Friends of Israel should be among the first to put pressure on the country's Government to reel back its military machine before its excessive response to the kidnapping of its soldiers mutates into a wider regional catastrophe.
I am a friend of Israel, yet I condemn its disproportionate response to the capture of two soldiers by Hezbollah militants last week.
Hezbollah does pose a threat to Israel, as demonstrated by its ability to reach Haifa and Tiberias with missiles. But under international law, self-defence must be exercised in a necessary and proportionate manner. Since there is no evidence implicating the Lebanese Government in Hezbollah's attacks, Israel should have restricted its air-strikes to Hezbollah targets. Instead, Israel bombed Beirut's international airport, striking at the heart of Lebanon's economy. It bombed roads, bridges, power and petrol stations, and imposed an air and sea blockade. It promised, in the words of the Israeli Army chief of staff, that "the clock will be turned back 20 years for the Lebanese people".
The selection of non-military targets was ostensibly aimed at pressuring the Lebanese Government to exert control over the southern region of the country - something it has been reluctant to do because of concerns that this could trigger another bloody civil war. Israel's reasoning must be questioned, since the destruction of infrastructure will actually make it more difficult for the Lebanese Government to exert control. The difficulty will only be exacerbated if - as has been reported - anger about Israel's disproportionate response causes support for Hezbollah to rise. Since they are not legal acts of self-defence, the Israeli strikes violate the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the aggressive use of force against the "territorial integrity and political independence" of UN member-states. They may also constitute war crimes.
Israel's actions indicate some disregard for the lives of innocents. Hundreds of civilians have died, including numerous women and children. Some were struck by Israeli missiles as they fled for safety. Others perished when Israel dropped bombs in densely populated neighbourhoods. More will die as hospitals, water filtration plants and sewage treatment facilities struggle with power shortages.
Under the laws of war, civilians may be placed at risk only for reasons of military necessity. They must never be targeted to create political pressure, or for reasons of revenge.
The leaders of the three anglophone members of the G8 justified Israel's actions in the lead-up to last weekend's summit in St Petersburg. George W. Bush asserted: "As a sovereign nation, Israel has every right to defend itself." Tony Blair agreed: "I entirely understand the desire, and indeed need, for Israel to defend itself properly." Stephen Harper, Canada's new Conservative Prime Minister, declared,"Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured."
This interpretation by Bush, Blair and Harper of Israel's actions can be explained at several levels. They undoubtedly feel sympathy for the past sufferings of the Jewish people, including in the Holocaust. They are probably influenced by domestic electoral considerations, and pro-Israel media moguls and lobbyists in their own countries. The complex and evolving nature of the situation could be obscured by a desire to maintain clear distinctions between "right" and "wrong". It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
It is also possible that Israel and the United States are considering an attack on Iran, with Britain and Canada as supporters. Tehran's apparent efforts to acquire nuclear weapons have made the Israeli Government nervous, even if the Iranians are still decades away from producing a nuclear warhead small and robust enough to be mounted on a missile. Last year, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reported that US commandos were already scouting out targets in that country. Any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would make use of 500 "bunker-buster" bombs already provided by Washington.
A nuclear threat posed by the combination of Iran and Hezbollah is less remote, though hardly imminent. Conceivably, the militant group could smuggle a crude nuclear device into Israel. Hezbollah has long benefited from Iranian support and has ready access to Israeli territory, as demonstrated by its capture of the soldiers last week.
In these circumstances, one might expect Israel to turn to the UN. But Israel's leaders have been on the receiving end of numerous UN condemnations, making the relationship fraught. Their position is strengthened by the fact that the Bush administration's Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have criticised Israel's military actions in Gaza. He will do the same to any resolution that seeks to criticise Israel's behaviour in Lebanon. Although more personnel might be sent to supplement the 2,000 UN observers already in southern Lebanon, Israel's abilities will not be constrained.
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Iran's ruling theocracy is playing directly into their hands. Tehran has refused to respond formally to a set of conditions agreed by the UN Security Council last month concerning its nuclear programme. As a result, Russia and China are losing patience and have agreed that the matter should be referred back to Council. This move could lead to economic sanctions, though not - because of the Russian and Chinese vetoes - authorisation for military force. More to the point, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, regularly threatens Israel in his speeches.
As for Britain and Canada, they could be the nucleus of a new "coalition of the willing" which, rather than joining in any attack on Iran, would provide diplomatic support in the aftermath. Last month, Tony Blair fired Jack Straw, his experienced Foreign Secretary, after Straw publicly ruled out the use of force against Iran. Straw, who has Jewish ancestry, was also prepared to criticise the Israeli Government, for instance, on its policy of "targeted killing".
Successive Canadian governments have studiously avoided the Iran issue. But Stephen Harper shares President Bush's world view and has assiduously supported his foreign policies. In April, during a press conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Peter Mac-Kay, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticised Iran for continuing "to defy the will of the international community". MacKay then volunteered that Canada "very, very, very strongly believes that there has to be a clear and consistent message coming from the international community".
Air strikes against nuclear facilities raise particular concerns, since even conventional bombs could disperse any radioactive isotopes that might be located there. The effects on the health of civilians could be catastrophic, and not just in Iran.
There is even a slight chance that Israel or the United States could use its own nuclear weapons. According to the CIA, Israel possesses more than 200 nuclear warheads. Some strategists argue that Israel's security would actually be enhanced if it showed the willingness to use them. Other strategists question whether US interests are still served by the so-called "nuclear taboo".
Moreover, any unnecessary or disproportionate use of force risks polarising a world already divided over Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider the impact of these scenes of devastation on Muslims around the world as they watch Lebanese civilians being killed, wounded, or made homeless under an Israeli onslaught. Consider the impact on our security at home, and the efforts of our soldiers and diplomats to win hearts and minds abroad.
Then, there is the fundamental issue of justice and equality. If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He was a visiting professor at the Buchmann Faculty of Law, University of Tel Aviv, in April 2004.