Wall
Street Journal Rhapsodizes
Over Sham UN Resolution
To End Lebanon War
By Stephen Lendman
18 August,2006
Countercurrents.org
On
its editorial page at least the Wall Street Journal is consistent. It
never fails to disappoint or miss an opportunity to misinform its readers.
The August 16 article by the right wing Hoover Institution George Shultz
Senior Fellow and former US State Department legal advisor in the 1980s
Abraham Sofaer is just the latest example. The article is a typical
Journal litany of propaganda, distortion, and deliberate misstatement
of facts. It's what we've come to expect from an editorial page only
hard right supporters and proponents of empire would love. It's not
what we should expect from a former Columbia University School of Law
professor who surely knows the law well and shouldn't twist it to misinform
his readers when he writes about it.
The article is titled "Solution
and Resolution" so before even reading it it's clear Mr. Sofaer
is mis-portraying truth and reality. He begins by saying UN Resolution
1701 "contains the bases upon which a lasting peace could be established
along the Lebanon/Israel border, and true sovereign authority transferred
to Lebanon's government. But these objectives will succeed only if the
resolution's demands are met." With that opening salvo, it's hard
not being breathless and needing to pause before reading on.
First off, what on earth
does Mr. Sofaer mean by "true sovereign authority transferred to
Lebanon's government." Doesn't this distinguished Fellow know Lebanon
is a sovereign state and the issue at hand is not about a transference
of anything except the right of the Lebanese government to "transfer"
the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) back to Israel. As for the Security
Council action on August 11, Resolution 1701 was a revised version of
the original one jointly proposed by the US and France and with all
provisions in it agreed to in advance by Israel before being put to
a vote. Neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah were afforded the same right,
and it showed in what passed unanimously as the demands of Israel and
the US were met but not those of the country and its people the IDF
attacked preemptively.
By having passed this resolution,
the Security Council once again showed the world the UN is little more
than a servile agent of US imperial foreign policy and that of its allies.
As it did so often in the past, this international body failed in the
primary mission it was set up for as stated in its Charter: "to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to maintain international
peace and security, (and to suppress) acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace." By its vote on August 11, the Security Council,
in fact, did the opposite. In effect, it sanctioned an illegal war of
aggression and in doing so violated the most fundamental principle of
its own Charter. It's clear the distinguished law professor and author
of this article wholeheartedly approves.
He no doubt also approves
and certainly understands that the one thing this resolution will never
guarantee is peace in the region, justifiable retribution and justice
for the victims or any possible outcome other than continued conflict.
It's also likely it was designed with that in mind as a "lasting
peace" would undermine Israel's hardened position to oppose any
political solution and is only able to avoid one in a state of conflict
against an adversary it portrays as terrorists even though it and its
members are not. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir explained it in
the 1980s (which Mr. Sofaer surely must know) when he admitted his country
went to war with Lebanon in 1982 because there was "a terrible
danger....not so much a military one as a political one." But Israel
couldn't invade the country without good reason to do it. It found none
so it invented one after the terrorist Abu Nidal organization attempted
to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to the UK in London. The Israelis
blamed it on te PLO and Yassar Arafat based in Lebanon that had nothing
to do with it, falsely claimed it was acting to protect its citizens
from PLO attacks when there were none, went to war based on a lie and
killed 18,000 mostly civilian Lebanese and Palestinians before it ended
- and all to avoid a political solution.
Mr. Sofaer goes on to state
successful implementation of the resolution "depends on convincing
Syria to end its policy of allowing Hezbollah to be used by Iran to
destabilize Israel's security." Once again one must pause for breath-catching
as Mr. Sofaer has inverted reality. He seems not to understand that
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and oppressive occupation gave birth
to Hezbollah. It was formed as a legitimate resistance to it and is
now part of the democratically elected Lebanese government. But Hezbollah
is also determined to free its country from a foreign occupier. To do
so it became a formidable adversary and finally succeeded in forcing
the IDF to withdraw mostly from the country in May, 2000, only remaining
in the 25 square kilometer Shebaa Farms area in the South. Ever since
Hezbollah has been a bulwark of defense serving and protecting its people
in South Lebanon against the Israelis that since withdrawing have made
near-daily illegal cross-border incursions, repeated violations ofthe
country's airspace, and have forcibly abducted and now hold in indefinite
detention over 10,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, many administratively
without charge.
Hizbollah has every right
to seek and receive aid from other countries willing to supply it just
as Israel receives billions of dollars of military and economic aid
annually from the US and with it built the world's fourth most powerful
military with nearly every modern weapon including a large nuclear arsenal.
But there's a difference in Hezbollah's purpose and that of the Israelis.
For Hezbollah it's for self-defense, but for Israel it's for intimidation,
occupation and preemptive illegal aggression. Mr. Sofaer seems not to
know or admit that Hezbollah never first attacked Israel after the IDF
mostly withdrew from Lebanon. And it only ever claims the legitimate
right to do so in response to the IDF's illegal occupation of sovereign
Lebanese territory. Otherwise, it only responds to Israeli attacks against
its forces or the people of Lebanon which Israel has a long history
of provocatively making while falsely claiming it only does so in retaliation
for what Hezbollah or the Palestinians initiate.
Mr. Sofaer then goes on to
make one misstatement after another. He stresses that the IDF must withdraw
from Lebanon only after "the Lebanese Army and an expanded United
Nations force assume control." He fails to note the resolution
only asks Israel to stop "all offensive military operations"
without defining what that means and sets no fixed timetable for the
IDF withdrawal. This was the language Israel wanted and now has stated
its forces may remain in the country for many months. If they do, this
will be a deliberate provocation to reignite the conflict after which
the IDF will claim it has the right to strike back.
The resolution also calls
on Hezbollah to cease "all attacks" immediately but only implies
without explicitly stating it must disarm. Mr. Sofaer falsely claims
it calls for "Hezbollah's disarmament" and an "end to
the importation of weapons." False on both counts as just stated
on count one and in the resolution's language on count two that says
"no weapons (are allowed) without the consent of the government
of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon."
Someone should inform Mr. Sofaer that Hezbollah is a legitimate part
of that government, its members comprise a large portion of the Lebanese
Army, and thus according to the resolution may have weapons and certainly
according to the UN Charter can use them in self-defense. It only must
refrain from using them offensively as Israel does all the time under
the fraudulent cover of self-defense.
Mr. Sofaer also falsely accuses
Hezbollah by implication of initiating the attack on Israel on July
12 and abducting its soldiers. It did neither. Hezbollah responded to
repeated IDF attacks on its territory and people and captured (not "abducted")
two IDF soldiers. It's believed they illegally crossed the UN-monitored
"blue line" into Lebanon as the IDF has routinely done almost
daily since withdrawing from the country in May, 2000. Further, Mr.
Sofaer is incorrect in saying the resolution will not "allow Israel
to act in its reasonable self-defense." In fact, it gives Israel
every right to do it by permitting the IDF the right to initiate further
assaults any time it believes, true or not and with no corroborating
evidence, an imminent threat against the Jewish state exists. In so
doing, this provision violates the UN Charter that only allows a nation
to use force under two conditions: when authorized to do it by the Security
Council or under Article 51 that allows a nation to respond to an attack
byanother nation. Does this distinguished former law professor not understand
this?
Mr. Sofaer also claims Hezbollah
has no right to seek arms from allies like Syria and Iran or any other
legitimate supplier for its self-defense or to protect the people of
Lebanon as it was formed to do. He makes no similar demand of Israel,
which is far more heavily armed by the US and replenished as needed,
that has a long history of deliberate provocation and belligerence against
its neighbors including the Palestinians for nearly six decades. It's
done it as well against the Lebanese since 1968 when the IDF conducted
terror raids and military aggression against the country that included
attacking the Beirut airport and destroying 13 civilian planes on the
ground claiming, without evidence, it was in retaliation for an attack
by Lebanese trained Palestinians targeting an Israeli airliner in Athens.
Mr. Sofaer also disingenuously
accuses Syria of "using Hezbollah to create instability" and
in mentioning what he calls Israel's "legitimate concerns in surrendering
the Golan Heights," never explaining that Israel wanted that Syrian
territory in the first place for its water resources and having seized
it almost 40 years ago never intends to negotiate seriously to relinquish
it. He shamelessly goes on to say Israel only will withdraw from "non-Israeli
territory (if it can be done) without causing increased insecurity and
danger for its people......(and) the Israeli people......have shown
a willingness to return territory for peace" as it did when signing
peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. By this statement Mr. Sofaer inverts
history again by failing to acknowledge that Israel has been expansionist
throughout its short existence and that Arab attacks against it only
occurred in response to IDF first-strike aggressive assaults or after
considerable IDF provocation. He never even considers the possibiliy
that if Israel really wanted to live in peace with its neighbors all
it need do is to stop attacking them and invading their territory. The
fact that it hasn't through the years shows it won't and doesn't want
to because, as explained earlier, it won't tolerate a political solution
to conflict in the region that could not be avoided in an atmosphere
of peace, security and stability.
Mr. Sofaer continues to go
from bad to worse by claiming former Prime Minister Aerial Sharon established
a policy of withdrawing from Gaza and "building a fence to separate
Israelis from Palestinian areas" because "it became clear....the
Palestinians were determined to make war on Israel." This is an
utter absurdity on its face, Mr. Sofaer must know it with his distinguished
credentials, but nonetheless puts this outrageous misstatement of fact
in his column. As he surely understands well, the IDF never withdrew
from Gaza but only redeployed to new occupation positions from which
it could and has reentered the territory at will. He also knows the
"separation" wall is being built not for security but as a
land-grab policy to seize additional areas from the Palestinians for
Israeli settlements. In so doing, Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions
465 and 476 that condemned Israel's policy of "settling parts of
its population and new immigrants in those territories (and said doing
so constituted) a flagrat violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention
relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also
constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just
and lasting peace in the Middle East." It called on the government
of Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements and in particular
to cease....the establishment, construction and planning of (new) settlements
in the Arab territories since 1967, including Jerusalem."
Mr. Sofaer also ignores the
World Court decision in July, 2004 that the so-called "separation
wall" is "contrary to international law (because it) destroyed
and confiscated property, greatly restricts Palestinian movement, and
severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of (the) right
to self-determination." The Court ruled 14 - 1 that construction
must end at once, the existing portion already built must be taken down,
and affected Palestinians must be compensated for their losses. In its
ruling the Court cited binding international law codified in the Hague
Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention cited above. It
went on to rule that Israel was required to comply with the international
humanitarian law in the Regulation and Article 49 of the Convention.
Israel ignored the ruling and the UN General Assembly that voted 150
- 6 calling on the Jewish state to obey the World Court decision. Surely
a distinguished former law professor understands this.
Mr. Sofaer never once mentions
in his one-sided pro-Israel article that it was not Hezbollah but Israel
that intiated the attack on July 12 using the capture of two of its
soldiers as the pretext to do it - hardly a justifiable reason to go
to war (a word missing from UN Resolution 1701). He thus fails to acknowledge
that under the provisions of the UN Charter cited above, Israel undertook
a war of illegal aggression against Lebanon and in so doing is guilty
of the "supreme international crime" according to the Nuremberg
Charter. It's that crime that convicted Nazis after WW II were hanged
for. He further fails to admit or understand that by its actions Israel
is guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity not just
against the Lebanese but also against the Palestinians who aren't even
mentioned in UN Resolution 1701. That conflict is unresolved and continues
to rage daily.
The resolution also fails
to state in its text that what Israel has done is an act of war or that
post-July 12 Hezbollah acted justifiably in self-defense. Mr. Sofaer
concludes quite the opposite claiming Hezbollah is the enemy in the
(fraudulent) "war on terror" meaning it has no right of self-defense
or likely any other rights as well. Resolution 1701 affirms that view
granting all rights to the aggressor and none to its victims. As a result,
it's little more than an outrageous and illegal expression of victor's
justice. But that's quite acceptable to Mr. Sofaer and why wouldn't
it be. He's paid to represent the interests of the far right Hoover
Institution that never met an aggressive imperial policy it didn't love
because those policies are good for business when they work as intended.
In the case of Lebanon and Palestine and Iraq for the US, it looks so
far like Israel and the US are big losers as their victims have thus
far prevailed.
At this stage it's still
early in the game for Israel, further along for their close US ally,
partner, paymaster and benefactor and too soon to predict or know the
final outcome for either country. But at least one thing's for sure.
Mr. Sofaer and the empire builders he represents are on the defensive,
are facing two humiliating defeats for their mighty military machines
against determined guerilla resistance, and are relying on the power
of their disingenuous message to convince people otherwise. So far,
from what we're learning from the streets, it doesn't seem to be working
as planned.
Stephen Lendman
can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.