Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:22:41 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject:  Israel's War in Lebanon

In article <1992Dec12.050614.3398@mont.cs.missouri.edu>, Hank Roth
<odin@world.std.com> says:
>
><<< 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.
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>