
Israel, according to its Infrastructure Minister, Benyamin Ben Eliezer, feels it has been provoked by Iran's support of Hezbollah and its alliance with Syria, suggesting that it expects an attack by either Iran (possibly indirectly through Hezbollah) may occur in the near future, in which case Israel vows to destroy Iran. This situation illustrates the ability of a state-sponsored terrorist group to have serious influence on the politics of both its supporting country as well as the country that it terrorizes; by actively allying itself with Hezbollah, Iran made its intentions toward Israel slightly more transparent and now risks coming under attack by Israel if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Thus, a non-state actor will again be a large part of causing a war (a previous example being Al-Qaeda's involvement in the U.S.'s inception of its War on Terror), proving that non-state actors are, in fact, capable of influencing international politics, at least in the short term.
Upon consideration of the situation, it is interesting to think about whether or not such a war (between Israel and Hezbollah) would constitute jus ad bellum. After careful examination, I think it would, at least in Israel's case. First of all, Israel would both be practicing self-defense (it has vowed to strike only if it is struck first) as well as righting a wrong (given the Second Lebanon War in 2006 involving Hezbollah attacking Israel and vice versa). Second, as a sovereign state, ISrael most certainly has the proper authority to go to war. Since it would merely be defending itself, Israel would also have the right intentions needed to go to war, and since its Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, claims that Israel is willing to have peace talks with Syria and does not wish to deal with violence, war with Hezbollah (which would most likely entangle Iran and Syria) would be a last resort strategy. Finally, Ben Eliezer believes that Iran will not readily attack (at least not directly) Israel due to its knowledge of the strength of Israel's military/its vow to utterly destroy Iran if anything happens, indicating that Israel would also meet the requirement of reasonableness of success. However, Hezbollah would not have jus ad bellum if it were to incite war with Israel: as a terrorist group, it is not a state actor and therefore does not have the proper authority to go to war, nor would it be defending itself, as there is really no "self" (state) to defend.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment