Israel’s Pager Attack: A Justified Example of Masterful Subterfuge
Liam Knotek
Staff Writer
On September 17, sophisticated attacks targeting the terrorist organization, Hezbollah, utilizing exploding pagers occurred, followed by a similar attack with walkie-talkies on the 18. Although Israel has not claimed responsibility for these attacks, a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly says Israel notified Washington that they carried out the attacks, reports NPR. The explosions mostly occurred within Lebanon and aimed to cause physical and psychological damage.
According to Amnesty International, as of September 20, the attacks have injured more than 2,931 people and killed at least 37, including 4 civilians. Many question whether these attacks violated international law, but Israel’s attack was a completely justified operation that is part of the ongoing conflict between Israel and those bent on its destruction.
Many support the act of subterfuge supposedly carried out by Israel. John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point told Newsweek that “The operation passes all fundamental laws of war.”In addition, Eugene Kontorovich, an international law expert, stated, “Those protesting the attack on Hezbollah cell phones would have been crying over bombs placed on Nazi Germany’s train tracks,” per The Daily Wire.
Others disagree. The main qualms that critics have with the pager attack relate to Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. On the surface, this provision prohibits the use of deceptive traps that are in the form of objects likely to be used by citizens. Some argue these attacks were indiscriminate, as there was no way of knowing where these bombs would detonate or who they would be distributed to. Critics point to cases of bombs going off in homes, cars, grocery stores, and cafes reports the Associated Press.
The critics do not paint the whole picture. Paragraph 2 of Article 7 prohibits the use of objects specifically designed and constructed as traps that appear normal and harmless. These pagers were not constructed, but modified for this purpose, then bought by terrorists, to be used by terrorists, states The Daily Wire. Paragraph 3 goes on to say that the object must be in close vicinity of a military target. Considering pagers are meant to be kept on your person, I would say the attack fulfills this condition.
The next issue is whether the attack fulfills the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Necessity permits actions necessary to fulfill military purposes. Hezbollah, recognized as a terrorist organization by several countries including the U.S., is deeply anti-Israel and called for the Israeli state’s destruction in their 1985 manifesto, states the Council on Foreign Relations. They have also supported Hamas’ war with Israel since its beginning, claiming to be in direct contact with Hamas leadership on October 7, 2023, and barraging Israel with rockets ever since then, reports Reuters. It is safe to say that Hezbollah represents a clear and present danger to Israel, worthy of military action.
Distinction requires parties to distinguish between military and civilian objectives. According to Article 52 of the Additional Protocols to Geneva Convention I, military targets are “limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Under this article, there should be no disagreement that pagers issued by a terrorist organization to terrorists for the purpose of communication between terrorists constitutes a definite military target.
Proportionality requires the loss of civilian life to be acceptable in relation to the military goals achieved. Not only did the pager attacks take around 1,500 Hezbollah fighters out of action as reported by The Times of Israel, but it also had major effects on their communications capabilities. In February, Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, ordered all supporters to get rid of their phones, fearing Israel would use them for tracking and targeted assassinations, reports Reuters. The reason Hezbollah switched to pagers is because they thought the low-tech devices would prevent Israel from tracking communications. Not only did the attacks take out Hezbollah’s last form of communication, but the psychological effect cannot be underestimated. The fact that Israel still managed an attack of this level utilizing the very devices Hezbollah thought would help keep them safer is certain to damage morale. Considering most casualties were people associated with Hezbollah, and the military advantages achieved with this operation, this attack meets the standard of proportionality.
Although many criticize the attack carried out on Hezbollah, likely by Israel, it fulfills the principles of the Law of War, and contrary to the opinions of many, does not violate Article 7 of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The attacks were a masterful example of subterfuge and completely justified.
Image courtesy of Getty Images
