The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 255, October 4, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we delve into the regional escalations that have transpired following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, provide analysis regarding the key difference between war crimes and collateral damage, and examine the far-right electoral victory in Austria and its potential ramifications.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

---

The Regional Escalations Following Israel’s Assassination of Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah

The Regional Escalations Following Israel’s Assassination of Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah

By Meg Richards

In yet another major unsettling action which risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war, late last week Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Peace advocates have lamented that rather than seek to quell tensions and put a halt to regional hostilities, Israel has instead sought to elicit further escalations through its decision to carry out the incendiary move. The targeted assassination, in conjunction with Israel’s ground invasion into Lebanon, has prompted a retaliation from Iran – which launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel earlier this week. All of this has drawn continued concern regarding the potential of wider-scale and unrestrained conflict across the region, and it is essential that diplomatic measures be taken in order to avert a broadened war in the Middle East.

For many observers, the killing of Nasrallah was eerily reminiscent of the dual targeted assassinations carried out by Israel against leaders from both Hezbollah and Hamas back in late July – Fuad Shukr of Hezbollah and Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. After they took place, both of these were criticized as being blatant Israeli attempts to provoke additional regional escalations and even risk dragging the United States into an expanded conflict in the region. Furthermore, the two targeted assassinations – and repeated acts of escalation like them – legitimately called into question Israel’s commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. They provided yet more evidence to support the long-held belief that the current Israeli government has no real intention of putting an end to hostilities and, on the contrary, is hell-bent on continuing to engage in bellicose behavior aimed at perpetuating conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces growing global condemnation of his military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, impending criminal charges domestically and internationally, and significant levels of discontent within Israel and as such, is aware that a cessation of hostilities would spell doom for his political survival. Due to this, analysts have pointed out how his government has seemingly made the determination that purposefully prolonging conflict is in their best interests.

The recent Israeli assassination of Nasrallah only served to further stoke animosities and is harmful to the prospect of peace and stability in the region, particularly at such a volatile time. It deserves criticism and begs the fair question of how it could possibly do anything to quell tensions and halt regional hostilities? It does not, and in fact, merely inflames tensions and increases the chances of wider-scale war in the Middle East. Some experts have argued that one of the reasons why Hezbollah and Iran have been trying to avoid broadened hostilities with Israel is so as not to be blamed for the possibility of even worsening conditions in Lebanon – as the country already faces economic hardships, a lack of access to basic goods, and a failing government. However, in light of the array of Israeli provocations, including the targeted assassinations, the pager and walkie-talkie device explosions, war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon, and others, it was anticipated that some form of retaliation would follow – as was the case.

While an all-out regional war was avoided following the targeted Israeli assassinations in late July, the fear is that the same might not be the case this time around. This will all depend on what transpires in the tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran. One of the main concerns is that further escalations could result in the United States being dragged into the conflict more directly. Analysts have highlighted that although Iran is busy enough with internal considerations so as to be extremely hesitant to focus on external ones, things may reach a point where it concludes that it needs to take action to prevent larger damages which may result from sitting back and waiting. Additionally, Israel’s ground invasion into southern Lebanon is another recent development which risks deteriorating the overall situation in the region and worsening hostilities. Ultimately, Israel’s assassination of Nasrallah was an inflammatory move which does nothing to quell tensions, and on the contrary, has undoubtedly exacerbated hostilities and increased the likelihood of all-out war. If this was to happen, it would result in the mass displacement and killing of yet more innocent civilians, and therefore, the United States and others have the duty to subdue bellicose behavior.

The Key Difference Between War Crimes and Collateral Damage

The Key Difference Between War Crimes and Collateral Damage

By Daniel Imbornoni

While Israeli officials have long claimed to only conduct military operations against legitimate combatant targets, years of evidence, first-hand accounts, and documented data from impartial human rights groups strongly refute this. In Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and Lebanon, among other places, Israel has been found to commit egregious war crimes which go far beyond any feasible contentions of merely collateral damage, particularly when one sees the clear pattern and track record of abusive behavior throughout the preceding decades. In light of this conduct, it has become increasingly important to distinguish war crimes from collateral damage, so as to understand to a greater extent the culpability of Israeli armed forces in illegal and immoral military actions which intentionally target civilian infrastructure. According to the United Nations, war crimes are violations of international humanitarian law (treaty or customary law) that take place during an armed conflict which should incur individual criminal responsibility. The UN’s legal definition of war crimes comes from the Geneva Conventions of 1948, and is reiterated in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC); a document consisting of all amendments adopted by the UN General Assembly. The Rome Statute outlines four types of war crimes, and is what the ICC relies upon to evaluate offenders and their guilt.

Collateral damage is not explicitly defined under international law, but how much of it is permissible is similar amongst states, and tends to be outlined in military handbooks, national law, case law, and national military institutions. The International Committee of the Red Cross considers it a customary international humanitarian law, meaning it is a general practice accepted as binding under the law. Collateral damage tends to be regarded as injury or harm inflicted upon something other than the intended target. In its application, the term may be used more similarly to how the U.S. Department of Defense did in its statement about its conduct in The Gulf War where it remarked that “While the prohibition contained in Article 23(G) [of the Hague Regulations] generally refers to intentional destruction or injury, it also precludes collateral damage of civilian objects or injury to non-combatant civilians that is clearly disproportionate to the military advantage gained in the attack of military objectives.” The statement alluded to how military policies aimed to avoid intentionally targeting civilians or causing unnecessary destruction, but how they did allow for some collateral damage as long as this was not excessively disproportionate to the advantage gained by attacking a specific military target.

Adding to the belief that Israel’s military actions cross the line between collateral damage and war crimes is the array of collected evidence which prompted war crimes cases against Israel at both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC). The evidence suggests that Israel has violated Article 8 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, which defines various types of war crime violations from the treatment of combatants and wartime practices to the treatment of civilians, humanitarian aid workers, and other non-combatants. Recently, over the summer, the ICJ also ruled that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories was unlawful, as was settlement expansion, forcible annexation, and seizure of natural resources. The ICJ war crimes and genocide case brought forth by South Africa against Israel has yet to reach a final ruling, but observers have consistently outlined its merits and the panel of judges did therefore issue a series of provisional measures against Israel. Furthermore, in a separate case, the ICC chief prosecutor has applied for arrest warrant requests for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Despite Israel’s efforts to suppress coverage and investigations into war crimes and other human rights violations that are taking place in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, independent journalism, documentation, and first-hand accounts have allowed for unfiltered insight into what has been occurring. Since the onset of the Gaza War, for example, evidence has pointed to various instances of Israeli war crimes and abuses including the intentional targeting of civilians, journalists, aid workers, and humanitarian relief, as well as the large-scale indiscriminate destruction of cities. Alarmingly, these are only some of the currently-known and well-documented instances of war crimes committed by Israel during the conflict, but human rights experts suspect that there could be much more that has been concealed or left yet to be discovered, potentially hiding the true extent of the atrocities that have and continue to be happening.

With the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, and now in Lebanon as well, human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have published reports documenting more than enough evidence to suggest that Israel’s attacks against civilian infrastructure have been intentional – which would categorize them as war crimes. Israel has been known to attack orphanages, schools, hospitals, religious buildings, cultural sites, and humanitarian shelters – all places that are not permissible as military targets under international law. The destruction to these areas has been heavily evaluated, and it has consistently been found that these sites held large concentrations of civilians. Targeting these places during the ongoing Gaza War alone has resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, and for those who have survived the relentless and heinous attacks, little to nothing of their livelihoods has remained.

The Far-Right Electoral Victory in Austria and Its Potential Ramifications

The Far-Right Electoral Victory in Austria and Its Potential Ramifications

By Jake Spiller

In Austria, the recent legislative election results have led to celebration, anger, and a cloud of uncertainty across the country. The two ruling parties, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Greens, suffered heavy losses. The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) made gains at their expense, earning the best result any far-right party has ever achieved in the country post-WWII. On Sunday night, supporters of FPÖ cheered with their leader, Herbert Kickl. At the same time, several hundred anti-right-wing protesters marched in Vienna with signs such as “Kickl is a Nazi” and “Don’t let Nazis rule.” These refer to more than just the far-right positions of the FPÖ, as the party was founded by former Nazis in post-war Austria in 1956, making the FPÖ one of the oldest far-right parties in Europe. The party did shift over time from its extreme-right origins towards the center, but in 1986, it moved back to the far-right, capitalizing on rising anti-immigration and Euroscepticism. The FPÖ has been in the federal government before working with ÖVP. However, this is the first time that the FPÖ earned the most seats, giving them greater influence than ever before, possibly including the position of chancellor.

The party’s recent success is similar to that of other far-right parties in Europe. Many Austrians are increasingly frustrated at what they see as out-of-control immigration, the rising cost of living, slow economic growth, and the failure of mainstream parties to address these issues. FPÖ has campaigned heavily on these issues, blaming immigrants abusing social services and the War in Ukraine for the rising cost of living. It is important to note that Austria is a non-NATO member and officially neutral, as enshrined in its constitution. The party also promises to oppose all sanctions and other actions against Russia, and create “Fortress Austria” with new strict laws aimed at homogeneity in Austria. This would consist of suspending the right of asylum, refusing the EU’s new asylum pact, and attaching an expiration date to asylum seekers, preventing them from becoming citizens.

Will the FPÖ make it into government? There appear to be two main possibilities. The first is a center-right to far-right government between the ÖVP and FPÖ. In such an agreement, the FPÖ will demand the position of chancellor, given that they are now the largest party. ÖVP party leader Karl Nehammer has said that he is willing to work with the FPÖ, but has ruled out any government headed by Kickl, calling him a security risk. This appears to be a deal-breaking issue, as all signs show that Kickl hopes to become the next chancellor. He would likely refuse any offer to stand down to form a government, since he was the one who led the FPÖ into its recent electoral triumph. Kickl might have been hoping the ÖVP oust its own leader, Nehammer, with someone more willing to negotiate, but these hopes appear dashed for now as the ÖVP expressed confidence in Nehammer’s leadership on Tuesday. After the 2023 Dutch elections, the anti-immigration and anti-Islam far-right Party for Freedom entered into government after its leader, the highly controversial Geert Wilders, agreed not to become prime minister. It is too soon to say if Kickl will agree to form a government with someone else taking the position of chancellor.

The second option is a center-right to center-left government between the ÖVP, the third-place Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ), and likely even the fourth-place NEOS – a centrist party that came in fourth, as a government between only ÖVP and SPÖ would meet the minimum for a majority. However, there are risks of either falling apart or being ineffective due to the vast political spectrum it would hold. In Italy, the far-right Brothers of Italy, a small party in 2018, grew while in opposition. In the Italian case, the small party chose not to participate in a broad coalition government. It is a different case in Austria, but if the FPÖ is not included in the government then it could have a similar effect, allowing the party to become the primary voice of opposition against an overly large coalition and this could translate into an even bigger showing during the next election if the coalition government does not produce effective results.

In Austria, the political future is uncertain. Whichever government option is chosen, neither is ideal for most Austrian politicians. The ÖVP will have to either work as the smaller party with the FPÖ or try to form a vast center-right to center-left coalition that could collapse over its weight and attract criticism for excluding the largest party. Either way, the FPÖ is too big to ignore. The Austrian president is set to begin coalition talks today, meeting first with FPÖ and then the other party leaders next week. The president made clear that it is time for “compromises to be found.” He also stresses that any future government should respect the rule of law, minority rights, independent media, and EU membership – a signal many take as his reluctance to appoint an FPÖ-led government. The election in Austria is just the latest example of a European country’s shift to the right. In 2024 alone, the far-right has made notable gains in France, the EU parliament, various German states, and now in Austria. For Europe and the EU, Austria will likely join Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his allies in opposing aid to Ukraine and further European integration and expansion. Democracy, freedom, and the rule of law in the country could come under threat if FPÖ seeks to emulate Orban’s crackdown on the press and opposition.