Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon: A Critical
Reading
Stephen Zunes | July 22, 2006
Editor: John Feffer, IRC
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
On July 20, the U.S. House of Representatives, by an
overwhelming 410-8 margin, voted to unconditionally
endorse Israel's ongoing attacks on Lebanon and the
Gaza Strip. The Senate passed a similar resolution
defending the Israeli attack earlier in the week by a
voice vote, but included a clause that "urges all
sides to protect innocent civilian life and
infrastructure." By contrast, the House version omits
this section and even praises Israel for "minimizing
civilian loss," despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. The resolution also praises President George
W. Bush for "fully supporting Israel," even though
Bush has blocked diplomatic efforts for a cease-fire
and has isolated the United States in the
international community by supporting the Israeli
attacks.
The resolution reveals a bipartisan consensus on the
legitimacy of U.S. allies to run roughshod over
international legal norms. The resolution even goes so
far as to radically reinterpret the United Nations
Charter by claiming that Israel's attacks on Lebanon's
civilian infrastructure is an act of legitimate
self-defense under Article 51 despite a broad
consensus of international legal scholars to the
contrary.
In short, both Democrats and Republicans are now on
record that, in the name of "fighting terrorism," U.S.
allies-and, by extension, the United States as
well-can essentially ignore international law and
inflict unlimited damage on the civilian
infrastructure of a small and largely defenseless
country, even a pro-Western democracy like Lebanon.
Below are the key provisions of the resolution
followed by a critical annotation:
Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that
occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on July 12,
2006, operatives of the terrorist group Hezbollah
operating out of southern Lebanon killed three Israeli
soldiers and took two others hostage;
Though clearly an illegal and provocative act,
Hezbollah's action was not "completely unprovoked."
Israel holds scores of Lebanese citizens seized by
Israeli forces from within Lebanon and Hezbollah had
apparently hoped to work out some kind of swap, as
both sides have successfully negotiated previously on
several occasions. The seizure of the Israeli soldiers
on the Lebanese border was also apparently done in
retaliation for the ongoing Israeli assaults on
civilian population centers in the Gaza Strip.
Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 425 (1978) by completely
withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified by
the United Nations Security Council and affirmed by
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on June
16, 2000, when he said, 'Israel has withdrawn from
[Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council
Resolution 425;'
Israel's current re-conquest of Lebanese territory
along its northern border places Israel once again in
violation of UN Security Council resolution 425 and
nine subsequent resolutions demanding the withdrawal
of their forces from Lebanon. Furthermore, Israel
never fully complied with UNSC 425: While UN Secretary
General Annan indeed recognized in his June 2000
statement that Israel had fully removed its ground
forces from Lebanese territory, he has also criticized
the repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese air space
well prior to the recent outbreak of fighting as
"provocative" and "at variance" with Israel's
fulfillment of the resolution's demands for a
withdrawal of ground troops from Lebanon.
Whereas despite the adoption of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1559, the Government of
Lebanon has failed to disband and disarm Hezbollah,
allowing Hezbollah instead to amass 13,000 rockets .
and has integrated Hezbollah into the Lebanese
Government;
First of all, UN Security Council resolution 1559 does
not call for Hezbollah or any other Lebanese political
party to be disbanded, only for their armed militias
to be disbanded.
Second, the only extent to which Hezbollah has been
"integrated . into the Lebanese government" is in
naming Hezbollah member Mohammed Fneish to the power
and hydraulic resources ministry, one of 24 cabinet
posts. Representatives of all Lebanese parties that
receive more than a handful of seats in parliamentary
elections traditionally get at least one seat in the
cabinet.
Third, in a UN Security Council meeting this past
January that considered a report on the implementation
of resolution 1559, the United States and the other
members approved a statement that "notes with concern
the report's suggestion that there have been movements
of arms . into Lebanese territory and, in this
context, commends the Government of Lebanon for
undertaking measures against such movements." In other
words, the Lebanese government has not "allowed"
Hezbollah to amass new weaponry; the problem is that
their small and weak security forces-now weakened
further by Israeli attacks-have simply been unable to
prevent it.
This clause in the Congressional resolution therefore
appears to be designed to try to justify Israel's
decision to attack not just the Hezbollah militia, but
Lebanon as a whole.
Whereas Hezbollah's strength derives significantly
from the direct financial, military, and political
support it receives from Syria and Iran .
Both Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah has
declined significantly over the past dozen years,
particularly since the withdrawal of Israeli
occupation forces from southern Lebanon.
In reality, Hezbollah's strength derives primarily
from popular support within the Shiite Muslim minority
in Lebanon which has suffered from heightened poverty
and displacement as a result of the U.S.-backed
Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1978
and 2000, the U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment of the
Shiite-populated areas of the country from the 1970s
through the 1990s, and the U.S.-backed neoliberal
economic policies of the Lebanese government that have
decimated the traditional economy. As a result of the
violence and misguided economic policies, hundreds of
thousands of Shiites were forced to leave their rural
villages in the south to the vast shantytowns on the
southern outskirts of Beirut where many found support
through a broad network of Hezbollah-sponsored social
services. As a result of gratitude for such assistance
and anger at Israel and the United States for their
situation, many became backers of Hezbollah's
populist, albeit extremist, political organization. In
the wake of the forced departure of the Palestine
Liberation Organization and the destruction of the
secular leftist Lebanese National Movement by
successive interventions from Syria, Israel, and the
United States during the 1980s, the radical Islamist
Hezbollah rose to fill the vacuum. In other words,
"Hezbollah's strength" was very much an outgrowth of
U.S. and Israeli policy. Indeed, the group did not
even exist until a full four years after Israel began
its occupation of southern Lebanon.
Whereas Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to
operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to
Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its operational
activities;
The vast majority of Iranian Revolution Guards
returned to Iran years ago. While they played a
critical role in the initial setup of Hezbollah's
armed militia in the early to mid-1980s following
Israel's invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon,
their presence today is quite small and they are
certainly not "controlling Hezbollah's operational
activities." The number of active Hezbollah combatants
declined significantly since the Israeli withdrawal
from southern Lebanon in 2000 (until the call-up of
reserves following the initial Israeli attacks) and
the movement had long since shifted its primary focus
to electoral politics and providing social services
for the Shiite community. Furthermore, despite claims
by the Bush administration and its supporters that
Hezbollah is simply acting as a proxy for Iran, it
seems highly unlikely that a populist political party
would instruct its militia to provoke a devastating
war simply to please a foreign backer.
Whereas the House of Representatives has repeatedly
called for full implementation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1559;
The House of Representatives never called for the full
implementation of UN Security Council resolution 425
and nine subsequent resolutions calling for Israel's
withdrawal from Lebanon during Israel's 22-year
occupation of the southern part of that country. Nor
has the House ever called for the full implementation
of UN Security Council resolutions 446, 451, 465, and
472 calling on Israel to withdraw its illegal
settlements from the occupied West Bank and Golan
Heights or dozens of other UN Security Council
resolutions currently being violated by Israel,
Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, or other U.S. allies. As in
the Bush administration, there appears to be a strong
bipartisan sense in Congress that UN Security Council
resolutions should only apply to governments and
movements the United States does not like.
Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July 12,
2006, 'Hezbollah's terrorist operations threaten
Lebanon's security and are an affront to the
sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hezbollah's
actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese
people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to
the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes,' and
has repeatedly affirmed that Syria and Iran must be
held to account for their shared responsibility in the
recent attacks;
As the pro-Western government of Lebanese Prime
Minster Fuad Siniora has insisted and as recent events
have confirmed, the major threat to Lebanon's security
and the most serious affront to its sovereignty is
clearly the U.S.-backed Israeli government, not
Hezbollah. And Hezbollah's political and military
activities, like that of other Lebanese political
parties, are based primarily upon what the movement's
leadership-however wrongly and cynically-believe is in
the best interest of advancing their political agenda
and not that of the Syrian and Iranian governments
(whose interests in Lebanon are often at variance with
each other as well.) It is also disappointing that
such an overwhelming majority of Democrats would be
willing to cite President Bush as an authority on the
situation in Lebanon following a series of
demonstrably false claims he has made about that
country and the current conflict.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives . condemns
Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and
reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on
undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for
killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to
indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations
with their rockets and missiles;
Though such condemnation is appropriate, it is
noteworthy that this resolution does not also condemn
Israeli attacks against sovereign Lebanese territory
and its targeting of civilian population centers,
essentially backing the racist notion that Israeli
territory and Israeli civilians are more important
than that of Lebanese territory and civilians. It is
also important to note that not a single Israeli
civilian had been killed from Hezbollah attacks since
well before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon six years
ago until Israel started killing Lebanese civilians
when it launched its attacks on July 12.
. further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically
exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating
their equipment and bases of operation, including
their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian
populations, including in homes and mosques;
This clause appears to be designed to blame the
Lebanese, not the Israeli armed forces, for the deaths
of innocent civilians. As Human Rights Watch has
noted, "Deploying military forces within populated
areas is a violation of international humanitarian
law, but that does not release Israel from its
obligations to take all feasible precautions to
minimize harm to civilians and civilian property
during military operations." While it is not unusual
for outgunned guerrilla movements with popular local
support to have equipment in close proximity to
civilian population, none of the offices of members of
Congress who supported the bill which I have contacted
has been able to cite any independently documented
cases in the current conflict where Hezbollah has
engaged in "exploiting civilian populations as
shields." (Two offices cited Israeli government claims
to this effect, but the Israeli government has
previously made similar claims that were later proved
false.)
. recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to
minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's
continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;
This runs directly counter to reports by international
journalists, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and the United Nations that indicate
that Israel has not been committed to "minimizing
civilian loss" or preventing civilian casualties. As
of this writing, well over 300 Lebanese civilians have
been killed, the vast majority being nowhere near
Hezbollah military installations. UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights Louise Arbour, a former Canadian
Supreme Court Justice, declared that Israel's
"indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a
foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians.
Similarly, the bombardment of sites with innocent
civilians is unjustifiable." (She also correctly
criticized Hezbollah's attacks into civilian areas in
Israel.)
None of the Congressional offices I contacted was able
to provide me with any data countering these reports.
In supporting this resolution, 410 House members have
gone on record challenging the credibility of these
reputable human rights organizations and UN agencies,
which have courageously defended the rights of victims
or war and repression for decades. Supporters of this
resolution have apparently demonstrated their
willingness to misrepresent the truth in order to
strengthen President Bush's efforts to undermine
international humanitarian law.
. demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct
Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally
release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;
Regardless of whether Iran and Syria are willing to
work for the release of Israeli soldiers, neither
government has the power to "direct" Hamas and
Hezbollah to do anything. The decision by Congress to
overstate the leverage that Iran and Syria have over
these movements-like similar exaggerations of Soviet
and Cuban leverage over leftist revolutionaries in
Central America during the 1980s-appears to be based
less on reality and more on helping to promote the
right-wing global agenda of a Republican
administration.
. affirms that all governments that have provided
continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share
responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks
against Israel and, as such, should be held
accountable for their actions [and] condemns the
Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued
support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks
against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;
This appears to provide the legal justification for
future military action against Syria and Iran.
Ironically, however, the biggest supporters of Hamas
have not been Syria or Iran but Saudi Arabia and other
U.S.-backed monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, the ruling parties of the U.S.-backed
Iraqi government and their militias have long
maintained close ties to Hezbollah. By only mentioning
Syria and Iran, however, Congress is clearly not
concerned about "all governments" that support these
groups but only governments that the United States
does not consider allies.
Furthermore, given that Israeli attacks have taken far
more civilian lives than the Hezbollah and Hamas
attacks, why should not the Bush administration also
be condemned for its support of Israel's armed attacks
against Lebanese and Palestinians?
. supports Israel's right to take appropriate action
to defend itself, including to conduct operations both
in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a
threat to it, which is in accordance with
international law, including Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter;
Article 33 requires all parties to " first of all,
seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort
to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice," which Israel has
refused to do. Article 51 does allow countries the
right to resist an armed attack but not to use a minor
border incident as an excuse to launch a full-scale
war against an entire country, particularly when the
armed group that violated the border was a private
militia and not the army of the country in question.
Article 51 also states that self-defense against such
attacks is justified only " until the Security Council
has taken measures necessary to maintain international
peace and security," which may explain why the Bush
administration-with the near-unanimous support of
Congress-has blocked the UN Security Council from
imposing a cease fire or taking any other action. Such
a radical reinterpretation of Article 51 allows the
Bush administration and future U.S. administrations to
justify massive military strikes against foreign
countries in reaction to relatively minor incidents
provoked by irregular forces within that country.
The International Red Cross, long recognized as the
guardian of the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of
war, has declared that Israel has been violating the
principle of proportionality in the conventions as
well as the prohibition against collective punishment.
Similarly, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Louise Arbour-who served as chief prosecutor in the
international war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and the
former Yugoslavia-has gone on record declaring that
the armed forces of both Hezbollah and the Israeli
government have been engaging in war crimes. None of
the Congressional offices I contacted was willing to
provide documentation that challenged these
assessments.
. commends the President of the United States for
fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed
attacks by terrorist organizations and their state
sponsors;
President Bush is virtually alone among the United
States' Western allies and the international community
as a whole in his unconditional support for Israel's
assault on Lebanon. Since President Bush's most
significant role since the outbreak of the fighting
has been to block diplomatic efforts by the United
Nations, the European community, and others to arrange
a cease-fire, this resolution is essentially an
endorsement of indefinite war. It is disappointing
that all but seven of the House's 201 Democrats would
once again give their unconditional support for
President Bush regarding a Middle East policy based
primarily on the use of force. In backing President
Bush in this resolution, Congress has gone on record
challenging the broad international consensus that,
however reprehensible the actions of Hezbollah and
Hamas may be, Israel's actions are excessive and in
violation of international legal norms.
. urges the President of the United States to bring
the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic
sanctions available to the Government of the United
States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;
Given that the Bush administration and Congress
already have implemented strict political, diplomatic,
and economic sanctions against Syria and Iran, it is
unclear what more could be done. Indeed, with such
strict sanctions already in place, it is difficult for
President Bush to exercise any additional leverage
short of military action.
. demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything
in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli
soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;
Israel has been bombing Lebanese army and other
government facilities and has destroyed virtually
every bridge connecting the central part of the
country (where most of the central government's police
and military apparatus is based) to Hezbollah
strongholds in the south (where the Israeli soldiers
are presumably being held). It is hard to understand,
therefore, how the Lebanese government could do much
at this point to find and free the Israeli soldiers.
It is also noteworthy that the resolution says nothing
about Lebanese citizens kidnapped by Israeli forces
who are currently being held in Israel.
. calls on the United Nations Security Council to
condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to
ensure full and immediate implementation of United
Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires
Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all
Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from
Lebanon;
First of all, it is the United States that has
prevented the UN Security Council from passing a
resolution condemning the capture of the Israeli
soldiers and the rocket attacks on Israel because of
the threat to veto any resolution which is also
critical of the Israeli attacks.
Second, UNSC resolution 1559 requires the "dismantling
and disarming of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese
militias," which would certainly include Hezbollah's
militia, but not Hezbollah's far more extensive
political apparatus and social service networks. With
the Lebanese government unable to force the
dismantling and disarming of Hezbollah as long as its
armed forces and its transportation infrastructure are
under U.S.-backed Israeli attacks, it is hard to
understand how the Security Council could "take action
to ensure full and immediate implementation" of the
resolution other than to authorize the use of force by
other countries under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
But such use of force cannot legally be implemented in
an internal security issue without the consent of the
recognized government.
Third, the report to the UN Security Council on the
implementation of UNSC 1559 in January of this year
noted that Syria had complied with provisions for the
withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon and did not note
the ongoing presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
(There are reports of a small number of Iranian
advisers still in the country, though it is unclear
whether foreign military advisers constitute "foreign
forces" under the resolution, particularly since a
number of Western nations, including the United
States, have sent military advisers to Lebanon since
the Syrian withdrawal last year.)
In any case, after its forces entered Lebanon last
week, Israel clearly violated UNSC resolution 1559.
The resolution calls for the withdrawal of foreign
forces from Lebanon. Congress, however apparently
believes Israel is somehow exempt from this
resolution.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the
University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for
Foreign Policy in Focus. He is the author of
Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of
Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
