Conflict Between Hezbollah and IsraelEssay Preview: Conflict Between Hezbollah and IsraelReport this essayThe 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and Israel questions an important, yet unclear part of international humanitarian law. Specifically, what would Hezbollahs legal classification be if another armed conflict were to arise between Israel and Lebanon? Would Hezbollah be considered a State or non-State actor? If Hezbollah is a non-State actor, would the group be considered “guerrillas”? Would the term “mercenary” be a better fit?
In attempting to answer some of these questions, we must first look at what exactly occurred between Israel and Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Second, we must understand who Hezbollah is and how the group fits in with Lebanon. Third, we need to examine what kinds of rules of international humanitarian law govern both international and intra-national armed conflicts. Specifically, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, international agreements between Lebanon and *62 Israel, and international customary law. Only then will we be ready to investigate the various implications Hezbollahs classification has on the laws of armed conflict. This will primarily be accomplished by initially looking at which of the Geneva Conventions apply based on whether Hezbollah is a State or non-State actor. A more complex argument is whether Hezbollah is indeed a Lebanese State actor. However, since the law in this sphere is still being defined, we will continue by examining Hezbollahs classification assuming they are non-State actor. Therefore, an analysis of Hezbollah as a guerrilla group and one comprised of mercenaries will follow. Finally, we will look to see how domestic law fits in with international humanitarian law, and whether the former can help adjudicate either party in a future conflict.
The answer to these questions is of great significance because Hezbollahs classification determines how international humanitarian law applies. For example, if Hezbollah is a State actor, then any future conflicts would be between Lebanon and Israel. As such, this would be an international armed conflict. On the other hand, if Hezbollah is a non-State actor, then this would be an intra-national armed conflict governed by a substantially limited body of law. Furthermore, if Hezbollah is given prisoner of war status, then members of the group would have to be released at the end of the hostilities. If Hezbollah members are not considered prisoners of war, then the individuals may be held and prosecuted under domestic criminal law for their conduct.
The Lebanese state is responsible for the enforcement of international law through the legal system. Such law ensures that Lebanese society does not use force to enforce a law that they consider too narrow (for example, by punishing for a terrorist act another State, or their enemies). For example, the Lebanese judiciary only uses force in certain situations to protect human rights, but it only uses what it considers important for the national defense against internal threats (as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands used in the 1971 Hague Convention). The Lebanese government will respect international law if these situations result in a breach of international law but will not use force to enforce it unless those circumstances are clearly proven. Therefore, under the current legal regime, those who violate international law are not allowed to be prosecuted. The question should be whether the court of war is obligated to investigate cases of violations of international law and is responsible if it so considers violations of international law.
A major difference between countries such as the USA and Great Britain, and particularly among a group of such governments (the EU), is the need to maintain and enforce international law. While most of the international agreements that the USA signed with other states in the 1960s in its quest to achieve its goals have largely been achieved in the form of disarmament or non-aggression agreements, many of these agreements have produced serious violations of international law. For instance, a 2010 UN Security Council resolution that defines the scope of “regime change” in Libya highlights the need for disarmament agreements, and a 2001 UN Security Council resolution defines military force as “immeasurable, in accordance with the provisions of international law.”
The question is important for Hezbollah and other militant organizations as they look to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon and their political goals for the future. Hezbollah’s military capability will also allow for any group of armed individuals to recruit new fighters like Abu Sayyaf, Abu Hayder, or Sayyid.
Conclusion
The situation in Syria represents a significant escalation of the U.S.’ longstanding policy of supporting a moderate Syrian government with an Islamic leadership. Although those who oppose both Assad’s regime and ISIL are seen as playing a critical role in the fight against ISIL, they are not the primary focus of the Syrian conflict, because the United States and its allies are not on the same ground as the Syrian opposition. As we have shown elsewhere, the Syrian opposition has no clear political vision and is very difficult to govern. Thus, its future in political, economic and security terms depends on its ability to achieve a peaceful transition from an anti-Assad government to a moderate one. Hezbollah, on the other hand, lacks the political leadership to accomplish any such transition. As we outlined above, we believe that the political stability of Syria lies in the ability for the opposition to unite with President Assad within his government or through other means.
U.S. Military Leaders Support Syrian Opposition
U.S. military and intelligence leaders are continuing to support the Syrian Opposition. U.S. personnel in Lebanon, the Central African Republic, Kosovo, and Sudan have also joined efforts to assist in the opposition’s fight against U.S. forces and/or other militant groups. We have also provided arms and financial aid to the rebel groups under negotiation. Additionally, the U.S. military and intelligence groups have also provided direct support to opposition fighters in a number of Middle East nations, including the United States. In addition, U.S. Forces are also providing financial, technical, and logistical support to the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, that has also had recent success in bringing about significant gains in the resistance to U.S.-backed government forces.
In April, United States and coalition forces conducted ground operations in opposition-held areas in Iraq and Syria as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
Humanitarian Response
Many of the following is subject to change from time to time, depending on the nature of your organization. For example, while your organization is active in other locations, all U.S. funds and personnel must be used for food, transportation supplies, and other humanitarian assistance from elsewhere in the military. We also accept donations and loans for humanitarian programs such as water and medical supplies, clothing, food, clothing, and supplies used to treat Ebola patients or treat disease in communities. Further, we welcome the opportunity to support other humanitarian endeavors in support of your organization. For example, when donating food, consider donating to another U.S. non-governmental organization, such as the U.S. International Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For more information, please see our policy on aid in North Central Africa.
For additional information, please see our policy on donations for humanitarian purposes, and the State Department’s humanitarian and emergency response program.
Our mission is not to advocate or support any particular action or decision, but to advocate and promote dialogue and support for the legitimate government of Syria. This includes, but is not limited to, providing a response to chemical, biological, radiological, and other foreign-supported atrocities and to prevent terrorist attacks, the development of humanitarian infrastructure in Syria, cooperation on peace and peacekeeping operations in the region, and other efforts aimed at bringing to an end those abuses and provide safe haven for peace and peacekeeping operations.
Our mission will be to facilitate dialogue in order to protect civilians displaced by international violence and to foster economic and humanitarian development.
What We Do
As a humanitarian organization, we are at the mercy of some and the powers of the enemy. For example, the U.S. State Department has designated Syria a “sanctuary state” and is refusing to act against suspected terrorists. In addition, the Secretary of State’s Office for Coordination and Response has provided training in Syria on the use of armed groups and its specific mission of targeting and combating terrorism.
We are also providing humanitarian aid to all Syrian civilians and are looking outside the United States for aid and assistance, as we believe any and all help may be limited or nonexistent in any particular way. We must maintain communication with the Syrian government through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Syrian Civil War Committee, and other UN agencies, and we also encourage those wishing to provide assistance to support U.S. and U.S. military and intelligence organizations with further information and guidance on how to help. We consider all our efforts to bring about the legitimate government of Syria to be positive, and to help achieve that goal through our humanitarian efforts.
Why Do We Support Syria?
As with any humanitarian organization, providing aid and financing to Syrian refugees is clearly not a priority. Our focus is on humanitarian aid. The U.S. State Department has not allowed the government of Syria to support a U.S.-based group that has been
The question becomes what is the best course for Hezbollah in pursuing its goals in Syria and for future efforts to advance the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. We believe that
II. BACKGROUNDA. Recent Israel – Lebanon ConflictOn July 12, 2006, members of Hezbollah attacked an Israeli army convoy, killing eight Israeli soldiers and capturing two more. [FN1] Hezbollah claimed that the soldiers were captured for the purpose of being used as “bargaining chips” in negotiations for the release of three Lebanese Hezbollah members detained by Israel (even though the countrys own Supreme Court ordered for their release). [FN2] As a result of the soldiers kidnapping, Israel attacked Lebanon with a force unseen since 1982. [FN3] In response to Israels “bombing campaign,” Hezbollah launched hundreds *63 of rockets into Israel. [FN4] Israel and Hezbollah engaged in a heavy armed conflict until August 14, 2006. [FN5] In addition to executing 5,000 air strikes over Lebanon, Israels “Operation Change of Direction” involved attacking various parts of Lebanon from land and sea. [FN6] Hezbollah fired over 2,500 rockets into Israel over the course of the conflict. [FN7] According to the Reuters Foundation, as of August 25, 2006, close to 1,200 Lebanese and 157 Israelis were killed in the conflict. [FN8] Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians and roughly one million Lebanese civilians were displaced as a result of the conflict and the destruction of a large part of southern Lebanon. [FN9]
The armed attack on the convoy on Israeli soil and Israels retaliatory bombing campaign on Lebanon is considered an armed conflict. There is much debate with respect to this conflict, including the question of whether it should be classified as an international or non-international armed conflict. [FN10] In either scenario, this conflict is governed by international humanitarian law.
*64 B. Historical Overview of HezbollahThe Lebanese Shia, driven by a desire to gather forces to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, founded Hezbollah (the Party of God) in 1982. [FN11] This movement gained momentum quickly due to logistical, financial, and military support from both Syria and Iran. [FN12] Currently, Hezbollah is an inspiration to other Islamic groups (including Hamas in Palestine and Muqtada al-Sads Madhi Army in Iraq) because of its success in driving Israel out of Lebanon. [FN13] The group consists of several thousand core members who function independently with some military aid provided by Iran. [FN14] Hezbollahs spiritual leader is Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. [FN15] Another important member of the organization is Imad Fayez Mugniyah, who, prior to his death on February 13, 2008, was considered the main event planner of the organizations military operations. [FN16] The senior political leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is arguably the most charismatic man in the modern Islamic world. [FN17] Nasrallah was originally a military commander, but he quickly took advantage of the intra-organizational rivalries (and his favorable status with the head of Irans government, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini) to become Hezbollahs Secretary General in 1992, and remains there to this day. [FN18]
According to a number of United States intelligence reports indicate that, in addition to Hezbollahs presence in Lebanon, Hezbollah operates cells in Europe, Africa and both South and North America. [FN19] Over the last twenty years, Hezbollah has developed a sophisticated structure. [FN20] The organization consists of a seven-member council called the majlis al-shura. [FN21] Each member is in charge of a different function, including *65 financial, judicial, social, political and military matters. [FN22] When Hezbollah first entered Lebanese politics, the organization created an executive council and a politburo. [FN23]
Hezbollahs decision to participate in the 1992 Lebanese elections signaled a shift in the organizations focus from a “pan-Islamic resistance to Israel” to the internal affairs of Lebanon. [FN24] This shift demonstrated Hezbollahs growing desire to infiltrate Lebanons political system. [FN25] Hezbollah has continued this transformation from a regional militia group to a formidable political party. [FN26]
Hezbollahs entry into mainstream Lebanese