Was Israel's Strike Against Syria an Act of War?

On September 6, Israeli aircraft temporarily violated Syrian sovereignty and bombed what appeared to be a partially built nuclear reactor. David Sanger of the New York Times called the strike "an act of war" on Face the Nation. Can Syria retaliate, claiming self-defense under international law?

Nations can only attack another state under two preconditions under international law: In self-defense or if a UN Security Council resolution is passed authorizing war. Syria could claim that the strikes amounted to an armed attack against a Syrian military installment and retaliate in self-defense.

Of course, Syria would be crazy to retaliate. Not just because its army is no match for Israel's but because it has no support in the region. Curiously no Arab state condemned the strike, probably because no one in the region wants to see Syria join the nuclear club anymore than Israel.

But set aside geopolitics, was Israel's strike an act of war? I would argue not. First, Israel could probably make the case it was acting in anticipatory self-defense under the logic that Syria was preparing what appeared to be a nuclear program, however distant in the future. Even Syria's president admitted the target was a "military building" (albeit unused, he claimed). Unlike Israel's similar strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, which the world, including the United States, condemned as a violation of international law, there has been little condemnation from abroad and silence from the Arab world.

Anticipatory self-defense is a fuzzy principle but some legal experts say it is enshrined under Article 51 of the UN Charter. They often point to the 1837 Caroline case, in which British and Canadian rebels crossed into U.S. territory and set the steamer Caroline ablaze, killing two Americans in the process. The Americans argued that the British claim of self-defense--the ship was suspected of ferrying arms to anti-British rebels--failed to "show a necessity of self-defense [that was] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," a line of argument often cited by legal authorities to justify anticipatory self-defense. Plus, although it really is not in grave danger anytime soon of waking up to a mushroom cloud along its Syrian border, Israel thinks in different timelines from most countries, as Michael Green of Georgetown University tells the New York Times, not to mention the bombing was probably aimed more at Iran's nuclear ambitions than Syria's.

To be sure, not every violation of sovereignty should be regarded as an act of war. Otherwise, that means Turkey, which has launched a number of limited cross-border incursions into northern Iraq in "hot pursuit" of Kurdish rebels over the past few decades, has declared war on Iraq dozens of times. That further implies that the state offended reserves the right to act in self-defense. Under this logic, there should be multiple wars raging in the Middle East right now. By the same token, that is not to dismiss or greenlight the random bombing of buildings in neighboring states. But under certain circumstances the temporary violation of a state's territorial sovereignty can and should be justified under international law, provided it is limited in scope and proportional to the threat posed. Israel cannot bomb Damascus. But a potential future bomb-making factory is fair game.

Comments

[Zenobius]

Anticipatory self defense is bunk After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was anticipatory self defense. The Japanese had reason to believe that the US fleet would be a threat to them when they seized the Netherlands East Indies. Japan needed to seize the Netherlands East Indies because US policies threated to deny it US oil, and it needed the oil to continue its war in China, and possibly even to run the Japanese economy. I don't think the US would have regarded the argument that attacking the US fleet was not war because it was "anticipatory self defense" with much respect.

So arguing over whether bombing another country's military installations is war is pointless. The reaction is going to be pretty much the same, whatever the lawyers think.

The reason I'm not objecting is that Israel and Syria are actually at war. Don't think they ever made peace after 1967.

The move might have been intended to see whether or not any other countries in the region would object to an attack on Iran. If so, it is another argument that the international consequences of bombing Iran might not be that bad. I don't think the relatively routine Israeli bombardment is a fair comparison for the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran, but others might.

[fourex]

"Anticipatory self-defense is a fuzzy principle"

Most of the Arab world could use this to attack Israel and U.S.

Fuzzy, if you cannot see it as a crime. Can anyone imagine the entire world using this principle? How about your neighbor or girfriend? Yikes.

[avergejoe]

So if your fuzzy girlfriend preemptively attacks her anticipatory self defending boyfriend, who strikes first?

And can she preemptively defend the use of anticipatory attack?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Let's not abuse common language.

Was it an act of war? DEFINITELY.

Was it justified? THAT is what is debatable.

[Lon]

That is a good concise way of putting the issue. The way that Beehner put it is so outlandish that it wasn't even capable of generating interesting comments, since it is so obviously an act of war.

But the justification issue is a more difficult one.

[freon500]

If war were not so lucrative it just wouldn't be worth it.

[PADDYWHACK]

Bombing civilians in Lebanon did it for me.

[cognate]

As Sharon said, Israel owns the Americans.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Please provide link to alleged quote. Thanks.

[RogerHWerner]

War is legally well defined and so we could argue Beehner's point for a long time and never achieve consensus. In my opinion, it isn't useful for Beehner or anyone else to try and classify Israel's attack as anything more than an aggressive act and very little justifies blatant aggression. If Mexico determined that our constructing a wall across our mutual border was an act of aggression and they lobbed artillery shells to halt construction, would anyone in America care whether Mexico's action was an of act of war, self defense, or aggression. I think the answer is obvious and whatever the ultimate determination our response would be the same.

Israel knew that it could get away with its attack and I suspect it was probably initiated to test the waters. I was surprised at how little condemnation the attack received in the Arab world and as far as I know a UN resolution condemning it was never initiated. I think this response underscores how the climate in the Middle East has shifted in the past few years. Moderate Arab states and most Western states are concerned about Iran, and Syria, by nominally allying itself with Iran, has largely isolated itself. Israel's attack may be seen as an effort to determine the degree of Syria's isolation and if this was the case than it wasn't an act of war. Whatever the purpose however, it remains an act of unprovoked aggression.

[sparkandy]

If a country can act in anticipatory self defence, can a person? Could someone, for instance, shoot their neighbor and say, "I was anticipating that he was going to attack me when my team won and his lost, so I just shot him before he could attack me."? Makes about as much sense. I guess that means Iran can attack the US in anticipatory self defence.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Tweak analogy to include that you and your neighbor had been in fistfights roughly every month for a year, and he now is building what you perceive to be a catapult across the street.

[Pero]

Yes, it was an act of war -- of War on Iran.

It is obvious that Syria is not a possible nuclear threat -- the imense fraud was just a step toward bombing Iran - "in self-defense"... a test of who, if anybody, will protest. Same actors, same crimes - going on and on

In Middle East only a US client can use nuclear power - even for only energy generation.

[joebhed]

Shame on you, Mr. Beehner.
But what are we to expect from the cadre of Israel defenders and apologists.
Given that neither of the two "allowable" violations of sovereignty existed at the time of the invasion and bombing, it was a clear violation of all internayinal laws I know of.
And, for once, David Sanger is right.
But let's give Israel the benefit of the doubt, which is to say that I do doubt that which I have read from only second, third, fourth hand reports.
Lets say it was Syria who was violating some part of the NPT, which they weren't, then why didn't Israel take all of that intelligence directly to the IAEA and expose Syria for its covert operations?
We would have seen the same result in terms of a setback and embarassment to Syria.
Fact of the matter is that Israel is a warmongering nation that shows no respect for sovereignty or anything else, hiding for fifty years behind the facade of preventing the second holcaust.
Israel could have used this situation to raise its standing in the world if it could only have shown some restraint from its unitary global policy of military intervention.
Shame on Israel.
Shame on Mr. Beehner for his dissembling.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Well said, but it's not like the court of public opionion has given the Israeli's what THEY perceive as a fair shake.

As to the IAEA, Israel prefers a double standard.

[avergejoe]

"Anticipatory self-defense is a fuzzy principle"
and "pre-emptive war"

Sounds a little like "torture",
if one gets to define his own "polispeak terminology", including who is good and who is evil terrorist -

Its kinda hard to do anything "wrong",
Isnt it?

[avergejoe]

With all due respect, the poster sounds a bit like Neville Chamberlain with Hitler during the Munich Agreement.

wikipedia:A deal was reached on September 29, and at about 2:00 am on September 30,[1] Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini and Edvard Benes signed the Munich Agreement. The Czechoslovak government, realizing the hopelessness of fighting Germany alone, reluctantly capitulated (September 30) and agreed to abide by the agreement. The settlement gave Germany the Sudetenland starting October 10, and de facto control over the rest of Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler promised to go no further.

[sonofloud]

Of course it was an act of war!!!
You can't bomb another country based on something you think may happen at some point in the future.....unless of course you are george bush.

[leftLibertarian]

Sounds like an act of war to me. But since Israel is America's 51st state, I suppose that means it's 'special.'

[Plowboy]

Israel is definitely not a state in the US. The states have to pay taxes, but Israel receives them.
The citizens of the states are ruled by the US government. But the US government is ruled by Israel.

[OrvilleHLarson]

Whatever Israel does in the Middle East is suspect, simply because they know they can get away with it.
From its protector--the U.S.--there has "never been heard a discouraging word" about Israel's criminality.

Regarding your point, Plowboy, that "the US government is ruled by Israel": Israel controls "American policy" in the Middle East.

[FlowerGirl]

Yes, it was an act of war. Israel is a bully with WMDs and an "ally" committed to protect her from any consequences for her illegal acts. America should be ashamed.
When will we declare independence so peace can break out?