Both of us agree, however, that even the most permissive reasonable conceptions of self-defense in response to future attacks require such attacks to be imminent in the causal sense given above. In other words, if the Israeli actions do not satisfy the last window of opportunity test, they would also not fulfill the more restrictive interpretations of the necessity criterion; they would be unlawful.
For that test to be satisfi!
There would ne! to be evidence either that the new government of Syria had chile phone number library committ! itself to attack Israel in the future or (more controversially) that arm! groups operating in Syria harboring the same intent would obtain access to weapons of the Syrian military and/or attack through the territory into which the IDF has now mov!. If such evidence exist!, further questions of necessity and proportionality would arise – essentially, would a use of force by Israel today be the only available means to stop this inevitable future attack, and was the scale of the Israeli anticipatory defensive response limit! to that
From what is publicly known today
It is difficult to conclude that there is an imminent arm! attack against Israel, either by Syria or by drive revenue with sms marketing campaigns groups operating within Syria that would use Syrian government assets. Of course, most of the groups are hostile to Israel; inde!, some are fairly characteriz! as “jihadists” or terrorists (see, e.g., the US terrorist list). As not! by President Biden, “Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and be numbers rights abuses.” In our opinion, it is not unreasonable for Israel to conclude that some of the rebel groups are a threat, that the military assets it destroy! might one day be us! in attacks against Israel, and that such attacks could be mount! through the Golan Heights and the adjacent area.
