Readers may recall my recent P&I post, Israel does not have a right to defend itself, as our PM keeps saying_,_ 11 October_._ Since publication I have been questioned by some: does the argument made in respect of Palestinians resisting from the West Bank and Gaza, occupied by Israel, apply as well to resistance in the form of missiles fired at Israel from non-occupied territory, such as Lebanon, from which Hezbollah operates?

This is a significant question, and it has exercised my mind. It has become more significant by the day, as the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has intensified. The answer is yes, and it arises from a number of circumstances.

Before considering those circumstances, it is appropriate to note a few facts about Lebanon. Lebanon was established following the end of WWI and the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire. The League of Nations established the British mandate over Palestine and the French mandate over Syria from which Lebanon was carved. Lebanon is an Arab country with a constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression through a free press, and assembly.

Since the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, Lebanon has consistently promoted the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and the liberation of Lebanese land occupied by Israel. The Nakba in fact saw 100,000 plus Palestinian refugees expelled to Lebanon. Those refugees and their descendants today form a significant percentage of the Lebanese population.

Hezbollah was founded in 1982, with the support of Syria and Iran, as a militia to resist the then Israeli invasion of Lebanon aimed at destroying the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). Associated with Palestinian refugees, a prime motivation for its existence was to resist Israeli infringement in the south of Lebanon. Such resistance is associated in particular with Israeli incursions in 1982, the late 1990s, and 2006. It was a political party, and has consistently been a prominent performer in elections, rendering it an inextricable part of Lebanese society. Israel went into the 2006 war seeing Hezbollah as a cancer to be cut out, and seeing a quick and decisive result.Hezbollah however proved more resilient.The war ended in a matter of weeks without an unequivocal winner, but Hezbollah received widespread respect, even admiration, in the Muslim world, for its success in confronting Israel, and holding Israel at bay.

Now to the circumstances justifying the argument that Israel does not have a right to defend itself against Hezbollah.

The first and perhaps the most obvious is that many supporters of Hezbollah, whilst residents of Lebanon, are in fact Palestinians who were either expelled from Israel at the time of the Nakba in 1948, or are descendants of such. The International Court of Justices (ICJ) advisory opinion calls for a right of return of such to their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As such, they must be said to have an interest which supports the right to resist the illegal occupation.

The second is that Hezbollah is supporting its brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank.That is apparent from the fact that over the last year Hezbollah has repeatedly said that it would desist from firing missiles into Israel if Israel ceased its genocide in Gaza by agreeing to a ceasefire there. So far as the West Bank is concerned therein lies a particular issue of significance to Hezbollah and its supporters. The West Bank includes East Jerusalem, wherein the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are situated.These Muslim monuments are of course under threat from Jewish extremists who see their presence on Temple Mount as hindering the building of the Third Temple.

The third is that the Lebanese people, including Hezbollah, are entitled to challenge and resist the illegal occupation, annexation, of Lebanese territory in the form of the Shebaa Farms, part of the Golan Heights. Israel claims that all of the Golan Heights was taken from Syria. Syria, however, acknowledges that that area of the Golan, know as the Shebaa Farms, was Lebanese land. So, to the extent that Hezbollah is representing Lebanon, it is legitimately resisting the illegal occupation of land captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

The fourth arises from the fact that this right wing, religious, government in Israel is indicating that it in fact sees part of Lebanon being settled by Israelis. A group, Uri Tzafon, (Wake up the North), asserts that the Land of Israel encompasses southern Lebanon, and that southern Lebanon is simply the northern Galilee. One can see that Hezbollah would be entitled to take such suggestions seriously, and a need to resist that might become acceptable. That is the more so given recently repeated statements that the presence of Hezbollah on its northern border is no longer tenable. Now we have the IDF targeting UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon. Is this not indicative of an Israeli intention to reshape the region?All of this smacks of giving rise to legitimate resistance, and no Israeli right of self-defence.

Let us return to the ICJ advisory opinion for the final, fifth, circumstance. That opinion calls for Israel to do numerous things. Inter alia, they include:

• end the occupation
• remove the settlers, and necessarily, all settlements
• provide reparations to Palestinians who have suffered loss
• allow Palestinians to return to their homes in what was Palestine.

Israel has indicated that it will do none of those things. The matter did not end there. It went of course to the General Assembly where a resolution was passed overwhelmingly on 19 September. The resolution adopted the ICJ ruling in its entirety. Moreover, it placed demands on all states. All countries are said to be legally obliged to cease any recognition of or support for the occupation, and to work to liberate the Palestinian people.

Might it be that what Hezbollah is doing constitutes Lebanons way of complying with what is required of it. And all that Israel has to do to stop missiles from Lebanon, is to comply with the advisory opinion and the UN General Assembly resolution giving effect to it? The failure of Israel to do that renders it a rogue state standing outside the community of nations. Such a rogue state has no right of self-defence to protect its rogue status.

The circumstances are overwhelming.

One final comment. Can the preceding argument be generalised beyond the specific case of Israel and Lebanon? Could it be applied, for example, to the Russian occupation of Crimea?

The answer to that question is probably not.

There will likely never be conflicts in the world which are precisely the same. The dispute over Crimea, or the Donbas, is not a settler/colonial dispute, such as Palestine, or by way of example, the former apartheid South Africa. The Ukraine/Russia dispute is historic, and appertaining to the ethnic connection of residents of Crimea, and the Donbas, to the land.No-one seeks to question the right of Ukraine to defend itself.The argument there will rather be: to what end?

The argument as outlined above regarding Lebanon can certainly, however be generalised to other conflicts, where the circumstances might be similar.

For further reading on this topic:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-resettlement