Serene Assir examines the legal principles trounced in the course of Israel's war on Lebanon Soon after Israel struck back at Lebanon for Hizbullah's capture of two soldiers -- legally enemy combatants -- world leaders, led by US President George W Bush, jumped at the chance to claim Israel's "right to defend itself". It appears likely that not only was the term picked to justify unflinching support for Israeli aggression in the Middle East but also to protect the US administration, whose largest client for arms deals and aid is Israel. According to US Congress library documents, Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) permits US arms sales or leases "solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defence, to permit the recipient country to participate in regional or collective arrangements or measures consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, or otherwise to permit the recipient country to participate in collective measures requested by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security," or for development- and construction-related activities. Ever since 1976, Israel has been the sole largest recipient of US aid. As it stands, should one count military aid, economic assistance and federal loan guarantees, US funding to Israel tops $5 billion per annum. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine, US aid to Israel comprises an astonishing one-third of the total American foreign aid budget. This fact is often ignored by mainstream Western media because it implies that in circumstances such as the current rampage in Lebanon, American readers with a conscience and respect for the laws governing their country have power and could act. Viewed within the context of international law, the concept of "proportionality" must be taken into account in discussions of Israel's "right" to self-defence. Over recent days, some, including French President Jacques Chirac, have criticised Israel for its "disproportionate" response to Hizbullah's capture of two soldiers. By contrast, on a visit last week to Jerusalem to discuss the war on Lebanon, the European Union's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana was quick to point out that "proportionality is not a mathematical concept." However, beginning with Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, customary international law clearly states that, "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 Purposes of the United Nations." Only if the Lebanese government were to directly breach the security of Israel could one accept that an Israeli reprisal would be justifiable, if then at all. The very existence of the United Nations, and principally the Security Council, is to establish a forum for the resolution of inter- state conflicts without recourse to arms. No such threat to the security of Israel has come from the Lebanese government. Indeed, the Lebanese government was quick to point out that it knew nothing of Hizbullah's plans to capture the two soldiers. To make a parallel reference, were the international community to believe that the Lebanese government was accountable, would US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meet Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, as she did during her Monday visit to Beirut? Meanwhile, there have been well-publicised and flagrant breaches of international humanitarian law in the course of Israel's mass bombing of Lebanon. As a Human Rights Watch (HRW) press release issued early in Israel's campaign against Lebanon stipulates, "The current armed conflict between Hizbullah and Israel is governed by international treaty as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law." HRW points out that Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention "sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state party such as Hizbullah". International humanitarian law strictly forbids the targeting of civilians and other non- combatants, the HRW statement adds. "Warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians," it reads. Why, then, has Israel not yet been held internationally accountable for the intentional bombing of civilian targets, the well-documented blockade of aid convoys, and the fact that a full third of Lebanese casualties so far have been children, according to the UN? Even more appalling is Israel's use of internationally prohibited weapons, including vacuum bombs and white phosphorus, as reported by Lebanese doctors and journalists and confirmed by the Lebanese government. Though there continues to be legal debate whether phosphorus can be used as an illumination agent, bodies are turning up with the same burns as those in Fallujah when US forces used white phosphorus on the civilian population. Repeated calls for an investigation are substantiated by photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts. Appropriate international health bodies cannot ignore these calls. Even if Israel has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, international humanitarian law still applies if investigations reveal that these weapons have been used against civilians. On the other hand, the capture of enemy combatants -- as opposed to the "kidnapping" of "two Israelis", as the mainstream media commonly refers to Hizbullah's act the morning of 12 July -- is legal, according to HRW. The use, however, of POWs to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israeli prisons is not; indeed, it constitutes a war crime. Hizbullah's use of Katyusha rockets in cross- border attacks has also been castigated by HRW. "Katyushas are inaccurate weapons with an indiscriminate effect when fired into areas where civilians are concentrated. The use of such weapons in this manner is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law," the press release reads. Sadly, viewed within this context, it appears that while Israel, perforce of its military and diplomatic might, is free to seriously violate Congressional acts, international treaties and international laws, Lebanon -- and Hizbullah in particular -- finds itself in a moral and legal trap. The US backs Israel's rhetoric on UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which demands the disarmament of Hizbullah, despite the fact that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has publicly stated that Hizbullah cannot be disarmed by force. The US and Israel are essentially going it alone, defying relevant international regulations on processes relative to the implementation of UN decisions. Israel, of course, would rather the media forget the long list of resolutions that it has failed or refused to implement, often with little pressure brought on it as it violated the spirit and principles of the United Nations. Lebanon's army, navy and air force are out- gunned in terms of military capacity. Nor does Lebanon have a "special relationship" it can count on to issue a Lebanese-friendly UN Security Council resolution to stop the hideous carnage. Morally, it appears insult to injury to ask Lebanon to dissolve the only defence force it has -- Hizbullah -- regardless of how inaccurate its means of defence are. Again, it appears that in conflicts in the Middle East the law of the "most powerful" is the one that counts. American taxpayers, the US Congress and the beleaguered United Nations are as subject to humiliation as the legal principles Israel is violating with impunity in Lebanon.
