NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/9255

Text File | 1992-12-12 | 10.0 KB | 260 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: Hank Roth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Israel's War in Lebanon
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:06:14 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 245

<<< via P_news/p.news >>>
{Excerpts from: ISRAEL'S WAR IN
LEBANON:Eyewitness Chronicles of the Invasion and
Occupation, Edited by Franklin P. Lamb, South End
Press 84}

INTRODUCTION  (Part I)

War is hell of horrors, and horrors necessarily
flow from it. The horrors portrayed in the
testimony of the many witnesses to the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon and to the subsequent Israel
occupation of much of Lebanon are in themselves a
terrible indictment...

In 1945, at the close of World War II, the
international community met at San Francisco to
found the United Nations. The conference
committed itself to replacing the old order--the
jungle law of armed might as symbolized by Nazi
Germany--with a new legal order for the conduct
of international relations. The new legal order
was premised upon the territorial integrity and
political independence of each nation. To enforce
these principles, the international community
virtually unanimously agreed in Article 2(3) of
the United Nations Charter to settle disputes
peacefully:

  All members shall settle their international
  disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
  international peae and security, and justice, are
  not endangered.

Paragraph 4 of the same article prohibits member
of the international community from resorting to
aggression. It states:

   All members shall refrain in their
   international relations from the threat or use of
   force against the territorial integrity or
   political independence of any state, or in any
   other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the
   United Nations.

Article 2(4) does not abolish the right of
legitimate self-defense, and the use of arms in
legitimate self-defense is allowed in certain
circumstances. Specifically, in condemning
aggression, international law provides that the
only right to the use of force in post-World War
II international relations is the right to
individual or collective self-defense in the
event of "an armed attack" (Article 51 of the UN
Charter); "an enforcement action" by the UN
Security Council (permitted in chapter 7); and
"enforcement action" permitted by regional
organizations authorized by the Security Council
consistent with Article 53 of the UN Charter. In
addition, armed force is allowed in certain UN
Security Council "peacekeeping operations," UN
General Assembly "uniting for peace operations,"
and certain operations of "regional
organizations," under UN Security Council
direction. These latter provisions of the UN
Charter are plainly inapplicable to the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon.

Thus the only legitimate justification for
Israel's military invasion of Lebanaon would be
an exercise of the Article 51 RIGHT OF SELF
DEFENSE. This is precisely the basis asserted by
Israel's Prime Minister Begin during his June 15,
1982, appearance before the UN General Assemby.
It has also been frequently voiced by the Israeli
Lobby in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. Article
51 of the Charter provides:

   Nothing in the present Charter shall impair
   the inherent right of individual or collective
   self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a
   Member of the United Nations, until the Security
   Council has taken the measure necessary to
   maintain international peace and security.
   Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this
   right of self-defense shall be immediately
   reported to the Security Council and shall not in
   any way affect the authority and responsibility
   of the Security Council under the present Charter
   to take at any time such action as it deems
   necessary in order to maintain or restore
   international peace and security.

As expressed in Article 51, the clearest right of
a state to use self-defense is in response to an
armed invasion or attack, and some have argued
that Article 51 limits the right of self-defense
to cases of resistance to armed attack by other
states. These commentators believe that only such
a direct attack gives a right to use force in
self-defense, and they do not acknowledge a right
to "anticipatory" self-defense. Representative of
this school of opinion is Professor Louis Henkin
of Columbia University, who believes:

   ...the argument [that self-defense may be
   anticipatory or retaliatory] is unfounded, its
   reasoning is fallacious, its doctrine pernicious.
   The fair reading of Article 51 permits unilateral
   use of force only in a very narrow and clear
   circumstance in self-defense if an armed attack
   occurs. Nothing in the history of its drafting
   (the travaux preparatoires) suggests that the
   framers of the Charter intended something
   broader than the language implied.

Others, however, argue perhaps more convincingly
that Article 51 is not intended to limit exercise
of the right of self-defense only to such
circumstances. Anticipatory self-defense is also
available to a state in those extraordinary
circumstances where it can be clearly shown that
a direct and overwhelming thrat is so compelling
that there is a plain necessity to act, and
Article 51 does not restrict the traditional
right of self-defense to such an extent as to
exclude action taken against an imminent danger
before an armed attack occurs. This view has wide
support:

   The provisions of Article 51 do not necessarily
   exclude the right of self-defense in situations
   not covered by this Article. If the right of
   self-defense is inherent as has been claimed in
   the past, then each Member retains the right
   subject onlyu to such limitations as are
   contained in the Charter....

Thus, international law outlaws the use of force
against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, but permits force to
be used for legitimate self-defense purposes and,
when appropriate, in anticipation of events in
order to prevent aggression. This view is
supported by the weight of state practice, which
establishes that the right may be claimed and
used only when there is reasonable cause to
believe that the national existence is imperiled.
In other words, international law permits the
exercise of self-defense not only when there is
reasonable cause to believe that the national
existence is imperiled, in the face of actual
attack, but also against a threatened aggression
when the danger is imminent and threatens
national existence.

REQUIRMENTS FOR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF SELF-DEFENSE

In order for a state---in this case, Israel---to
employ self-defense as a basis for military
action, it must satisfy three conditions imposed
by international law:

* It must first use any PEACEFUL PROCEDURES
  availabe.

* It must establish that an ACTUAL NECESSITY
  existed for the use of force--that is, that it
  was under attack or that such armed attack was
  imminent.

* It must establish that the force employed in
  response to the actual or imminent atack was
  PROPORTIONAL in kind and degree to the
  precipitating attack.


REQUIRMENT OF EXHAUSTING PEACEFUL PROCEDURES

With respect to peaceful procedures,
international law postulates that the less
imminent the threat, the greater the requirment
that the state concerned exhaust peaceful
alternatives to the use of force. Included are
the peaceful procedures of mediation,
conciliation and good offices provided by Article
33 of the UN Charter. Israel chose to ignore
these available peaceful procedures.

For example, on June 5, following the massive
Israeli air attacks against Lebanon but before
the June 6 invasion, the U.N. Security Council
adopted Resolution 508, which attempted to
dissuade the Begin government from invading
Lebanon. Resolution 508 urged "all parties to the
conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously
all military activities within Lebanon and across
the Lebanese-Israeli border...not later than 0600
hours local time on Sunday, June 6, 1982." While
Israel ignored this resolution and proposed
cease-fire, the Secretary-General advised the
Security Council on June 6 that the PLO declared
its acceptance of Resolution 508 and "reaffirmed
its commitment to stop all military operations
across the Lebanese border." The Secretary-
General further advised the Security Council
that, even after the time for ceasefire had
expired, and despite continuing heavy Israeli
bombing attacks, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat "had
given orders to all PLO units to withhold fire
for a furter specified period." Israel's response
was to continue its massive air attacks on
Lebanon which, according to the UN interim Force
in Lebanon (UNIFIL), included approximately 110
bombing runs during the first eight hours of the
proposed June 6 ceasefire. Shortly thereafter,
Israel invaded Lebanon by land with a massive
force exceeding 120,000 men, as well as by sea
and by air. On June 7, the U.N. Security Council
passed Resolution 509, which demanded "that
Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith
and unconditionally to the internationally
recognized boundaries of Lebanaon." Israel's
response was to enlarge the size of its invading
army.

The record clearly demonstrates that Israel
ignored the available peaceful procedures,
including a return to the cease-fire negotiated
in April 1981, which it had a legal duty to
accept before implementing its "self-defense"
actions.

---------------------------------------------
Send COMMENTS or articles for posting to:
[e-mail] ----- for P_news
("progressive" news, views and articles) on
fidonets and p.news on Peacenet. Request P_news
on your fidonet BBS and join Peacenet for p.news
and hundreds of other alternative conferences.
-----------------------------------------------