Author, Emilie El Khoury, is Postdoctoral fellow at Queen’s University’s Centre for International Policy and Defence (CIDP), Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada.

The violent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has intensified in recent days. Reports from Lebanon indicate Israeli air strikes have killed 492 people and injured more than 1,600.

These latest air strikes come shortly after thousands of pagers and other electronic devices exploded across Lebanon on Sept. 17 and 18, killing 37 people and injuring thousands.

Hezbollah quickly laid the blame for the explosions on Israel, which has not taken credit for the attack. Volker Turk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby-trapped devices and that “it is a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians.”

Days later, Israel bombed a building in Beirut, killing 45 people, including a Hezbollah commander.

Israeli officials have reportedly said their recent attacks on Lebanon are an attempt to reach “de-escalation through escalation.” However, in response, Hezbollah has launched hundreds of rockets deep into Israel, signalling that Israeli attempts at de-escalatory escalation are unlikely to work.

In a speech following the pager explosions, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Israel had “crossed all red lines,” that the group remained resolved and that it would continue its attacks on Israel.

Psychological warfare

Since the current Hamas-Israel war began in October 2023, the violent exchanges between Hezbollah and the Israeli military have been based on a logic of deterrence, with each side attempting to discourage the other from widening the conflict.

However, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant recently said the focus of Israel’s war effort is moving to the north of the country and that Israel plans to deepen its attacks on Lebanon.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog has claimed Hezbollah hides rockets in civilian homes, suggesting they could become targets. Meanwhile, the Israeli education minister has called for “a massive war against Lebanon.” He has also declared: “There is no difference between Hezbollah and Lebanon. The way things are progressing, Lebanon will be annihilated.”

Such comments, along with the attacks on Lebanon, indicate the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel may become more intense in the coming weeks and months. They also exacerbate the level of terror among civilian populations already grappling with the uncertainty and stress the war has wrought.

While Israel has not confirmed it was behind the pager explosions, Israeli jets regularly fly over Lebanon, causing sonic booms as they break the sound barrier. This is a tactic designed to spread fear among the civilian population.

Israel has adopted a similar tactic in Gaza, using drones that produce a loud constant buzzing sound that causes anxiety and a sense of insecurity.

These displays allow Israel to demonstrate the strength of its military capabilities. In this context, Israel is intensifying its attacks across Lebanon to erode the morale of the Lebanese people.

What is terrorism?

The explosions across Lebanon instilled deep terror among the population. Among the injured and killed were innocent civilians, including children.

This raises the question: Do indiscriminate attacks that spread fear among civilian populations qualify as terrorist if they possess all the characteristics of terrorism but lack a specific objective or motivation given that no one has claimed any?

Politics scholars have attempted to come up with definitions of terrorism. Some argue any action that generates terror or panic and aims to destabilize society can be considered a terrorist act.

However, the lack of a clear claim complicates this classification. These acts seem more akin to criminal acts, as the political or ideological motivations are not formally established.

The concept of terrorism originated during the French Revolution, particularly during the Reign of Terror, a violent period marked by the execution of tens of thousands by revolutionary governments.

In response to state terror, groups identifying as revolutionaries emerged, employing similar tactics to resist their authorities, and these groups were seen as terrorists.

Since then, terrorism has been viewed as a form of violent communication directed at a state, using lethal means to instil fear and achieve specific ideological or political goals.

In 1979, the United States government began designating certain countries as “state sponsors of terrorism,” with Iran notably implicated in supporting such activities following the Iranian Revolution.

Today, the question of whether states employ tactics akin to terrorism is complex and widely debated. Anti-terrorism strategies typically aim to protect nations from immediate threats, while counterinsurgency focuses on stabilizing and supporting existing governments.

But violent counterinsurgency raises ethical dilemmas. It can perpetuate cycles of violence, cause more terror and reinforce rebellion among affected populations.

Do such attacks work?

If the goal is to spread fear, then these attacks are successful. The explosions triggered scenes of panic in public places as shops, restaurants, schools and hospitals became sites of terror.

However, if — as the Israeli government has suggested — the attacks seek to weaken Hezbollah’s support among the Lebanese population, they can have the opposite effect. Although many Lebanese people have been critical of Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict, these recent attacks are perceived as targeted against all Lebanese.

Many innocent civilians were killed or injured, including women, children and health-care workers. People from all walks of life felt a palpable threat, giving rise to unprecedented solidarity.

From an anthropological perspective, Israel’s latest attacks have galvanized a greater sense of solidarity within the Lebanese population. Following the attacks, calls for blood donations poured in, while various political parties and religious groups expressed support for the victims.

For Hezbollah, these attacks, despite the significant human losses, can bolster it politically. They reinforce its narrative of martyrdom and portray the group as a defender of Lebanon to its supporters.

The cross-border attacks by Israel and Hezbollah are in part designed to pressure the civilian populations, and in turn, the opposing side. However, this psychological war has not yielded the expected results for either side. Thousands of civilians on both sides of the border have had to flee their homes. However, neither side has seemingly been deterred.

As the attacks become more deadly and rhetoric more inflammatory, there is an urgent need to de-escalate tensions, abandon this violent approach and return to diplomacy.

(This article is republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons licence.)