The Houthis have continued to target Islamic holy sites, most recently with a drone attack on Makkah, while the Coalition stressed that “the security of the Two Holy Mosques is a red line.” Experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that attacks on places of worship constitute a violation of international law.
Tuesday’s targeting of Makkah was not the first such attack. Coalition spokesman Maj. Gen. Turki Al-Maliki said it followed an earlier ballistic missile attack in July 2017.
The Coalition stressed that “the security of the Two Holy Mosques and the Umrah performers is a red line” and that its Joint Forces Command “will not hesitate to take the necessary and deterrent measures against the terrorist Houthi militia and its hostile and terrorist behavior.”
The drone targeting Makkah, intercepted and destroyed by the Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces south of the city, marked another attack on Islamic holy sites and places of worship. It followed Saturday’s targeting of a mosque in Al-Tuwal governorate in Jazan, as well as an attack launched from Iraqi territory against Madinah.
The Coalition statement said the incident “can only be described as a disgraceful act — an attempt to target the cradle of revelation, the land of the divine message and a destination cherished by millions of Muslims from around the world.”
It said the attack also sought to terrorize pilgrims visiting the Grand Mosque and harm citizens and residents.
“This hostile attempt will remain a black mark on the record of violations committed by the extremist terrorist Houthi militia, as it was a deliberate act intended to provoke the feelings of millions of Muslims,” the statement said.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, while several Arab and Islamic countries and other states in the region and around the world expressed solidarity. They also praised the Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces for intercepting the hostile drone before it entered restricted airspace over Makkah.
Violation of International Law
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, including mosques and places of worship, constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts, provided they are not military objectives.
Places of worship of cultural or spiritual importance receive additional protection under Article 53 of Additional Protocol I and Article 16 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. Rule 38 of customary international humanitarian law also requires particular care to avoid damage to buildings dedicated to religious purposes.
Deliberate attacks on mosques and places of worship during armed conflict therefore violate international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes when the sites are not military objectives.
Targeting Regional Security
Dr. Khaled Al-Habbas, former Arab League assistant secretary-general for political affairs, told Asharq Al-Awsat that attacks on the Kingdom by Iran-aligned militias underscored what he described as their functional role as proxies directed by the Revolutionary Guard Corps to destabilize regional security and stability.
Given Saudi Arabia’s regional and international standing and influence, its spiritual and economic importance, its position as a strategic depth for Gulf states and at the heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds, Al-Habbas argued that Iran had sought to target the Kingdom through its regional proxies.
Such attacks, he maintained, amounted to targeting the security and stability of the entire region and, beyond that, regional and international security.
‘Aggression Against the Islamic World’
Al-Habbas stressed that the escalation came amid a decline in Iran’s regional role, including its ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. He described the conduct and aggression of its proxies against the Kingdom as evidence of disregard for good-neighborly relations, international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
Attacks on holy sites, he added, constituted a serious violation of their sanctity and “blatant aggression against all Islamic countries” that required condemnation and action.
“Despite the Kingdom’s consistent approach of de-escalation and support for a political settlement, it certainly has the right to defend its security and stability,” Al-Habbas said, calling on Arab and Islamic countries to confront what he described as the arrogance and aggression of Iran and its proxies.
He also urged the international community to take a firm stance against the militias, arguing that regional security was inseparable from international security because of the region’s geostrategic and economic importance.
Political analyst Abdul Latif Al-Mulhim described such attacks as a continuation of what he called the Houthis’ systematic hostile approach and attacks targeting residential areas and vital facilities, in flagrant defiance of international and humanitarian laws and conventions.
He argued that the attacks reflected the group’s extremist criminal conduct, its rejection of all peace efforts and a threat to regional and international security and stability.
International Responsibility
Al-Habbas and Al-Mulhim agreed that the attacks, coinciding with the militia’s control of the Bab Al-Mandab Strait and its imposition of restrictions on maritime navigation, offered the world and the international community a clear indication of the conduct to be expected from the group if it continued such practices.
They warned of an imminent threat to the region’s security and economic future if the international community delayed fulfilling its responsibilities in combating the group’s actions.
