Nasrallah (Hez)has dismissed international law (Leb Daily Star editorial)

[papau]

Below is an opinion piece/editorial appearing in the Lebanese paper The Daily Star written by Chibli Mallat, a law professor at St. Joseph University, who was a candidate for the Lebanese presidency.

This is followed by an editorial from the magazine the Nation, which in turn is followed by an excerpt on this topic by Juan Cole that is posted on his site.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=73940

Friday, July 14, 2006
Nasrallah has dismissed international law

By Chibli Mallat

The worst, inevitable scenario has taken place. The domestic deadlock in Lebanon has now taken on an international dimension as a result of the Cedar Revolution's failing to produce a president who would have started a new dynamic of peace in Lebanon, and by extension in the region.

If that was the inevitable part, the worst one comes from the terms chosen by Hizbullah's leadership Wednesday after its forces crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border to kidnap two Israeli soldiers. In his news conference, the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, dismissed international law. Such dismissal will come to haunt us all, including Hizbullah's top cadres, because respect for international law is the one differentiating characteristic that Lebanon, as a small country, has managed to retain in a lawless region. For years it stuck to the legitimacy of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, and today it seeks to establish a mixed Lebanese-international tribunal to put on trial those responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
<snip>

Such a (UN) resolution should carry three operative clauses. The first would ensure the release of the two Israeli soldiers, to be followed by negotiations through the UN secretary general on all outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel, including the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. Should the release of the two Israelis not take place, then a third clause would kick in where the Security Council can look into collective measures to force compliance. This condition should be written into the resolution.
<snip>

The Lebanese, for their part, must make sure that constitutional means are followed when it comes to taking decisions on such grave matters as war and peace. Hizbullah cannot go it alone and expect the government and the country as a whole to accept the sacrifices that all are suffering. The closure of Rafik Hariri Airport is a harbinger of far greater tragedies to come.<snip>

Hizbullah also must know that its unilateral steps carrying Lebanon into open violation of international law will split the country and revive renewed collaboration with Israel in some sections of the population outraged by such unilateralism and bearing a long-standing grudge against the party. Moderates among us will be unable to prevent this divisiveness from developing into an unbridgeable gulf within the nation.

The Israeli government must also understand that the cycle of violence will impose a logic of its own, whose consequences are unpredictable - except for more casualties and domestic and regional polarization. That is why the US and France must firmly hold back Israeli escalation until the Security Council meets and proposes a workable alternative. <snip>


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/editors4

Too High a Price


With the spreading violence in Lebanon and Gaza, the Israeli doctrine of absolute security and massive retaliation--the notion that any attack or threat of attack on Israel will be met with a disproportionate response--is again proving counterproductive to Israel's own security as well as to the larger stability of the region. It makes no sense for Israel to destroy the civil infrastructure of the Palestinians and of Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, or to further weaken the capacity of the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority while at the same trying to hold them accountable for the actions of groups and militias they cannot reasonably control. This collective punishment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people is not only inhumane and should be condemned but also leads to more radicalization and to more chaos.

That was the lesson of the Israeli siege of the Palestinian Authority in 2002, which severely weakened its ability to govern, helping to pave the way for the political success of Hamas. And it will be the lesson of the increasing destruction of Lebanon. Indeed, the most likely casualty of the latest case of Israel's massive retaliation will be the fragile social peace and the democratically elected government in Lebanon. Ironically, the much-trumpeted Cedar Revolution, the only example of the success of the Bush doctrine that neoconservatives can still point to, could be brought down by the Likudnik policies of Israel that the neo-cons so champion. It took Lebanon more than 20 years to recover a degree of stability and civil peace after the last major incursion. How long will it take to recover from the unraveling of the stability that American and Israelis policies are helping to bring about?

It is now clear that the American and Israeli strategy of trying to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah, on the one hand, and Syria and Iran on the other, have backfired. Would the situation in Gaza have gotten so out of hand if Israel, the United States, and the European Union had tried to work with the democratically elected Hamas government from the outset? And would Hezbollah have felt the freedom to take the reckless action it took--the deplorable firing of rockets on Israeli civilians As Juan Cole points out today on Informed Comment, "A Lebanon with no Syrian troops and Hizbullah in the government was inherently unstable. With Syria gone, Hizbullah filled a security vacuum and also was less restrained."
<snip>

The big beneficiaries of American policy have been the more radical wings of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Iranians, who more and more look like the champions of the Palestinian people. The big losers are the so-called moderate Arab regimes, which again look helpless in the face of what is seen as Israeli aggression, and the moderate Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese who hoped for some normalcy of life with the prospect of peace, especially when the Hamas leadership appeared to be moving toward recognition of Israel. The United States and the larger world, too, are losers, for no one benefits from this mindless escalation of violence, particularly at a time of growing sectarian violence in Iraq and rising oil prices. <snip>

http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/beginning-of-new-war-will-it-spill.html

<SNIP> I roundly condemn Hezbollah's criminal and stupid attack on Israel and escalation of a crisis that is already harming ordinary Palestinians on a massive scale.

Likewise, the Beirut airport is not in south Lebanon and for the Israelis to bomb it and neighborhoods in south Beirut is a disproportionate use of force. (PLEASE NOTE THAT JUAN DOES NOT NOTE THAT THE AIRPORT BOMBING AVOIDED THE NEW (BILLION?) DOLLAR INVESTMENT IN THE NEW CONTROL TOWER AND TERMINAL AND ONLY MADE A FEW HOLES IN AN OLD RUN PLUS BLEW UP SOME FUEL STORAGE) The Israelis are actually talking about causing "pain to the Lebanese." That is despicable.

This crisis will not leave the fabric of Lebanese politics untouched, and the danger of an unraveling is acute. And, it is clear that the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon has given an opening to Israeli hawks to invade Lebanese territory again. It will not be good for Israelis if Lebanon collapses into a failed state again.<snip>

Rejectionists on both sides are to blame. The Oslo Peace Process could have forestalled all this violence, as Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin understood. But on the Israeli side, the then Likud Party of Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert derailed it. On the Palestinian side, Hamas rejected it. Had there been a peace process, prisoners would have been released in return for a cessation of hostilities, and there would have been no motivation to capture Israeli soldiers.<SNIP>

[SlipperySlope]

1. Lebanese fear a civil war...

I've been reading some reports from Lebanon today that suggest that the "man on the street" is more in fear of a civil war than in fear of the Israeli attacks.

The Israelis at least make some effort to spare civilians and attack Hezbollah targets. A civil war will spare no one and no thing.

[papau]

2. I totally agree - but civil war is the result of Bush policy in every

country we try to spread democracy in.