The Israel Defense Forces, on June 16, bombed Iran’s state TV headquarters. Before the strike, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz publicly stated that “Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappearing.”
Following the attack, IDF spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin explained that “the building was used under the guise of civilian activity, covering up the military use of the center’s infrastructure and assets. The strike directly harmed the military capabilities of the Iranian armed forces.”
Soon afterward, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Israel’s actions, arguing that “journalists, as well as medical and humanitarian aid workers, must be protected under international law.”
Did Israel, indeed, violate the Laws of Armed Conflict (LoAC) under codified international law?
The answer is that, according to the LoAC, neither journalists nor television broadcast outlets are immune from attack if they are involved in military activity. Journalists forfeit their immunity as civilians when they “directly participate in hostilities,” and TV stations may be targeted as “military objectives” if, for example, they are used for military purposes and “make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
Certainly, this was not the first time a TV station was bombed during an armed conflict. The most notable and debated case was the NATO bombing of the Belgrade TV and Radio studios in 1999, which took the lives of 16 people. Similar to the Israeli justification for the recent attack on Iranian state TV, NATO offered two explanations: First, that the Belgrade station “was making an important contribution to the propaganda war, which orchestrated the campaign against the population of Kosovo” and second, the station was also used for military purposes and its bombing disrupted the Serbian armed forces command, control and communications network.
The case came before a committee established by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, who was considering an investigation of NATO forces. The conclusion was that the use of the station for military purposes rendered it a legitimate military target. The committee also concluded that a media outlet may become a legitimate military target “if the media is the nerve system that keeps a warmonger in power and thus perpetuates the war effort.” While the committee’s “keeping a warmonger in power” reasoning was later criticized, the use of a TV station for military purposes is generally accepted as constituting a military target.
Finally, another legal justification for attacking media outlets must be noted in the context of the Iranian state TV station bombing. In some conflicts, such as in Libya and Rwanda, exploiting the media to actively incite war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, most importantly, genocide, was also cited as justification for attack.
Here is the bottom line: Under international law, a broadcast outlet that is used for military purposes in addition to its “civilian” capacity is a legitimate military target. Other legal justifications, such as its service to the regime or its incitement of genocide, may also be raised to justify such attacks, but there is no need to rely on them.
