Three days after Israel’s strike against senior Hamas leaders in Doha on Tuesday, the dust is only just beginning to settle, with Jerusalem increasingly pessimistic that its attack was successful.

What has been perfectly plain to see, however, is the outpouring of denunciations by the international community against Israel over the attack, and allegations that it flies in the face of the laws of war.

Condemnations by numerous countries, including close Israeli allies, focused on what was alleged to be Israel’s violation of Qatari sovereignty, “violations of international law,” and concerns that the strike endangered negotiations with Hamas to bring the nearly two-year-long war in Gaza to an end.

But what exactly are the legal concerns regarding international law over the Israeli attack?

Legitimate targets, questionable location

Israel is currently engaged in an armed conflict with the Hamas terror and paramilitary organization.

The officials targeted by Israel in Tuesday’s strike are believed to have included all of the terror group’s top leadership outside Gaza, including the leader of Hamas’s Gaza units, Khalil al-Hayya; Zaher Jabarin, who leads Hamas in the West Bank; Muhammad Darwish, the head of Hamas’s Shura Council; Nizar Awadallah; and Khaled Mashaal, the head of Hamas abroad.

Targeting Hamas leaders who are part of the chain of command and who are involved in military decision-making and operational matters — including those Israel sought to eliminate on Tuesday — would therefore broadly be considered to be lawful under the laws of armed conflict.

But conducting such strikes in a country with which Israel is not in a state of armed conflict, like Qatar, raises considerable legal issues.

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states are afforded the right to self-defense.

The International Court of Justice, an organ of the UN, has, however, interpreted this right narrowly to mean that member states may only carry out such attacks in response to threats from other member states, and not from armed groups, such as Hamas.

The view according to the ICJ is therefore that states do not........

© The Times of Israel