|
August 2, 2006 - No. 111
Resistance Is a Right! All Out to
Support the
Just Cause of the Lebanese People!
• Resistance Is
a Right! All Out to
Support the Just Cause of the Lebanese People!
• Hezbollah Is a Resistance Organization, Not a
Militia - Extracts from Articles
by Adib S.
Kawar
• U.S. Congress Passes Resolutions Supporting
Israeli Aggression
• The Logic of Israel's War on Civilians
- Ramzy Baroud, The Peninsula (Qatar)
• Human Shields: Shielding the Truth
- Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi, Arab Media Watch
• Israel, Hezbollah, and the Use and Abuse of
Self-Defence in International Law - Victor Kattan, Arab Media
Watch
Resistance Is a Right! All Out to Support the
Just Cause of the Lebanese People!
On August 2, a special session of the House Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade was called to
discuss the situation in Lebanon. The result of the session was that
the committee adopted a motion urging the Canadian government to call
for "an immediate ceasefire by all parties." The motion was passed
without the support of the Conservative government.
TML condemns
the stand of the Government of Canada expressed by Foreign Affairs
Minister Peter MacKay at the committee meeting. MacKay blamed Hezbollah
for
what is taking place in Lebanon, calling the resistance organization a
"cancer destroying democracy in Lebanon." Presenting the issue as
"terrorism versus democracy," MacKay stated that the Conservative
government believes "it is not a difficult choice between a democratic
state [Israel] that was attacked by terrorists and cold-blooded
killers." He called Hezbollah a "terrorist army" that "has shown no
interest in a ceasefire" and is using civilians as "human shields."
The Canadian ruling circles are unleashing a brutal
assault on the consciousness of the Canadian people by claiming that
support for Israeli aggression is moral while trying to sow doubt about
the resistance of the Lebanese people to Israeli state terror by
claiming that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
TML condemns
the Canadian government's attempt to disinform Canadian public opinion
with its rendering of the situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a
resistance organization in Lebanon which for decades has been
exercising the internationally recognized right to resist foreign
occupation. The placement of the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance on
the list of terrorist organizations in Canada and the U.S. was for the
sole purpose of clearing the path for what is taking place today, the
Hitlerite assault on sovereign peoples as the U.S. imperialists seek to
assert their control over West Asia and Northeast Africa.
The Lebanese people are fighting tenaciously to defend
the sovereignty of their nation and preserve its existence against an
invading army which is hell bent on causing as much destruction as
possible. They are upholding the traditions of the national liberation
movements in which the lives of thousands of martyrs were sacrificed to
liberate occupied lands.
To associate resistance with extremism is disinformation
for purposes of conciliating with the role Israel is playing in the
Middle East. According to the government's logic, to smash a popular
resistance involving a broad range of political and religious forces is
worth any amount of death and destruction and is a moral cause.
Under these circumstances the armed resistance of the
Lebanese people is the main block to Israel acting with complete
impunity. It is the resistance to occupation which is upholding the
principles of the United Nations Charter, as it did when through their
own efforts the Lebanese people liberated southern Lebanon in May 2000.
If the principles of national sovereignty and the right
to self-determination are to mean anything, then there has to be a
power which can uphold them against aggression. The resistance to
occupation in Lebanon is doing what the big powers refuse to do which
is to concretely enforce the principles of the UN Charter in the
interests of peace. No one should hesitate in calling a spade a spade
and to stand as one with all those forces who are upholding justice and
the peoples' right to be.
Hezbollah Is a Resistance Organization, Not a Militia
- Extracts from Articles by Adib S.
Kawar -
Extracts from "UN Security
Council
Resolution 1559," MidEast Web, September 2, 2004; "What! A New
Sykes/Picot Agreement? The United States Supported by France Wants to
Impose This on the Arab States," MidEast Web, November 5, 2004.
Hezbollah is a resistance organization, not a militia.
Hezbollah, which was the major contributor to the liberation
of South Lebanon and West Bekaa (which is 10 per cent of the total area
of Lebanon) over a 22-year period was and
is still performing its duty with the blessing of the Lebanese
Government and people. Without its sacrifices and those of other
resistance parties, this part of Lebanon would have been still occupied
by the Zionist enemy, if not colonized as the Palestinian West Bank.
It is without doubt a Zionist interest to concentrate
on the disarmament of the resistance forces[...]The resistance forces
are a necessity for the
security of Lebanon against the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty, and
a vital need to proceed with the final and total liberation of the
country and hopefully Palestine. On this basis the Zionist entity and
its ally/supporter the United States see in the
Lebanese resistance a threat to their interests in the region, that is
their military, political and economic interests, namely their total
domination of the area.
***
[In this regard,] the United Nations Security Council
passed resolution 1559 calling for non-interference in Lebanese
affairs, for disarming of militias and for Syrian withdrawal from
Lebanon in accordance with previous UN resolutions.
A key provision of Resolution 1559 was disarmament of
militias:
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all
Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the
Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 9 in favour
(Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom,
United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil,
China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation).
A Lebanese representative made the following statement,
quoted in the UN Press Release.
Mohamad Issa, Secretary-General of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, said that there were no
militias in Lebanon. There was only the national Lebanese resistance,
which appeared after the Israeli occupation and which would remain so
long as Israel remained. The resistance
force existed alongside the Lebanese national forces. Lebanon
determined the presence and size of the force, depending on the
country's need. The authority of Lebanon extended to all parts of
Lebanon except those areas occupied by Israel.
He said that submitting the draft resolution confused
two matters. The first was the distinguished relations linking Lebanon
and Syria, which achieved their joint interests, particularly the
interests of Lebanon. Friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain
stability and security within its borders. It had
warded off radicalism and violence, fed by the violence exercised by
Israel against the Palestinians. Secondly, the matter was purely
internal, and related to the presidential elections to be held in
Lebanon. Syrian troops came to Lebanon in accordance with legitimate
requests. Their presence was guarded by an agreement
concluded by two sovereign States. Those troops had been redeployed
several times. They contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions
emanating from repulsive Israeli actions.
Hence, saying that Syria supported radical movements in
Lebanon was not true. To the contrary, Syria supported the Lebanese
national resistance, which desired to liberate the territories occupied
by Israel. The draft resolution was talking about supporting free and
just elections in Lebanon. He did not
believe that internal matter had ever been discussed in the Council
relating to any Member State. It was an internal matter, he stressed.
The United Nations had not interfered in that matter with regard to any
other State. There was no justification for the draft resolution, which
constituted an interference in the internal
affairs of a Member State.
In addition, it discussed bilateral relations between
two friendly nations, neither of which had filed any complaint
concerning those relations. He called for the withdrawal of the draft
resolution.
U.S. Congress Passes Resolutions
Supporting Israeli Aggression
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both passed
similar resolutions this week, expressing their full support for
Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Palestine. Both measures passed
on voice votes. Both turn reality completely on its head, calling
Israeli aggression "self-defense." The resolutions also
say Israel which dropped more than 20 tons of bombs on civilians in a
single day, show "great restraint" and that it is the Lebanese who are
indiscriminately targeting civilians.
The resolutions begin in a similar fashion. From the
Senate: "Condemning Hizbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and
supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." (Senate
Resolution 534)
The House resolution states, "Condemning the recent
attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their
state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right
to defend itself, and for other purposes." Both also say Israel has
showed "great restraint." Both were passed following
the week-long and continuing U.S-backed Israeli bombings now destroying
Lebanon, with civilian infrastructure, including schools, bridges and
power plants main targets, as well as refugees forced to flee on foot.
The Senate specifically:
"1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of
Israel
2) supports Israel's right of self-defense and Israel's
right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist
groups and their state sponsors
3) urges the President to continue fully supporting
Israel as Israel exercises its right of self-defense in Lebanon and
Gaza;
4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of
Israeli soldiers who are being held captive by Hizbollah or Hamas." The
resolution urges Bush to "use all available political and diplomatic
means, including sanctions, to persuade the governments of Syria and
Iran to end their support of Hizbollah
and Hamas.
The House followed suit, also calling for "steadfast
support" for Israel. It condemned Hamas and Hizbollah for "continuing
to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their
rockets and missiles." It said that the House "recognizes Israel's
longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian
loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian
casualties." It also said that "all governments that have provided
continued support to Hamas or Hizbollah share responsibility for the
hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held
accountable for their actions." The resolution also
urges Bush to "bring the full force of political, diplomatic and
economic sanctions available" against Syria and Iran.
Both resolutions are completely silent on the more than
9,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, many of them women and
children. In defending Israel's actions, including the "conduct of
operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a
threat to it," they are also defending the
massive bombings of civilians and the stated goal of Israel to bomb
Lebanon and Gaza back to dark ages. The Israeli ambassador to the UN
demanded at a recent pro-Israel rally in New York City, that the UN
permit Israel to "finish the job!" of leveling Lebanon and Palestine
and eliminating Hamas and Hizbollah.
He added, "To those countries who claim we are using disproportionate
force, I have only this to say: you're damn right we are!"
The Congress is responsible for ensuring that Israel
receives about $3 billion in U.S. funding yearly, which is about 1/5 of
total foreign aid. It has the second-largest fleet of F-16 bombers in
the world, second only to its sponsor, the United States. Israel is
about the size of New Jersey and has about
one one-thousandth of the world's population.
The Logic of Israel's War on Civilians
- Ramzy Baroud, The Peninsula (Qatar),
August 2, 2006 -
A Sky News newscaster, interviewing British Foreign
Secretary Margaret Beckett on Sunday, July 30 demanded an answer to
this paraphrased question: if indeed Israel had precise intelligence
that a Hezbollah operative was present in the village of Qana, in South
Lebanon, how could it possibly fail to realise
that the area was also crowded with civilians?
The question was prompted by Beckett's insistence that
while Israeli attacks that victimise uncountable civilians -- like that
in Qana which killed scores, mostly children -- were "appalling," they
resulted from tactical errors, and were never deliberate. In fact, she
referred to the "apparent deliberate targeting" --
as described by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan -- of the UN
peacekeepers compound in South Lebanon and the killing of four unarmed
observers, as a "mistake."
In effect, Israel is hardly accused -- at least in the
Western narrative of the Middle East crisis, as exemplified in media
coverage and political discourse -- of deliberately targeting
civilians, even among those who are daring enough to describe Israel's
response to Hezbollah's "provocation" -- the capturing
of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 -- as "disproportionate."
Israel often acknowledges -- with "regret" -- the high
civilian toll of its war; sometimes it goes as far as apologizing for
such unintended "mistakes." The Israeli government however is adamant
that it will continue to carry out such attacks; that it's those who
"hide among the civilian population" which
deserve the blame, not Israel; that neither Hezbollah nor Palestinian
resistance groups seem to care much for the life of Israeli civilians,
while Israel does care for Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. In fact,
and ironically, according to various Israeli politicians and media
pundits, one of Israel's objectives is to liberate
its neighbours from the suffocating grip of terrorists.
An objective journalist is expected to highlight both
narratives, without pointing out the fallacies of one or the other.
Such "objectivity" has served Israel well, since facts on the ground
are hardly consistent with its claims.
For example, out of nearly 4,000 Palestinians killed
during the Second Palestinian Uprising -- in the last 5 years -- the
overwhelming majority have been civilians, many of whom are children.
Such figures are also mirrored in much of the damage inflicted by
Israel's military machine against Palestinians
in the Occupied Territories: the great majority of the wounded, the
destroyed infrastructure, the confiscated land, the razed orchards, the
bulldozed homes, etc, have been overwhelmingly civilian. Wednesday,
July 26, was hardly a diversion from that norm, as 29 Palestinian
civilians, many of whom were children
as young as a few months old, were killed in northern Gaza, all in the
span of 24 hours.
As of today, including the Qana onslaught, the number
of Lebanese civilians confirmed dead has crossed the 750 mark; more
than one third of them are children, according to UN counts. Likewise,
the destroyed Lebanese infrastructure, not only in Hezbollah's
strongholds in the south, but across Lebanon
were built primarily for the benefit of the civilian population. The
handy excuse that Hezbollah and Hamas fighters launch their rockets at
Israel from civilian areas, no longer suffices. There is yet to be one
shred of evidence, one video or bit of satellite footage -- at least in
the ongoing war in Lebanon -- that confirms
such an allegation. In fact, it seems imprudent for Hezbollah's
fighters to expose their operations to Israel's informers, while they
can safely fire from the numerous orchards dotting the south region.
Concurrently, the "unintended mistakes" theory,
promulgated by Israel's apologists -- read the Bush Administration,
among others -- is utterly inconsistent with claims promoted by Israel
and its apologists that Israel is the "most moral army in the world,"
and that Israel uses the most advanced war technology
to avoid harming civilians.
These allegations cannot all be accurate, all at once.
If Israel is indeed very "moral," then why does its army continue to
repeat the same "unintended mistakes," over and over again, for
decades? Is it possible that the killing and wounding of tens of
thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as
a result of those "unintended mistakes" didn't induce a very moral army
to reexamine its tactics and adopt a decisive change in military
policy? Wouldn't that be the "moral" thing to do? (Note that the small
village of Qana was bombed by the Israeli air force in 1996, as
civilians were seeking shelter in a UN compound,
killing over 100 people.)
The second claim, that Israel strives to obtain
high-tech (American) weapon technology to minimise civilian casualties,
is also fraudulent. Once again, the numbers indicate the precise
antithesis; denoting that either the "fifth strongest army in the
world" is so horribly inept, that most of its military strikes
result in blunders, or that the killing of civilians is in reality part
and parcel of Israel's military strategy. This latter assertion, in my
opinion, is the true objective; but why?
Israeli officials may parrot to the media that
Hezbollah (like Hamas) is an outsider force that holds no legal
legitimacy, and that its true strength arises from its terrorist links
to Iran and Syria. Conversely, Israeli conduct on the ground gives
evidence to a different conviction: punishing the true party --
ordinary Lebanese -- that provide Hezbollah with the needed support to
sustain such costly military confrontations with Israel, or ordinary
Palestinians who elected Hamas to power.
Both Hezbollah and Hamas are homegrown; there should be
little contention over this. But they cannot be scrutinised divorced
from their immediate surroundings: Hezbollah emerged as a result of
Israel's frequent bloodbaths in Lebanon and its members are comprised
primarily of victims of Israel's
past wars, while Hamas sprung from Palestinian refugee camps in the
Occupied Territories and has been sustained with the support of the
poorest segments of the population. Whatever strategic alliance they
hold outside -- Iran, Syria or whomever else that is willing to
acknowledge their right to fight Israel -- is out
of a desperate need for a safe haven, financial assistance and a
political platform.
Israel knows well that "destroying" Hezbollah and Hamas
is a losing battle -- they've tried this time and again, and have
failed with each attempt.
Human Shields: Shielding the Truth
- Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi*, Arab Media
Watch, July 31, 2006 -
During Israel's 2006 onslaught and invasion of Lebanon,
Israeli spokespeople and British media figures have increasingly blamed
the high number of Lebanese civilian casualties on Hezbollah using them
as "human shields." The group has stringently denied this.
Israeli commentator Amos Oz, in a 20 July opinion piece
in the Evening Standard, used the term "human sandbags." His
claim was run in a front-page news story in the paper, with the huge
headline 'The Human Sandbags.' He was the only source in the article,
and there was no attempt
to ask human rights groups, journalists or Lebanese officials to verify
whether this very serious allegation is true.
A day later, I was interviewed on radio with former
Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who repeated this claim, as did regular
columnist Frederick Forsyth in the 28 July edition of the Daily
Express, and Leo McKinstry in the Sun on 31 July.
Israel and its sympathisers have been using this excuse
for the killing of Lebanese civilians even more since the bombing on 30
July of a four-story residential building in Qana, killing dozens,
mainly women and children.
However, reporters at the scene said they had seen no
Hezbollah fighters or action at the time, none of the bodies recovered
have been militants, rescue workers have found no weapons in the
building that was struck, and Human Rights Watch said that "Israel has
not presented any evidence to show
that Hezbollah was present in or around the building that was struck at
the time of the attack." This scenario has been repeated many times
during Israel's attacks.
HRW says responsibility for the "appalling" Qana attack
"rests squarely with the Israeli military," calling it "the latest
product of an indiscriminate bombing campaign that the Israel Defense
Forces (IDF) have waged in Lebanon." Executive Director Kenneth Roth
says the attack "suggests that the Israeli
military is treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone."[1]
"The concept of 'free-fire' zones is incompatible with
international humanitarian law," says Irene Khan, Amnesty
International's secretary general. "The attack in Qana is symptomatic
of the way in which this conflict has been fought to date and indicates
either that Israel is failing to take necessary precautions
to spare civilians or that it has intentionally launched a
disproportionate attack on civilians."[2]
Furthermore, AMW has spoken to numerous sources on the
ground in Lebanon, including several international human rights
organisations (Amnesty, Save the Children, Oxfam, HRW and Unicef),
British journalists (from the Independent, the Daily
Telegraph, the Daily
Mirror and the Guardian), the Lebanese ambassador in
London and a professor at the American University of Beirut, and none
have seen any evidence to back the claim that Hezbollah is using
civilians as human shields.
HRW Emergencies Director Peter Bouckaert describes
Israel's claim as "a convenient excuse...[O]ur investigations have not
found evidence to support Israeli allegations that Hizbullah are
intentionally endangering Lebanese civilians by systematically fighting
from civilian positions...[T]ime and again
villagers tell us that Hizbullah is fighting from the hills. Meanwhile,
the homes hit by Israel have only civilians in them."[3]
A source at Oxfam described the allegation as "nonsense"
by "the Israeli propaganda machine" to create "very dodgy journalism." Independent
correspondent Robert Fisk, who lives in Lebanon and
has reported from the country for more than 20 years, called it
"bullshit." A reporter for the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper
known for its
pro-Israeli editorial policy, called it "total and utter rubbish,"
"completely retarded," "a whole lot of crap" and "simply not true."
Another Telegraph reporter described the claim as
"absolutely wrong." The Lebanese ambassador described it as "really
stupid," and Professor Omar Nashabe called it "incorrect," "inadequate"
and "baseless."
The sources said such allegations were nothing new.
"This came up previously during the occupation of the south of
Lebanon," said Nicole Choueiry, Amnesty's press officer for the Middle
East and North Africa.
This is "the usual thing they say about Hezbollah," said
Donatella Rivera, Amnesty's researcher on Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territories. "It's a very old story. Israel has been saying
that about Gaza and Palestine in general forever, so it's a broken
record."
Fisk said: "There's a general lie going around that
Arabs don't love their children, that they want to sacrifice them, the
idea being that all Arabs are basically savages and awful people. The
generic thing is to make the Arabs uncaring of their own children, and
that they are basically animals. It's part
of the beastialisation of Arabs, and this sounds like the same thing."
Sources poured scorn on the idea that Lebanese civilians
were unfortunate collateral damage as Israel bombed areas from where
Hezbollah were firing rockets.
"Israel has pinpoint accuracy," said a Telegraph reporter.
"Israel has one of the most advanced technological
armies in the world, with equipment that can allow it to pinpoint the
exact target or location they want," said Nashabe. "This means they're
fully responsible for where their bombs land. They have the advanced
technology, whereas Hezbollah doesn't.
If you look statistically, the Israeli army has bombarded more civilian
targets than the resistance has."
Fisk added: "How do you explain that the air force that
uses pinpoint and surgical precision manages to kill so many children,
young women and old people? The only way you can explain it, other than
you don't fucking care, is to say 'oh well, they were being used as
human shields by animals like
Hezbollah.'"
Sources said the idea of the Lebanese group using
civilians as human shields is absurd considering it draws most of its
support from people in the areas it is based.
"A lot of these people support Hezbollah because they
live in the south and it's the only group that has ever helped them,"
said a Telegraph reporter. "It has built schools and hospitals while no
one paid any attention to them from the central government. If
Hezbollah was using people as human shields,
it wouldn't get their support."
Fisk said: "Most of them are with their own children.
Why would they use them as human shields?"
Nashabe reiterated this sentiment: "Hezbollah are part
of the population. They wouldn't hide behind their own children or
family."
HRW states that even if Hezbollah were to locate
military targets in populated areas, "Israel must refrain from
launching any attack that may be expected to cause excessive civilian
loss in comparison to the concrete and direct military advantage
anticipated. That is, a violation by Hezbollah in this regard
does not justify Israeli forces ignoring the civilian consequences of a
planned attack. The intentional launch of an attack in an area without
regard to the civilian consequences or in the knowledge that the harm
to civilians would be disproportionately high compared to any definite
military benefit to be achieved would
be a serious violation of international humanitarian law, and a war
crime.
"In any event, the presence of a Hezbollah commander or
military facility in a populated area never justifies attacking the
area as such rather than the particular military target. It is a
prohibited indiscriminate attack, and a war crime, to treat an entire
area as a military target instead of attacking the particular
military facilities or personnel within that area."[4]
Amnesty reiterates this, saying that "international
humanitarian law makes it clear that even if one side is shielding
itself behind civilians, such an abuse does not release the Parties to
the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian
population and civilians."[5]
Moreover, it is truly ironic that the accuser is long
known to use human shields itself, which is a war crime. "Hezbollah
aren't known to use human shields, whereas the Israelis are," said an
Oxfam source. "They have a history as long as my arm."
Israel has been accused numerous times by
internationally respected human rights organisations of using
Palestinians as shields during the current uprising against occupation,
most recently by Oxfam and Israel's B'Tselem on 21 July 2006, though
this was not reported by the media.[6][7]
Fisk said he personally saw Israelis use Lebanese as
human shields during their 1980s invasion, "by forcing them to sit in
front of their armoured vehicles as they were going into the streets.
So
for human shields, the experts are the Israelis."
Rivera concludes: "Ultimately, the fact is the children
are being killed by Israeli bombs."
Notes
1.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/30/lebano13881.htm
2.
http://news.amnesty.org/index/engmde020022006
3.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/31/isrlpa13882.htm
4.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm#10
5.
http://news.amnesty.org/index/engmde020022006
6.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/palestine210706.htm
7.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shiel
ds_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
Israel, Hezbollah, and the Use and Abuse of
Self-Defence in International Law
- Victor Kattan*, Arab Media Watch, July
26, 2006 -
Many pro-Israel TV pundits are justifying Israel's
relentless bombardment of Lebanon as "self-defence." For example, Jerry
Lewis, senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews,
told the BBC's Dateline London programme on Sunday 23 July that Israel
was acting in self-defence according to the
UN Charter.
Self-defence is specifically mentioned in Article 51 of
the Charter, and is effectively a derogation from the prohibition on
the use of force contained in Article 2 (4). Whether or not Israel is
acting in self-defence in Lebanon according to the Charter is a crucial
question, as the implications of its actions
could have negative ramifications beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict and
spill over into other problem areas. I consider Israel's self-defence
argument an abuse of terminology that is not applicable to the facts at
hand and has no justification in international law.
Pretext
On 12 July 2006, a frontier dispute between the Israeli
army and the armed wing of Hezbollah rapidly developed into a
full-scale armed conflict, leaving hundreds of civilians (mostly
Lebanese) dead. According to Israel, the casus belli was a cross-border
attack by Hezbollah which led to
the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of eight others.
However according to Hezbollah, Israel initiated the conflict by
sending its soldiers into Ayta al-Sha'b, a Lebanese village just north
of the Israeli border. International reaction to the conflict has
mostly condemned both Hezbollah and Israel, with many
nations expressing concern over a possible escalation of the conflict.
The US, UK, Germany, France and Canada have acknowledged Israel's right
to defend itself. The G8 (which includes the countries already
mentioned plus Italy, Russia and Japan), blame the upsurge in violence
on "extremists," thus accepting the casus
belli
advanced by Israel and its right to defend its people
whilst urging it to be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian
consequences of its actions.
Response
Israel responded to Hezbollah's 'provocation' by
threatening to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by twenty years," as
Israel's Chief of Staff Dan Halutz put it, to the dark days of the
civil war, when Israel is alleged to have killed 20,000 civilians. In a
fortnight, Israeli missiles and shells caused the deaths
of approximately 400 people, mostly civilians, many of them children,
and displaced 700,000. The Israeli Air Force -- which according to
British Middle East Minister Kim Howells has up to 600 jets flying
sorties over Lebanon at any time, dropping U.S.-made "precision-guided"
incendiary devices -- has caused massive
infrastructural damage to Lebanon. Nothing has been spared: ports,
bridges, motorways, power stations, whole neighbourhoods, mosques,
churches, the airport, a lighthouse, hospitals and people fleeing in
their cars.
Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of
civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory,"
as has the International Committee of the Red Cross. She suggested that
the actions of Israel and Hezbollah
may constitute war crimes. Arbour called for Israel to obey the
international humanitarian law "principle of proportionality," adding
that "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and
unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of
sites
with alleged military significance, but resulting
invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."
History
In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, which it
had occupied for 18 years, apart from an area between Syria, Lebanon
and Israel called the Shebaa Farms. Israel remains an occupying power
in the Farms, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Syrian Golan
Heights. The
UN called upon Israel to withdraw from those territories in 1967 by
passing resolution 242. In 1973, it reiterated its demand in a binding
UN Security Council resolution that was probably passed under Chapter
VII of the Charter, judging by the terminology employed in resolution
338 (during the Cold War, the Security
Council refrained from distinguishing Chapter VI and VII resolutions.
The former empower the Council to address disputes which in its
judgment do not threaten international peace, but which, if continued,
are likely to endanger international peace. The latter type of
resolution permits the Council to take legally binding
decisions under Article 25, directing member states to impose sanctions
or use force to maintain international peace). In 2004, the Security
Council passed resolution 1559, which calls on "all remaining foreign
forces to withdraw from Lebanon," and for "the disbanding and
disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese
militias" (the full text is available at http://tinyurl.com/5mkrb).
Contrary to what some reports in the media have suggested, this is not
a Chapter VII resolution as is clear from the text. Less than a year
later, Syria promptly withdrew its armed forces after massive American
pressure forced it to in the aftermaths of
the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq
al-Hariri, which is the subject of a UN enquiry.
Israel has said it requires full implementation of
resolution 1559 (which implicitly calls on Hezbollah to disarm) before
it will agree to a ceasefire. However, it is a bit rich for Israel to
make this a condition when the Security Council has passed 1,221
resolutions since resolution 338 in 1973, and 1,317
resolutions since resolution 242 in 1967 -- which Israel has yet to
implement (and which it is required to implement by the Oslo Accords).
Context
It should not be forgotten that before the conflict
between Israel and Lebanon exploded on the international scene, Israel
was battling Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip over their capture
of Corporal Gilad Shalit. Making a mockery of its claims that Gaza is
"no longer occupied territory,"
Israel sent its troops back in to rescue the soldier, killing hundreds
of Palestinians in the process and increasing its bombing campaign of
the Strip (home to 1.4 million Palestinians, and one of the most
densely populated places on earth). Israel then kidnapped half the
Palestinian cabinet, alleging they were "terrorists"
because they belonged to Hamas, even though that organisation won
Palestinian parliamentary elections in January which were deemed to be
free and fair.
Self-defence
Like all states, Israel has the right of
self-defence. This is not in dispute. The relevant provisions in
Article 51 of the UN Charter provide:
"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 measures necessary to maintain international
peace and security."
Some argue that Israel was subject to an armed attack
(if one accepts the Israeli version of events) and therefore it has the
right of self-defence under the Charter. This might appear from a
strictly textual analysis of Article 51, without considering the
negotiating history of the Charter and the context
in which it was drafted.
However, there is substantial opinion, doctrine and
state practice on the issue. For instance, it is generally accepted
that an "armed attack" must be of sufficient gravity taking into
consideration its 'scale and effect' to trigger the applicability of
Article 51. For instance, whilst the 9/11 attacks would undoubtedly
be classified as an armed attack, and were defined as such by the
Security Council, it is difficult to see how the capture of two
soldiers in disputed circumstances would do so. Writing in the
English-language Turkish daily Zaman,
Richard Falk, professor of
international law at Princeton University, considered that:
"...this outbreak of major two-front violence is not
about Israel's right to defend itself against an enemy that is
seriously threatening its territorial integrity or political
independence, the only grounds for justifiable war. To treat border
incidents, involving a few casualties from rockets and the abduction
of a single Israeli soldier by a Gazan militia and two by Hezbollah in
south Lebanon, as if it were an occasion of war is a gross distortion
of well-accepted international law and state practice. To justify
legally a claim of self-defense requires a full-scale armed attack
across Israeli borders. If every violent border incident
or terrorist provocation were to be so regarded as an act of war, the
world would be aflame."[1]
Indeed, Israel has been subject to cross-border raids
by Hezbollah and Palestinian militias in the past. It has not always
responded with such overwhelming force, which might lead some to
conclude that Israel has wider aims in the region such as eliminating
Hezbollah altogether or crippling Lebanon,
rather than protecting itself. Israel has gone way beyond the scope of
self-defence which is subject to the international humanitarian law
principles of distinction (making a difference between civilian and
military targets), proportionality and military necessity. The context
in which the Charter and the Geneva Conventions
were drafted is important. Their aim was to ameliorate conflict, not
exacerbate it. Said Mahmoudi, professor of international law at
Stockholm University, writes:
"The same moral and ethical values that led us in 1945
to put a general ban on the use of force in order 'to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has
brought untold sorrows to mankind', should also guide us to resist
expanded use of force. We should withstand
any effort to go back to the legal situation that prevailed before the
adoption of the Charter even if it is in the name of 'human dignity'
and 'decency.' International terrorism and human tragedies should not
become an excuse for the unwarranted use of force."[2]
Responses to Terrorism
There are many ways Israel can respond to terrorism, the
use of force being only one. Had Israel responded by sending its
special forces to snatch two Hezbollah guerrillas as bargaining chips,
or negotiating over the release of prisoners (as it has done in the
past), or even
responding by police action, there would have been little criticism.
Ideally, Israel should have asked the Lebanese government to take steps
in its own territory to free the captured soldiers before resorting to
the use of force, which should always be a measure of last resort. If
the Lebanese government then failed to
act, Israel would be justified in taking proportionate measures to free
its soldiers.
But Israel went way beyond its right of self-defence.
By threatening to "turn back the clock in Lebanon by twenty years,"
Israel risks being accused of committing an act of aggression, with all
that entails - such as being accused of war crimes and crimes against
humanity, which involves individual
criminal responsibility. Worse still, Israel's over-reaction could give
its enemies an excuse for all-out war by using Lebanon as a
battlefield, which if not contained quickly could engulf the entire
region.
Notes
1.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&trh=20060721&hn=34951
2. Said Mahmoudi, "Self-Defence
and International Terrorism" 48 Scandinavian
Studies in Law (2005), p. 212.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
