Wall Street Journal Rhapsodizes Over Sham UN
Resolution to End Lebanon War - by Stephen Lendman

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 the 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 of the 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 by another
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 possibility 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 flagrant
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
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  Also visit his blog
site at sjlendman.blogspot.com