Washington, DC – The explosions of wireless communications devices in Lebanon this week, part of a series of attacks widely believed to have been carried out by Israel, likely violate the laws of war, experts say.
This includes the possible violation of the prohibitions on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, as the explosions killed dozens of people and injured thousands more.
“You’re not supposed to booby-trap objects that civilians are likely to pick up and use, or objects that are typically associated with normal civilian use,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, a lawyer and director of the U.S.-based human rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).
“That’s exactly why we’ve seen the devastation we’re seeing in Lebanon,” she told Tel Aviv Tribune. “Anyone can pick up one of these beepers. We have no idea who has them, or whether or not they’re legitimate military targets.”
Pagers, walkie-talkies, cell phones and other devices apparently associated with members of the Lebanese group Hezbollah exploded in two waves of attacks across Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Hezbollah immediately accused Israel of being responsible for the attacks, but the Israeli military has yet to comment.
Although many details of the explosions remain unclear, they caused devastation across Lebanon: at least 32 people were killed, including two children and a doctor, and more than 3,000 others were injured.
The series of simultaneous explosions also caused scenes of panic in the country of more than five million people, with medical centres dealing with an influx of injured people and residents rushing into the streets, terrified and confused.
“Intrinsically indiscriminate”
Although Israel has not confirmed its involvement in this week’s attacks, it generally maintains that its military operations are justified as part of a fight against “terrorism.”
Israel’s supporters celebrated the explosions in Lebanon, calling them “precise,” but the blasts took place around civilians – at funerals and in residential buildings, grocery stores and hair salons, among other places.
International humanitarian law (IHL) – a set of rules set out in global treaties designed to protect non-combatants during armed conflict – prohibits attacks that are “not directed against a specific military objective.”
Whitson said the high number of casualties from these attacks demonstrates that IEDs are “inherently indiscriminate.”
“They cannot be directed at a specific military target, and it is very clear from what we have seen and what was completely predictable, that they would harm military targets and civilians indiscriminately,” she told Tel Aviv Tribune.
Whitson added that the explosions were a “deliberate decision by Israel” to create chaos in Lebanon. “This is exactly why booby traps targeting ordinary civilian objects are illegal – because they cause not only physical harm and injury, but also psychological and emotional harm.”
Huwaida Arraf, a US-based human rights lawyer, echoed Whitson’s remarks, saying the explosions violated the ban on indiscriminate attacks as well as the ban on IEDs associated with civilian use.
The latter limit is set out in the 1996 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices – a UN treaty.
So far, two children have been killed as attacks continue in Lebanon. A total of 22 children have been killed since October and more than 200 have been injured. #Children must be protected under international humanitarian law at all times. pic.twitter.com/AxZpqYCQUZ
— UNICEF Lebanon (@UNICEFLebanon) September 18, 2024
“It is prohibited to use booby traps or other devices in the form of portable objects that appear harmless but are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive materials,” the protocol states.
According to Arraf, the only way to consider these attacks legal would be to take measures to protect civilians and ensure that the explosions only hit legitimate military targets.
But the devices exploded across Lebanon without warning.
“Some apologists for Israel argue that this was not an indiscriminate attack but rather a very targeted one,” Arraf told Tel Aviv Tribune.
“As we know, these bombs exploded in supermarkets and other public places. If the target was the Lebanese civilian population, then sure. But that doesn’t make it any less illegal and in fact fits the classic definition of state terrorism.”
While Hezbollah has a military wing engaged in cross-border clashes with Israel since the outbreak of war in Gaza last October, it is also a political group with affiliated organizations that provide social services.
According to Lebanese media, some of the explosions have hit Hezbollah members who are not fighters. For example, Tuesday’s attack killed a doctor who worked at Al Rassoul Al Azam hospital, which is linked to charities associated with Hezbollah.
Arraf said civil servants should be treated as civilians under international humanitarian law unless they are taking part in military operations. “Would anyone suggest that all Israelis affiliated with any party in the Israeli government are legitimate targets?”
Proportionality
On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch said the restrictions on booby traps were aimed at preventing the kind of devastation Lebanon is experiencing following this week’s explosions.
“The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawful and indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and would therefore strike military targets and civilians indiscriminately,” Lama Fakih, the group’s Middle East director, said in a statement.
Fakih also called for an urgent and impartial investigation into these incidents.
Craig Martin, a professor at Washington University School of Law in the United States, was less categorical in his assessment of the attacks.
But he said they potentially violated some provisions of IHL, including the principle of proportionality and the precaution to avoid harming civilians.
Proportionality is the concept that any harm caused to civilians by military action must not be excessive in relation to “the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
“If you don’t know where each of these explosives are, and who – in fact – is going to be injured, it’s difficult to see how a very accurate assessment of proportionality could have been undertaken, either collectively or in relation to each of these individual attacks,” Martin told Tel Aviv Tribune.
He added that it was unclear what the strategic objective of the attack was.
Hezbollah continued its attacks on military bases in northern Israel on Wednesday and the explosions did not appear to have a major effect on its ability to operate.
Beyond the direct injuries and terror experienced by civilians across Lebanon, Martin said the “predictable” effects of the explosions on Lebanon’s health system should also figure into discussions about their potential disproportionality.
“The other harm – which is absolutely a concrete harm – that should be taken into account in the proportionality analysis is the extent to which the attacks have crippled the emergency medical infrastructure in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon,” he said.
“I suspect that further research will show that people who were not even injured in the attack suffered because of what was happening in the hospitals.”
