Lebanon was subject to a series of terror attacks targeting communication devices on Sept. 17 and 18. The covert operation was reportedly put in motion five months ago. At least 32 people were killed, and thousands have been injured by the detonation of explosives planted in pagers on Tuesday and in walkie-talkies on Wednesday. At least one of Wednesday’s explosives detonated as a crowd gathered for the funeral of four victims from Tuesday’s bombing. Fatima Abdullah (9) and Bilal Kanj (3) were the two youngest of the 32 confirmed deaths.
The pagers in Tuesday’s attack emitted a ringing noise before exploding, encouraging many to lift the device out of their pocket to their face or ear. An ophthalmologist at the Mount Lebanon University Hospital told the BBC he removed more eyes in the 24 hours after the attack than he had in 25 years of practice. Between 60 and 70 percent of his patients had at least one eye removed.
Western reactions to the attacks have been ripe with pathetic excuses and sheer cruelty. What would’ve been called a terrorist attack if implemented by any other country in the Levant was instead a testament to Israeli sophistication and strength. Commentator David Frum described it as the “most precisely targeted anti-terrorist operation in the history of the world.” The New York Times columnist David French was in agreement, writing that the bombs represented “one of the most precisely targeted strikes in the history of warfare.” While reports have indicated Israel is losing to Hamas, the National Review used the terror attacks on Lebanon as an attempt to revive Israel’s image with their article titled “Israel is Getting Its Mojo Back.”
Pro-Israel voices are using the same excuses used for the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli Defense Forces. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman claimed the “precise military operation” only harmed civilians because of Hezbollah’s use of “human shields.” The IDF itself pushed the “human shield” narrative after the attacks, telling Reuters it was Israel’s way of bringing “security to northern Israel.” Many Zionists argue the existence of militia groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in civilian areas makes them responsible for deaths attributed to Israeli aggression. This playbook ignores that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and it is impossible to leave while the attack in Lebanon was remarkably imprecise and without clear strategic goals.
Despite pro-Israel voices touting its precision, the IDF attacks on supposed Hezbollah members were highly speculative. There was no way the IDF could have known who was holding the pagers that were imported five months earlier, and even if the devices were only being held by Hezbollah members, several factors make these attacks direct violations of international humanitarian law.
For one, Israeli intelligence had no way of knowing where their targets would be at that moment. Bombs do not discriminate — were Hezbollah’s members to be at the grocery store or home with their children, collateral damage was inevitable. Israeli intelligence would be aware of this fact, but as Gaza has shown, they are uninterested in preventing civilian casualties. The United Nations report detailing the status of Lebanon following the Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 cites the IDF’s targeting of civilian infrastructure as rampant. The report claims the IDF justified the attacks “by alleging that [civilian infrastructure] might be used by Hezbollah.” Israeli military strategy has not changed since 2006 — civilian collateral is justified when targeting communication infrastructure in Lebanon. Attacks “not directed at a specific military objective” are prohibited under international humanitarian law. Huwaida Arraf, a U.S. human rights attorney, claims the attacks violated laws against indiscriminate attacks as well as the ban on booby-trapping civilian objects laid out in the U.N.’s 1996 “Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices.”
Secondly, Hezbollah is a political party as well as a militia. To not differentiate the administrative and military personnel in Hezbollah is a precedent the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, set when murdering Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas’ political bureau, but should not be accepted as a new norm.
Lastly, former senior intelligence officers and military analysts conveyed to The New York Times that there was no clear strategy or goal. Axios reports the walkie-talkie explosions on Wednesday were intended to create paranoia in Hezbollah’s ranks. Although Hezbollah members were killed, the psychological damage to Lebanese civilians is evident — it won’t just be Hezbollah members worried about receiving that next text. Human rights lawyer Sarah Leah Whitson notes psychological distress is a key factor as to why booby-trapping devices, or objects associated with civilian use, have been made illegal.
Western political discourse surrounding the Middle East has revolved around the word “terrorist” — anything short of unconditional support for atrocities committed against entire countries deemed “terrorist” gets you branded as a terrorist sympathizer. We see this in Gaza and the West Bank — students outraged over the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians are labeled “terrorist” supporters. Meanwhile, the United States has no qualms about settler terrorists violently forcing Palestinians out of their homes. The same goes for Lebanon — there is no computation of innocent life because being in Lebanon altogether makes you a “terrorist” while Israeli terrorist aggression against Lebanese civilians is exonerated in the name of self-defense.
While not surprising, we must repeatedly call out this double standard. As Malcolm X famously wrote in his 1965 autobiography, “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” We can’t let the dehumanization of Arab civilians as “terrorists” continue as Israeli terrorism goes lauded.
Nathan Sommer is a senior double-majoring in history and Latin American and Caribbean studies.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.