If you detonate a bomb in the middle of a crowded market, striking fear into the hearts of everyone in the city, what does that make you? The answer is, or should be, obvious: a terrorist. By any reasonable definition, Israel has committed a major act of terrorism in Lebanon and Syria—or rather, two of them in quick succession, setting off waves of explosions on September 17 and 18. Even Leon Panetta, the former director of the CIA under President Barack Obama, says that Israel’s actions constitute a “war of terror,” and says there is no question that the word “terrorism” applies. Michael Walzer, the leading theorist of “just war” and a supporter of Israel’s war against Hamas, says the pager “terrorist attacks” have “no place in a just war” and are very likely a war crime. Now, for the sake of the world’s continued security, there have to be consequences. 

By now, you’ve probably seen plenty of reporting about the explosions that shook Beirut and other Lebanese cities, along with eastern Syria, last week. On September 17, hundreds of pagers belonging to members of Hezbollah exploded across the two countries—in people’s hands, in their pockets, and everywhere else you could imagine. One of the blasts was even caught on CCTV, and the footage is chilling: a man is standing in a grocery store, looking at crates of fruit, when an explosion erupts from his side. He falls limp to the ground, as everyone around him screams and runs away. The same thing—or worse—happened to hundreds of others. 

According to U.S. officials who were briefed on the attacks, these blasts were the result of a covert operation by Israeli intelligence agents. The Israelis reportedly created an entire shell company to manufacture pagers with small amounts of PETN, a high explosive similar to nitroglycerin, and distributed them to Hezbollah and its allies. The devices were designed so that Israel could trigger them remotely whenever it chose—and on September 17, they did exactly that. 

In the first wave of explosions, the BBC reports that at least 12 people were killed and around 2,800 were wounded. Medical centers were overwhelmed, as many of the victims required surgery and even amputations. Lebanese writer and former diplomat Tracy Chamoun describes the aftermath:

All hell broke loose as they started to scramble to take these people to hospital. The cars were just pushed aside as motorbikes and cars came through with people covered in blood. […] One of the injured men who I saw had his eye blown out. Another one had half of his face ripped off.

According to Lebanese health officials, two children—eight and 11 years old, respectively—were among the 12 dead, along with at least four healthcare workers in southern Beirut. (For those keeping count at home, that’s six civilian deaths from 12 total, or exactly half.) But Israel wasn’t finished. On Wednesday, they set off a second wave of explosions, blowing up walkie-talkies that had been booby-trapped in the same way. This time at least 25 people were killed and another 600 injured, bringing the death count so far to 37—and that may not be the final number. Even funerals for the people killed on September 17, where “mothers and children” were in attendance, were interrupted by new explosions on September 18.

In the aftermath, the reaction from some U.S. politicians and media figures—incredible as it may seem—has been to praise these bombings. In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) said that “In fact, if anything, I love it,” praising Israel for “targeting and eliminating membership and leadership of Hezbollah” and having “demonstrated that they will not allow terrorists not to be held accountable.” In Newsweek, three writers teamed up to argue that the attacks were “the most audacious and unprecedented counter-terrorism precision attack in military history, and one that was entirely justified and in full accordance with international law.” In The Hill, Alan Dershowitz took a similar angle, arguing that the bombings were “legal under the laws of war” because the level of collateral damage was “proportional” in terms of combatant to non-combatant deaths. The unifying idea in all these cases is that the pager and radio explosions were precise—that they were, in essence, a surgical strike that took out Hezbollah fighters and left others largely unscathed. 

This idea is entirely false. In the first place, it’s important to remember that Hezbollah is a civilian political party as well as a militant organization. Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanese parliament, duly elected. Just because you are a member of Hezbollah does not mean you are an armed militant, and thus a legitimate military target. The reverse is also true: just because you distribute handheld bombs to “members of Hezbollah” and detonate them, that does not mean you won’t end up killing civilians. In fact, several outlets have reported that the sabotaged pagers belonged to civilians as well as actual Hezbollah fighters, and were used by a “wide network of people, including administrators, medical workers, paramedics, [and] media workers.” But that’s only part of the picture. Even if it were true that Israel distributed the hidden bombs exclusively to armed combatants, they had no way of knowing what would happen to them after that. There were hundreds of the devices, any of which could have been sold, stolen, given away, or lost and picked up by a child. And even in the best-case scenario for Israel, if the devices had been held exclusively by militants at the time of detonation, the collateral damage would still be unacceptable. As Edward Snowden points out, “They blew up countless numbers of people who were driving (meaning cars out of control), shopping (your children are in the stroller standing behind him in the checkout line), et cetera. Indistinguishable from terrorism.” In other words, when Israeli agents pressed the button on September 17, they had no way of knowing what the civilian death toll would be. The act was not “precise,” but haphazard and reckless. They did it anyway.

Needless to say, Hezbollah has been linked to various acts of terrorism (successful or attempted) itself over the years. But even defending oneself against terrorists, as Israeli leaders would doubtless characterize their actions, cannot justify using terrorist tactics in return. (Perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu and Co. skipped “two wrongs don’t make a right” day in kindergarten. It would explain a lot.) Importantly, the New York Times notes that “the explosions had little strategic purpose,” as Israel is “hardly about to force Hezbollah’s leaders to give up a cause they have battled over for four decades” simply by blowing up pagers and walkie-talkies belonging to its rank-and-file members. Instead, writer David E. Sanger says that “the chief effect is psychological,” as this kind of attack “makes everyone fearful that ordinary devices can become an instant source of injury or death. It gnaws at the psyche.” In other words, it creates terror. It is terroristic in nature. Sanger doesn’t call it that, opting for the word “sabotage” instead, but he does mention that “there is nothing new about sabotaging phones or planting bombs: Terrorists and spy agencies have done that for decades,” tacitly admitting that Israel’s actions are no different from those of prior “terrorists.” Meanwhile, the Independent reports that ordinary Lebanese people are now terrified of their household electronics, “removing the SIM cards and batteries from their devices amid fears they could effectively be turned into bombs.” They have good reason to be scared. Israel and its leadership have demonstrated that they would kill them in a heartbeat, if they believed it served some strategic goal. 

So much for the idea of a “precision attack.” But what about the idea that the bombings were “legal”? This, too, falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. In fact, there are multiple international laws that specifically forbid what Israel has done. As Nikki McCann Ramirez points out for Rolling Stone, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (not the catchiest name) bans “booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.” That language is completely unambiguous. Pagers and walkie-talkies would both qualify as “apparently harmless portable objects,” and Israel is a party to the Convention. Likewise, Rule 80 of customary international humanitarian law, as recorded by the Red Cross, forbids “booby-traps associated with objects in normal civilian daily use” or “objects that are likely to attract civilians.” Incredibly, Mr. Dershowitz admits in his op-ed that Israel has been “criticized” for “violating the laws of war”—but in pretending the charge is baseless, he focuses mainly on the nebulous issue of “proportionality,” and fails to mention what international law says specifically about using civilian objects as weapons of war. If he did so, Israel’s guilt would be obvious.  

International law exists for a reason. It serves as a safeguard against humanity’s worst and most violent impulses, setting limits on the horrors modern military technology can be used to unleash. Much of it was created in the aftermath of World War II, to ensure that nothing like the atrocities of Nazi Germany could ever happen again. In that sense, it’s one of the best things we’ve ever done as a species. To the extent that international humanitarian laws are followed, they make everyone safer. When they’re undermined or treated as mere suggestions, everyone is threatened. That’s why it’s extremely important to prosecute war crimes, and to ensure the perpetrators face real, material consequences for their actions. 

Right now, Israel has violated some of the most basic international laws of war, and done so flagrantly. Its leaders have even bragged about it. In a public address, Benjamin Netanyahu said on September 2022 that Israel had “hit Hezbollah with a string of strikes that it didn't imagine” and that its leaders would now “get the message.” Defense minister Yoav Gallant also made several barely-veiled references to the pager bombings, saying on September 18 that Mossad had made “great achievements” recently. He also said a “new phase” of Israel’s war focusing more on “the north” was beginning, which would require “courage, determination, and perseverance”—strange words to use about sitting safely in a bunker hundreds of miles away and killing people by pressing a button. Only President Isaac Herzog officially denies Israeli involvement in the attacks, and nobody believes him. (However, Herzog’s absurd denial is noteworthy because it demonstrates Israeli leaders’ willingness to lie, which should be kept in mind the next time they make an official statement.)

This brazenness can’t be allowed to stand. If Israel carries out this kind of terror attack and suffers no consequence from the international community, it will learn that it can do so with impunity, and will do the same thing again whenever it sees fit. Worse, every other country in the world will learn the same lesson, and may well adopt the same tactics for itself. Once the taboo on blowing up civilian objects is broken, it will be incredibly hard to re-establish, and the world will be a much more dangerous, unpredictable place. That’s why it’s vital to impose consequences on Israel now, before it’s too late. 

Thankfully, there have been some moves in that direction. Germany, the second-largest supplier of weapons to Israel after the United States, suspended arms exports on September 19 over concerns they may violate international law. (The pager attacks weren’t specifically mentioned, but the timing seems significant.) In the U.S., Senator Bernie Sanders is currently introducing resolutions to block more than $20 billion in additional arms sales. In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn’s nonprofit Peace and Justice Project has gone further, explicitly calling the pager attacks “state terrorism” and calling for “major sanctions on Israel.” That’s the right approach. If any other nation on Earth—Iran, for instance, or Cuba—had carried out these bombings, world leaders would be falling over each other to condemn them and call the perpetrator a dangerous rogue state, and they would be right. The standard has to be consistently applied. If international law is going to mean anything at all, Israel can’t be allowed a blank check to just do whatever it likes. So far, a blank check is exactly what it’s been given: to bomb hospitals and schools, to block humanitarian aid, to massacre hungry people trying to get flour, to murder poets in their apartments, and a dozen other infamies. There has to be a point when the world says “no more.” There have to be meaningful consequences for war crimes, and the time to impose them is now. 

This article is adapted from an item that originally appeared in the Current Affairs News Briefing.