Targeted killings: Operation ‘Pillar of Defence’

On the night of 29 December 1837, a small group of British and Canadians loyal to the Upper Canadian government crossed the river to the U.S. side where the Caroline was moored, loosed her, set fire to her, and sent her over the falls. One American was killed in the incident. Americans on the border were aroused to intense anti-British feeling.

This incident has been used to establish the principle of "anticipatory self-defence" in international politics, which holds that it may be justified only in cases in which the "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". The Caroline Affair is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around pre-emptive strike (or pre-emption doctrine).

Under Webster's formulation, the Israeli actions must meet the conditions of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy. Israel's actions, Kendall argues, fully meet all three qualifications.

First, the strikes are necessary because of Hamas’ refusal to arrest those planning and carrying out the attack. In fact the matter becomes even clearer when the terrorist holds a position in the government of Hamas.The precision strikes are vital because no better alternative is available. Any other mode of seizing or killing a terrorist like al-Jabari would involve either sending in ground forces or the heavy bombing of buildings, both operations would inevitably lead to more civilians deaths.

Second, the strikes are proportional. The killing of one terrorist who has planned a terror attack or is planning such an attack is proportional when compared to the death and destruction that he has visited to date, or the deaths that he hopes to visit if he is not eliminated. The use of spectacularly well-targeted operations proves Israel studiously avoids harming civilians.

Finally, Israel's actions would likely qualify as defensive armed reprisals, as opposed to the armed reprisals prohibited by the U.N. Charter, given the IDF employs drone strikes as a tool to prevent future attacks by directly eliminating the source of the attack.

It is reasonable to conclude that Israel's tactic of "targeted killings" is lawful and fully complies with international law. Contrary to the commentary of Hamas and others, the tactic of ”targeted killings” differs significantly in a legal sense from a policy of "assassinations".

So long as the Jewish state remains at risk of Islamic terrorists who refuse to accept an independent Jewish presence in the Middle East and fundamentally dedicate themselves to Jihad as the means of erasing the Jewish state then “targeted killings” will surely continue to be employed as a tool of the IDF.