Opinion/Israel’s argument of self-defence in Lebanon is cynical at best

“When a state carries out aggression, its propaganda system has the responsibility to justify the act and suppress the reasons for it in favour of acceptable pretexts.” — Noam Chomsky ¹

One essential talent, in the aftermath of Hamas’ October 7th, 2023 armed operation against Israel, is an exceptional tolerance for contradiction. Thus the assertion that Israel has “the right to defend itself”, and has no other option against Palestinian militants who refuse to accept its existence, highlights the “familiar conflict between facts and Truth, facts being what happens in the world, while Truth has a more august status, emanating from [U.S.-Israeli] power itself”. ¹

“As a legal matter, the former assertion is false: while Israel has an internationally recognised right to defend itself [against criminal attacks], it does not have the right to commit war crimes against a besieged civilian population. Moreover, Israel is not “defending itself” against an external aggressor, but an imprisoned internal [populace] that also has a recognised right to resist military occupation.” ²

In other words, Israel can not invoke self-defence as a justification for war because it contravenes both Israel’s obligations as an occupier (in “effective control”) of Gaza and the legal principle of military necessity “as the exclusive legal justification for any operation.” Indeed, “despite the widespread acceptance of Israel’s pretext, the legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) excludes the application of Article 51 of the UN Charter as a result of the prolonged occupation.” Israel has, therefore, no lawful basis to go to war against besieged Palestinians in Gaza. “The opposite is true. As a matter of fact, Israel has obligations toward them, and has to end its own violations of Palestinian rights — not add to them.” ³ To adorn the point in scholarly garb, the astute reader will have noticed that fact is merely “the abuse of reality,” while Truth is “reality itself”. ¹

Since the start of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon on October 1st, 2024, concerns regarding its legality under international law have seen some resurgence of interest. A recent article in the New York Times asked the question “what international law says about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon”; apparently a vexing question, as “legality is very much in the eye of the beholder” when it comes to decide if “Israel’s right to self-defence trumps Lebanon’s right to sovereignty”. ⁴

While experts claim that “determining the legality of Israel’s invasion can be murky”, it seems that the strongest case for self-defence in Lebanon for Israel is based on “the U.N. charter [stating] that the right to self-defence is valid only “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” [As] the Council has tried — and largely failed — to secure a cease-fire”, ⁴ Israel, as a consequence, claims the right to self-defence.

The task, as illustrated by the New York Times article ⁴, is to “apply the standard technique of historical amnesia […], [obliterating] all memory of U.S.-Israeli policies and their effects“, ⁵ as well as the salient fact that “Hezbollah has repeatedly said it intends to continue fighting until there is a cease-fire in Gaza”. ⁶ However, “Israeli officials [also state] that Netanyahu has been raising ‘one obstacle after another’ in the cease-fire and hostage deal negotiations”, ⁷ obstructing any means of mediation. The cynicism of this tactic is blatantly obvious at this stage. As long as Israel rejects efforts to secure a ceasefire, it can, as ludicrous as that claim might be, assert that it has the right to self-defence in Lebanon.