A Return to Targeted Assassinations?
Israel took out 3 senior leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, resulting in this most recent rocket barrage against Israel. But why? And was it legal?
Since yesterday, over 800 rockets have been fired at Israel. Although the southern part of the country generally bears the brunt of it, this time Tel Aviv and surrounding areas were also targeted, not that it’s acceptable for any part of the country to be under attack. Unfortunately, just a few hours ago, a man was killed by a rocket in Rehovot, southeast of Tel Aviv. Yesterday, we hid in staircases as the air raid sirens went off and as I write now, I can hear the explosions going off in the background.
This is a particularly intense round of fighting, the fiercest since August 2022 (okay, not that long ago). As in August, this time around it’s the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a more extreme terror group in the Gaza Strip. They are less organized, smaller, and weaker than Hamas, who controls Gaza.
PIJ is also much closer aligned with Iran than Hamas is. Hamas maintains its independence from Iranian pressure for the most part but has connections with Tehran. PIJ, on the other hand, is heavily influenced by Iran.
Over Passover, Hamas and PIJ shot rockets at Israel, prompting Israel to return fire. Passover this year was particularly violent, with rockets from Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, and two terror attacks killing four people. Many felt that Israel’s response to these attacks were symbolic in nature and failed to inflict any pain on its enemies, so much so that more hawkish members of the government boycotted Knesset committees in response to what they saw as weak policies in the face of terror.
There’s no doubt that a key part of Israel’s national security strategy is deterrence. Unfortunately, our enemies perceive our domestic internal strife as weakness and sense opportunities to attack. That’s likely what was behind the bombing in Megiddo two months ago: Hezbollah testing the waters to see what they can get away with.
As I wrote then, Israel’s response to the rocket attacks over Pesach didn’t necessarily reinforce Israel’s deterrence. To some, the weak response could be understood as more weakness.
And then came last week. Khader Adnan, a PIJ leader, died in Israeli prison after an 87 day hunger strike in which Adnan refused to eat or receive medical attention in protest of his arrest. As a result, PIJ fired over 100 rockets into Israel. Israel, in return, hit Hamas targets, hoping they’d pressure PIJ to stop the rocket fire.
Plans had been drawn up for some time to hit PIJ leadership hard, but after last week, Israel knew it needed to do something to restore deterrence.
Tuesday, May 9th
Israeli citizens awoke Tuesday morning to countless notifications on their phones detailing the targeted assassinations of three senior PIJ members. Israel has long used targeted assassinations as a method of combating terrorism. (For a fascinating book on it, I highly recommend Rise and Kill First, though I can’t vouch for the accuracy of everything.) But in recent years, that policy has slowed down, except for last August, when Israel similarly eliminated PIJ leaders.
Of course, PIJ was going to respond. The IDF was girding for several days of fighting if they could keep Hamas out of it, longer if they couldn’t. Despite the rhetoric from Hamas leadership, so far, they have not participated in firing rockets at Israel. It has solely been PIJ, who didn’t respond for well over 24 hours as it waited to coordinate a response with Hamas and overcame the shock.
Israel and PIJ have been engaged in a tit-for-tat battle since. On Tuesday, PIJ tried to launch several attacks against Israel, but the IDF killed the attackers before they could even launch their weapons. Following the ensuing rocket barrage, the IDF eliminated several more PIJ leaders and targeted terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. It seems that everything is going according to plan.
Was it Worth it?
At this moment in time, I believe most Israelis would say yes. Israel needed to restore its deterrence and send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Despite Israel’s internal division, the IDF is strong, and so is its will to defend the country. PIJ suffered a significant setback in their leadership campaign and the IDF showed that last August’s targeted killings of its leadership is here to stay.
While in theory that should restore some deterrence, PIJ will take the approach of next man up and fill the ranks, even if it may take some time. They’ll be back to a similar strength soon enough. PIJ is also the smallest and weakest of Israel’s foes: Israel’s wins in this battle may not translate to conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, who are much more worthy adversaries, especially Hezbollah.
All in all, so far, this has been an operational success for the IDF, with widespread support from all the parties in the coalition and even the main opposition parties, notwithstanding the fact that Bibi and Defense Minister Gallant made the call to attack alone without consulting the security cabinet. Nevertheless, whether or not deterrence has been restored will be answered on the battlefield. If we’re attacked in the future, maybe this operation wasn’t as successful as we had hoped it would be.
The question now is how does it end? Ceasefire talks mediated via Egypt have repeatedly broken down. Left-wing members of the Knesset are going to start questioning whether we’re gaining more than we’re losing at this point, and that’s fair. If we don’t constantly question our operations, there’s more room for group think, which is dangerous in situations like these. The IDF’s initial attack was fierce, quick, and immensely successful, and the cost of the initial barrage of rockets was certainly worth it. But how does it end? One side needs to back down, and neither seems willing to.
The IDF and political establishment must ensure that the operational success scored two days ago is secured and not eroded by events that happen afterwards.
But was it Legal?
Along with the three PIJ terrorists who were killed in the initial strike Tuesday morning were 10 civilians, including four children. Amongst these 10 were family members of the three PIJ operatives, who were asleep at the time. While we’ve spoken about the operational success of the IDF and that the initial strike was certainly worth it, did the IDF act legally? Did it violate international humanitarian law (IHL), the laws that govern armed conflict?
IHL is somewhat outdated. Written after World War 2, and although it has been updated since, IHL has many gray areas when it comes to asymmetric threats, like the ones Israel faces from terror organizations. Even defining who is a participant in war (a “combatant”) under international law is complex at best, to the point that the Israeli Supreme Court refers to terrorists as “unlawful combatants,” creating a new category that didn’t previously exist.
In a ruling in 2006, Israel’s Supreme Court declared that Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations was not illegal—rather that every strike needed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The main focus of the Court’s ruling was the concept of proportionality: In every operation in which innocent lives may be killed, the civilian damage must be proportionate to the military objective.
How do we know if a strike is proportionate? According to the Court, an “attack is proportionate if the benefit stemming from the attainment of the proper military objective is proportionate to the damage caused to innocent civilians harmed by it. That is a values based test.” In other words, it’s mostly subjective and up to the military and political leaders to ensure they’re upholding international humanitarian law.
An assessment must be carried out before every strike. The IDF does it routinely, striving to minimize civilian casualties. Today, they released footage of the Israel Air Force calling off a strike due to the presence of children, and this certainly wasn’t a first for that.
It’s unfortunate that 10 civilians were killed in the strikes. The IDF should always try as much as they can to minimize civilian casualties while balancing Israel’s legitimate security needs. But the top brass made the decision that this strike was proportionate to Israel’s security needs and likely saved Israeli lives in the future.
We’ll often read in the media about strikes being legal or illegal, proportionate or disproportionate. Different sources will use varying terminology precisely because international humanitarian law is so imprecise and vague that it’s open to debate.
The next time you read about Israel’s response being illegal because of disproportionate force, remember that it’s a values test. There’s no clear definition of what’s illegal, what’s proportionate, and heck, who is even a participant in the war; it’s mostly subjective. Let’s just hope that the rockets stop soon and peace comes not too far after that, even if it’s a long shot.
And thank God for the iron dome!
