In the early 60s in Greece, during turbulent and violent political times, the iconic political figure George Papandreou, known in history as the “Elder of Democracy” uttered the phrase: “terrorize terrorists”. The phrase indicated the way to react against those causing fear in society with forms of political violence.
Targeted killings, a method that Israel has used for many decades now to counter terrorism have exactly this goal, to terrorize terrorists. The simultaneous detonation of pagers that were in the possession of Hezbollah members in Lebanon, the strike to kill Hezbollah’s Radwan special forces unit terrorists and in past times a series of assassinations of Palestinian terrorists that had Israeli blood in their hands fall into this category. While the spotlight has been on the operational capacity and undeniable ingenuity of the recent “pager operation” in Lebanon, it is worthwhile to examine certain points of targeted killings, considering them as an Israeli practice and from a European point of view.
i. Terrorists build their reputation and their importance in the terrorism scene based on their ability to carry out clever, unexpected attacks. They make a population and its government wonder: “What next?”, spreading insecurity and suspicion that disrupt social cohesion and peace. Targeted killings work in the same way, only now the terrorists are the ones wondering “What next?”, looking behind their shoulders. The “pager operation” in Lebanon is an indicative example of the messages: “We can find you and target you everywhere” and “you are nowhere safe”. Israelis have suffered for many decades now a terrorism that has targeted them everywhere, even in places and during occasions that should have been considered outside of any conflict (for example the Munich Olympic Games massacre in 1972, but also a series of airplane hijackings where terrorists singled out Israeli passengers). With targeted killings, they are turning the tables around.
ii. We are in an era where concepts like “mediation”, “preventing and countering radicalization”, and “conflict resolution” reign the world of counterterrorism efforts, with experts trying to find ways to stop the recruitment and activity of terrorists. But none of the above can work if the side of the terrorists perceives states as weak and incapable of neutralizing them. Of course, grievances, injustice, and all the reasons that make the ground fertile for terrorism should be addressed accordingly to win the battle against terrorism in the long run, and above all to make sure that societies are a just and safe place for all. But nothing can bring terrorists to the negotiating table and make them back down on their violent campaign if they know that they cannot be touched, and their crimes go unpunished. This is especially true for terrorist groups that play the resistance, guerilla, and liberational army card. They are launching a resistance and unorthodox, asymmetric war to spread fear and reach their goal. The same war tactics launched against them can make them dial down, or at least accept to negotiate. To come to the negotiating table and reach for an agreement, one must understand that they have something important to lose and are not on top of the game (if they are, they have no reason not to continue what they are doing).
iii. Although supporters and sympathizers of terrorist groups often see their leaders as superheroes, brave and defiant towards the powerful, the truth often is different and very cynical. For example, we have not seen high-level members of Hamas or Hezbollah (or members of their families) carry out suicide attacks. They send others, who are “expendable” to get killed in those, or get arrested by authorities (interrogated, even tortured, etc). They depend on the “ideals”, courage, and sacrifice of others. The high-level members who supposedly fight for the Palestinian cause, live in the safety of other countries, in luxury. Targeted killings are seen as a way for them to experience risk and reap what they sow: violence and death. They do not just get to endanger others, but they are too in danger. This can cause them- as argued previously- to be more constrained in planning terrorist attacks, as they are aware they will be personally paying the cost for them.
iv. There is a catch when it comes to targeted killings, that is not insignificant. Their legality is very much contested, as they are an extrajudicial form of execution (and often it takes place on foreign soil which makes things even more complicated). There are very specific conditions that can make them acceptable from a legal point of view, as in Western legal civilization we cannot accept state authorities and their proxies committing murder. There is need for an imminent terrorist threat where the neutralization of the terrorist is the only way to thwart an actual attack launched. Also, all measures should be taken so that other, innocent civilians are not hurt (including even the family members of terrorists). Targeted killings should be “surgical”.
The Israeli Supreme Court has not generally banned targeted killings as illegal (although it has insisted on the necessary conditions of their legality) deciding that: “… it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is permissible according to customary international law. The law of targeted killing is determined in the customary international law, and the legality of each individual such act must be determined in light of it…” and safeguarding the rules: “Rule 1: The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians. Rule 6: Civilians are protected against attack unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Rule 7: The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects” the identity and status of the targeted individuals”. [1]
The timing of the “pager operation” (with detonations taking place during the day, when Hezbollah members were near other people) as well as the Beirut strike have caused also civilian victims and risked the victimization of more civilians. The “surgical nature” of the attacks does not seem present. The legality problem is obvious and causes adverse reactions from international public opinion. A big part of the support Israel enjoys from other countries and individuals is because it is a Western type of democracy in the Middle East, with the rule of law, and fighting against terrorism. So, keeping the rule of law is essential, because if the end justifies the means, then the same can be used by terrorists as an argument for their violence. It is the strength and at the same time the weakness of democracy that it puts certain limits to what authorities can and cannot do. Israel is obliged to protect its citizens, yet it really must consider the rule of law too. Not just to gain international support, but to safeguard the characteristics of a democratic, lawful state.
v. From a European point of view, targeted killings have generally raised strong concern as a practice. In the past the European Parliament and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights dealt with drones and targeted killings carried out by several member states against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, recognizing that they raise serious questions in terms of human rights and other branches of international law[2]. And of course, there is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the McCann and Others v. United Kingdom case, based on Operation Flavius, known as “Gibraltar Killings” (application no. 18984/91). In its decision, the ECtHR decided that the right to life (article 2 ECHR[3]) had been breached by British SAS authorities that had killed 3 IRA members planning to carry out a terrorist attack in Gibraltar, instead of arresting them[4]. It is quite clear that unless the “essential” criterion exists, along with proportionality in use of force, discourage in principle a targeted killing policy for European countries.
A strong point of Israel has always been its reputation for successful counterterrorism operations and the strength of its secret services. Mossad became synonymous with “mission impossible” type infiltrations and terrorist neutralisations, as well as intelligence abilities. A big part of the country’s reputation was built during the 70s and 80s with operations that have remained legendary and were “an eye for an eye” reaction. A nation built by survivors of the Holocaust, was showing their determination never to become again easy prey. However, the October 7th attack came as a tremendous blow to Israeli moral and security reputation, questioning its ability to protect its citizens even inside its ground. Terrorizing terrorists, with the hard, and even legally questionable targeted killings, is a result of the October 7th wounds and the attempt to heal them, reclaiming security prestige.
[1] Supreme Court of Israel, Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, Case No. HCJ 769/02, 13 December 2006, cited in Israel, The Targeted Killings Case, https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israel-targeted-killings-case
[2] Parliamentary Assembly debate on 23 April 2015, https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21746&lang=en
[3] Article 2: 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
[4] Strasbourg, 27 September 1995 decision, in the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57943%22]}