The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has provided Israel with yet more opportunities to brazenly tear apart the fabric of international legal norms, following its transgressions in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and Lebanon. Within days of the regime’s collapse, the Israeli Air Force and Navy carried out massive attacks that destroyed 70 to 80 percent of Syria’s military capabilities as well as its entire naval and radar installations. Israel did not even pretend that its actions were a preemptive strike, only conveying that it feared the still-unclear process of transfer of power to a new leadership in Damascus. Israel unilaterally abrogated its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria, capturing the entire buffer zone established between their forces in the Golan Heights. The Israeli Army even moved beyond the buffer zone to capture additional Syrian territory on the eastern slopes of Mount Hermon and in Reef al-Sham on the outskirts of the Syrian capital, reaching within 15 kilometers of Damascus. Israel also captured a number of Syrian towns in the buffer zone as its forces moved closer to the capital, including Ofaniyah, Quneitrah, al-Hamidiyah, Samdaniyah al-Gharbiyya and al-Qahtaniyah.
International law of war includes elements of jus in bello and jus ad bellum. The first term refers to regulations for the conduct of war, including prohibition on collective punishment, norms for treating of prisoners of war (captured soldiers), and prohibition of attacks on hospitals and civilian targets—all of which Israel has already violated in Gaza and Lebanon. Jus in bello is synonymous with International Humanitarian Law and is a detailed recitation of limitations on the conduct of war and what an army may or may not do during warfare. It includes conventions, particularly the Hague and Geneva Conventions, that apply during war and to the civilian population after the war. It is largely intended to protect the civilian population pending a resolution of hostilities.
Jus ad bellum, regulates what constitutes legitimate reasons to enter a war. It is an outcome of the just war theory, and plainly states that war and resorting to military action require a moral justification. War can only be waged after all other avenues have been exhausted. There must be a just cause or an act requiring a military response. War must also be declared by a legitimate authority with the intention of bringing about peace. It must be used only in self-defense or following a United Nations authorization for the use of force.
Until the end of the First World War, resort to force to settle international disputes was a normal practice. Several attempts were subsequently made to outlaw war altogether, such as the Treaty of Paris (the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and especially after the Second World War, requiring stringent conditions to justify starting any war or resorting to military means to settle disputes. The principle was also enshrined in the United Nations Charter. In fact, scholars declared the crime of aggression to be the ultimate crime under international law, and subsumes all other crimes.
Under no legal theory, however, is it legitimate to simply invade another country and destroy its defense capacities and capture territory, just because it is a foe, its regime is disliked, or to improve security or serve interests with unfettered control over another country’s airspace. Such a position renders international law illusory and opens a Pandora’s box, as any powerful country may feel the urge to start wars with its neighbors or resort to military means to settle its disputes or advance its claims and interests.
The behavior of the Israeli Army—taking advantage of the chaos in Syria to move in massively to destroy its armed forces and capture strategic territory—is therefore totally inconsistent with international law, particularly since it remains unclear what political authority will replace the Assad regime or what that authority’s policy toward Israel will be. Israel’s actions became even more objectionable when, far from issuing threats to Israel, the new Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa publicly stated that the rebels do not intend to allow the use of Syrian territory to attack Israel. This statement did not slow down the Israeli attacks. Nor did al-Sharaa’s statement change Israeli officials’ indications that they intend this occupation of Syrian territory to be long-term.
It must be noted that in 1981, Israel annexed the portions of the Golan Heights that it had occupied in 1967. No country in the world recognized the annexation, until President Donald Trump in his first term of office recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan. Israel rewarded him at the time by creating a new settlement in the Golan and naming it Trump Heights. It is likely that in his second administration Trump will continue this trend in supporting Israel’s annexation of additional Syrian territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that the Israeli military will remain in the buffer zone in Syria indefinitely, until another arrangement is in place “that ensures Israel’s security.” The Israeli government has also announced new policies to double the number of Jewish settlers and expand Israeli settlements in the occupied Golan.
The problem extends far beyond allegations of western countries’ rampant hypocrisy and double standards—it goes to the very fabric and structure of the international community and international law and institutions. Most troubling about Israel’s behavior in Syria is the utter disregard for the most fundamental principles of international law and its reliance on brute force and military power to carry out its relationships with other countries. The international community cannot let this behavior become the norm. The United States, in particular, bears a major responsibility if it enables such behavior, validates it retroactively, and allows Israel’s impunity. It certainly bodes ill that the Biden administration has already defended and condoned Israel’s violations in Syria. The international community will live with the dire consequences of subverting international law if Israel’s actions are allowed to stand.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.
Featured image credit: Israeli military media release
