From: Hank Roth <odin@world.std.com>
Subject: Israel's War in Lebanon
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:06:14 GMT

<<< 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: 
odin@world.std.com ----- 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.  
-----------------------------------------------




Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive