Arguments For and Against Israel's Use of Hybrid Warfare Against Hezbollah

The concept of hybrid warfare has gained significant attention in recent years, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. This essay will critically examine the arguments for and against Israel's use of hybrid warfare against Hezbollah, considering the legal, ethical, and strategic implications of such an approach. By analysing these arguments, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex issues surrounding this contentious topic.

Defining Hybrid Warfare

Before delving into the arguments, it is crucial to establish a clear definition of hybrid warfare. Hybrid warfare refers to a military strategy that combines conventional warfare tactics with irregular warfare, cyber warfare, and other non-military means to achieve strategic objectives¹. This approach blurs the lines between traditional warfare and other forms of conflict, making it particularly challenging to address within the framework of international law.

Arguments in Favour of Israel's Use of Hybrid Warfare

Proponents of Israel's use of hybrid warfare against Hezbollah argue that it is a necessary and effective response to the evolving nature of modern conflicts. One of the primary justifications is the right to self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter². Israel contends that Hezbollah poses a significant threat to its national security, and hybrid warfare provides a means to counter this threat effectively.

Furthermore, advocates argue that hybrid warfare allows Israel to respond proportionately to Hezbollah's own tactics, which often involve a combination of conventional and unconventional methods. By employing a diverse range of strategies, Israel can potentially neutralise Hezbollah's capabilities without resorting to full-scale military operations, potentially reducing civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Another argument in favour of hybrid warfare is its potential to deter future aggression. By demonstrating a willingness and ability to engage in multifaceted operations, Israel may discourage Hezbollah from escalating tensions or launching attacks. This deterrent effect could contribute to regional stability and prevent the outbreak of more destructive conflicts.

Arguments Against Israel's Use of Hybrid Warfare

Critics of Israel's use of hybrid warfare against Hezbollah raise several compelling counterarguments. One of the primary concerns is the potential violation of international law, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict³. The blurred lines between military and non-military targets in hybrid warfare may lead to unintended consequences and civilian casualties, potentially constituting war crimes.

Moreover, the use of cyber warfare and information operations as part of a hybrid strategy raises questions about the applicability of existing legal frameworks. The Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations provides some guidance on this matter, but the rapid evolution of technology continues to challenge legal interpretations⁴.

Another significant argument against hybrid warfare is the risk of escalation. By engaging in a diverse range of tactics, including covert operations and cyber attacks, Israel may inadvertently provoke a more severe response from Hezbollah or its allies. This could lead to a spiral of retaliation and counter-retaliation, potentially destabilising the entire region.

Critics also argue that the use of hybrid warfare may undermine Israel's international reputation and diplomatic standing. The ambiguity inherent in hybrid warfare tactics can make it difficult to justify actions to the international community, potentially eroding support for Israel's position and complicating efforts to resolve the conflict through peaceful means.

Legal Considerations

From a legal perspective, the use of hybrid warfare presents numerous challenges. The principle of state sovereignty, as outlined in the UN Charter, may be violated by certain hybrid warfare tactics, such as cyber operations or covert activities within Lebanese territory⁵. Additionally, the use of non-state actors or proxies in hybrid warfare raises questions about state responsibility and attribution under international law.

The principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects⁶. Hybrid warfare's blending of military and non-military targets may make adherence to this principle particularly challenging, potentially leading to violations of the law of armed conflict.

Ethical Considerations

Ethically, the use of hybrid warfare raises concerns about transparency and accountability. The covert nature of many hybrid warfare tactics may make it difficult for the public and international observers to assess the legitimacy and proportionality of Israel's actions. This lack of transparency could erode trust and hinder efforts to achieve a lasting resolution to the conflict.

Furthermore, the potential for unintended consequences and collateral damage in hybrid warfare operations raises ethical questions about the responsibility of states to protect civilian populations, both their own and those of their adversaries.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding Israel's use of hybrid warfare against Hezbollah is complex and multifaceted. While proponents argue that it is a necessary and effective response to evolving security threats, critics raise valid concerns about its legality, ethical implications, and potential for escalation.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of hybrid warfare tactics must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific context, objectives, and methods employed. As the nature of warfare continues to evolve, it is crucial for the international community to work towards developing clearer legal frameworks and ethical guidelines to address the challenges posed by hybrid warfare.

In the case of Israel and Hezbollah, any use of hybrid warfare must be carefully balanced against the potential risks and long-term consequences. A comprehensive approach that combines military strategy with diplomatic efforts and adherence to international law is likely to be the most effective path towards resolving the conflict and ensuring regional stability.

References

1 Frank Hoffman, 'Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars' (Potomac Institute for Policy Studies 2007) https://www.potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf accessed 15 April 2023.

2 Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, art 51.

3 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3, arts 48, 51, 57.

4 Michael N Schmitt (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2017).

5 Charter of the United Nations (n 2) art 2(4).

6 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules (Cambridge University Press 2005) rule 1.