There is a Talmudic dictum that states, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first” (b. Sanhedrin 72a). This is part of a discussion of the laws of self-defense, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited it with reference to the targeted killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Was this a right and fair application of this Talmudic principle? And did Israel rightfully follow this same principle in the pager attacks on thousands of Hezbollah operatives? Or is Israel engaging in acts of terror?
When it comes to Nasrallah, this was not a matter of someone coming to kill you. This was a matter of someone who was already responsible for thousands of deaths, both Israeli and Arab.
As Netanyahu said in his speech in Hebrew after killing Nasrallah, “‘The one who rises to kill you – rise and kill him first.’ The State of Israel has eliminated the arch-terrorist Hassan Nasrallah. We have settled accounts with the man responsible for the murder of countless Israelis and many citizens of other nations, including hundreds of Americans. Nasrallah was not just another terrorist. He was the terrorist.”
Indeed, even Al Jazeera news noted that other Arab nations viewed Nasrallah as a terrorist, and after his death was confirmed, there was celebration in different parts of the Arab/Muslim world, including the countries of Lebanon, Syria and even Iran. (Note that Nasrallah studied in Islamic seminaries in Iran and Hezbollah, like Iran, is Shiite, making celebrations there even more significant.)
A Lebanese speaker and columnist wrote, “As a Lebanese, this is one of the happiest days in Lebanon’s history. As a Middle Easterner, this is one of the most transformative days for the Middle East. As a human being who holds peace before my eyes, this is the most important day for our region.”
And throughout the Middle East, videos were posted of dancing and singing in the streets, along with the traditional handing out of sweets and candies. Muslims were celebrating what Israel was able to do.
Even President Biden, who is trying not to alienate Arab-American voters, referred to Nasrallah’s killing as “a measure of justice for his many victims, including thousands of Americans, Israelis, and Lebanese civilians,” noting that, “Nasrallah and Hezbollah ‘were responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade reign of terror.'”
More broadly, Steven Simon noted that, “With the confirmed assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah … it is clear now that the entire senior command echelon of Lebanese Hezbollah is dead.
“That includes the Radwan commander, in charge of operations against Israel on the ground along the Blue Line, and his key subordinates. Also the top IRGC Quds Force people assigned to Lebanon. Add to this, thousands of Lebanese Hezbollah operatives who rated a company pager are out of action, blind, mutilated or dead.”
What, then, of Israel’s targeted pager and walkie-talkie attack on these Hezbollah operatives? Was this a justifiable act of self-defense, or was it a mass terrorist action?
Let’s remember that Hezbollah set up operations in northern Lebanon directly bordering Israel more than 40 years ago, with the goal of terrorizing Israeli citizens. They have done this for decades, now owning the largest arsenal of any non-state army in the world. At this very moment, more than 80,000 Israelis have had to evacuate their homes due to Hezbollah’s rocket and missile attacks.
And remember that, on Oct. 8, just one day after the Hamas massacre, when the nation of Israel was suffering devastating losses and deep corporate shock, Hezbollah began a fresh bombardment of its own from the north, one that has not ceased over the months.
Hezbollah and Nasrallah have also resisted Israeli attempts in the past to separate from Hamas with the goal of brokering a peaceful coexistence between Israel and Lebanon. Not only so, but they have brought terrible suffering on the Lebanese people, setting up their military operations in the midst of communities.
When it comes to those targeted in the pager, walkie-talkie attack, those owning them were Hezbollah operatives, all of whom had sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel.
Had they been taken out in normal military operations by Israel, most commonly, through IDF air strikes, there would likely have been thousands of civilian casualties as well. In the case of the exploding devices, while there were, quite tragically, some civilian casualties, including the death of some children, the number of those casualties was massively lower than would have been the case through normal military operations. And surely, in the eyes of the Jewish nation under constant, deadly onslaught, this precise wounding and killing of terrorists was morally justifiable, fully and completely.
Contrast this with the effects of an errant Hezbollah rocket that landed in a Druze village in northern Israel, killing 12 children who were playing soccer.
This is the murderous recklessness of this dangerous terrorist organization, one whose powers have been massively curtailed by Israel in recent days.
That’s why the overwhelming consensus of those responding to my poll on X – at a ratio of 20 to 1 – said that Israel was not guilty of terrorist activity when it exploded the pagers of Hezbollah members and assassinated Hezbollah leader Nasrallah.
