Israel in Lebanon: Report of the International Commission to Enquire into Reported Violations of International Law by Israel During Its Invasion of T (Jerusalem Studies Series)

308 Pages·1983·6.78 MB·English

by  Sean MacBride, International Commission of Enquiry

U
ISRAEL
IN
LEBANON
The Report of the International
Commission to enquire into reported
violations of International Law by
Israel during its invasion of the
Lebanon
Digitized by GOOgk HARVARD UNIVERSITY
TRANSFERRED
TO
HARVARD
COLLEGE
LIBRARY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
^ISRAEL IN LEBANON^
Report of the
International Commission
to enquire into reported violations
of International Law by Israel
during its invasion of the Lebanon
Chairman
Sean MacBride, S.C.
Vjee Chairman
ProfessorJ&iehard Falk
De^n^Cader Asmal
Dr BrlapBercusson
Professor Geraud de la Pradelle
Professor Stefan Wild
London 28 August 1982 - 29 November 1982
Israel in Lebanon
The Report of the International Commission
Ithaca
Press
Google Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
\JJ\D-LC.
T>S
VI.5 3
,X S 7
n * 3
C -c fy S-
Copyright © 1983 The International Commission
The publishers gratefully acknowledge the kind permission of the following
organisations to reprint copyright material: BBC, LBC, The Guardian, Le
Monde, The Sunday Times.
First published in 1983 by
Ithaca Press 13 Southwark Street London SE1
ISBN 0903729 96 2
Typeset by Carlton Photosetters Westcliff-on-Sea
Printed in England
by Biddles Ltd Guildford Surrey
Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Contents
Members of the International Commission
Terms of Reference
Preface by Seim MacBride, SC
General Introduction xi
Section I The Recourse to War
1. Israel’s Justification for the Invasion 1
2. Israel’s Real Aims 6
3. International Law and the Invasion of the Lebanon 14
4. Legal Status of Liberation Movements 23
Section II The Conduct of the War
5. Conduct: Introduction 27
6. Military Necessity 30
7. Civilian Objects 36
8. Civilian Population 49
9. Precautions in Attack: Civilian Objects and Population 66
10. Proportionality 77
11. Discrimination in Targets 87
12. Humanity 99
Section III The Israeli Occupation
13. Israel’s Occupation Policy 113
14. The Siege of Beirut 143
15. The Massacres at Sabra and Chatila 162
Conclusion 187
Recommendations 191
Appendix 1 Genocide and Ethnocide 194
Appendix 2 Witnesses and Organizations which gave
evidence to the Commission 199
Appendix 3 Chronology of Events 203
Appendix 4 Maps 213
Appendix 5 Selected Testimony and Reports 217
Note of Acknowledgment 281
Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Members of the International Commission
Chairman:
Sc6n MacBride, SC
President, International Peace Bureau, Geneva
Member of International Commission of Jurists
former Minister for External Affairs, Ireland
former Assistant Secretary-General, United Nations
former UN Commissioner for Namibia
Nobel Peace Prize, 1974
Lenin International Prize for Peace, 1977
America Medal for Justice, 1978
Dag Hammarskjold Award, 1980
Commission:
Richard Falk
Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law
and Practice, Princeton University and
Vice-Chairman of the International Commission
Kader Asmal
Senior Lecturer in Law and
Dean of the Faculty of Arts (Humanities),
Trinity College Dublin
Brian Bercusson
Lecturer in Laws
Queen Mary College, University of London
Geraud de la Pradelle
Professor of Private Law
University of Paris
Stefan Wild
Professor of Semitic Languages and
Islamic Studies, University of Bonn
Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Terms of Reference of the International
Commission of Enquiry
The terms of reference of the Commission, as agreed at its constituting
session in London on 28 August 1982, are to answer, among others, the
following questions, which seem to be the principal questions arising from
the invasion of the Lebanon by Israel:
1. Has the Government of Israel committed acts of aggression contrary to
international law?
2. Have the Israeli armed forces made use of weapons or methods of
warfare forbidden by international law, including the laws of war?
3. Have Palestinian and Lebanese, or other, prisoners been subjected to
treatment forbidden by international law, including inhuman or
degrading treatment? Has there been a violation of international law
arising out of the classification of or denial of status to Palestinian
prisoners or detainees?
4. Has there been deliberate or indiscriminate or reckless bombardment of
a civilian character, for example: hospitals, schools, or other non-
military targets?
5. Has there been systematic bombardment or other destruction of towns,
cities, villages or refugee camps?
6. Have the acts of the Israeli armed forces caused the dispersal, deporta­
tion, or ill-treatment of populations, in violation of international law?
7. Has the Government of Israel valid reasons under international law for
its invasion of the Lebanon, for the manner in which it conducted
hostilities, or for its actions as an occupying force?
8. To what extent, if any, were the Israeli authorities or forces involved,
directly or indirectly, in the massacres or other killings that were
reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militia men in the refugee
camps of Sabra and Chatila in the Beirut area between the dates of 16
and 18 September?
In examining these questions the Commission will consider and determine
whether any acts which they may find to have been committed are such as
may be characterised as crimes under international law.
Google Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
by the Chairman of the Commission
Following upon the horrors of World War II, and the breakdown in the laws
of humanity that had taken place, the nations of the world adopted, in San
Francisco on 26 June 1945, the Charter of the United Nations. It proclaims
the aims of the United Nations:
‘We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person .. .*
It goes on to outlaw aggression, the use of force, or the threat of the use of
force. To give more effective recognition of, and protection for, human
rights, the nations of the world next adopted, on 10 December 1948, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides, inter alia, that ‘if
man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion
against tyranny and oppression, human rights should be protected by the
rule of law*. The Declaration then proceeds to identify the rights and the
protection to which each human being is entitled. Subsequently, the Rule of
International Law was extended to cover these rights by two major
international conventions: the United Nations Covenants for the Protection
of Human Rights, 1966.
But, despite these important developments to strengthen the
international rule of law, so as to conform with ‘the dictates of the public
conscience*, genocidal massacres and gross violations of human rights and of
humanitarian law continued to be perpetrated by governments; many
governments seemed to have lost all sense of moral and legal responsibility.
Despicable crimes continued to be committed against innocent people in
different parts of the world - particularly in areas of Indo-China, Latin
America and Southern Africa.
By reason of power politics, and of the breakdown in the standards of
public morality, the United Nations was precluded from dealing with
horrendous crimes committed by governments in defiance of international
law. Accordingly, the victims remained unprotected and those responsible
escaped punishment. Often these dreadful deeds even remained unexposed;
Google Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
PREFACE vii
governments sought to conceal their criminal conduct. Thus slowly the
international rule of law became eroded and the public conscience blunted.
It is for these reasons that the practice grew up of setting up independent
non-governmental tribunals or commissions of enquiry. They became the
only form of protection available to protea the defenceless. Because of the
growing force of international public opinion, such non-governmental
tribunals and commissions of enquiry have acquired an important status and
recognition in world affairs.
It is in these circumstances that a small group of concerned and influential
persons in the United Kingdom came together in July 1982 and decided to
constitute and invite an International Commission to enquire into reported
violations of International Law by Israel during its invasion of Lebanon.
This group then appealed for sponsors and for funds to defray the cost
involved in the setting up of such a Commission. It was after these
preliminary steps had been taken that I was approached by the Chairman of
the Convening Committee, Mr Ernie Ross, MP, and invited to act as
Chairman of this Commission of Enquiry. I agreed to accept this assignment
on the strict understanding that the Commission to be appointed would
consist of independent and qualified persons of standing and that there
would be no attempt to interfere, in any way, with the Commission in the
course of its work.
Mr Ross gave me these assurances and discussed with me the membership
of the proposed Commission; the list of the members chosen and their
qualifications will be found in the pages that follow this preface. They are
professional men of standing in the academic world; five of the six members
are lawyers from the United States, Canada, France, South Africa and
Ireland. The sixth, Professor Stefan Wild, is Professor of Semitic Languages
and Islamic Studies at the University of Bonn. I myself have participated in
a great many enquiries of this nature.
As soon as the Commission was set up, I wrote to the Prime Minister of
Israel, His Excellency Menachem Begin, on 16 August 1982, informing him
of the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the Commission and its
membership. In the same letter I invited the Government of Israel to be
represented at the hearings of the Commission and to tender such evidence
as it might desire to the Commission. On 26 August 1982, the Israeli Consul-
General in London, Mr Sinai Rome, wrote informing me that the
Government of Israel would not be able to co-operate with the Commission
because they regarded the terms of reference of the Commission as being too
limited and one-sided. In his letter, the Consul-General also took exception
to two of the five members of the Convening Committee on the grounds that
they were ‘pro-Arab and anti-Israel propagandists’. It may well be that some
of the sponsors and members of the Convening Committee are sympathetic
to the Arabs, as also it may well be that other sponsors are sympathetic to
Israel but disapprove of the methods used by the present Israeli
administration. However, it is not the sympathies of the sponsors or of the
Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY
viii PREFACE
Convening Committee that really matter; it is the objectivity, independence,
qualifications and standing of the members of the Commission that count.
In the letter from the Israeli Consul-General, no exception was taken to any
of the members of the Commission. I have myself, on at least two occasions,
carried out investigations of complaints of anti-Semitism made against the
Soviet Union by Jewish organisations. The fact that I carried out such
investigations at the request of Zionist organisations, did not, I trust, impair
my objectivity. In such cases, it is inevitably the aggrieved party that
initiates the complaints that are to be investigated.
While it is proper and right that the Israeli Government should have set
up a judicial Commission of Enquiry to investigate the massacres that took
place in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila on 16-18 September 1982
inclusive, it must be noted that the role of the Israeli Commission of Enquiry
is limited to the massacres at Chatila and Sabra. It will also be noted that it is
an investigation carried out by the party whose conduct is impugned.
Having regard to the fact that the subject matter of this enquiry involves the
integrity and legality of the actions of the Israeli Government, authorities
and army, it is desirable that the investigation should be carried out by a
tribunal or commission which is independent of the authorities of the State
of Israel.
In the absence of an official United Nations international investigating
authority, it is essential that in times of major crisis, independent
international tribunals or commissions to investigate complaints that are
made, should be set up. In this case, the invasion of the Lebanon by Israeli
forces and the subsequent execution of the military policy of Israel in the
Lebanon led to many complaints of grave and most fundamental breaches of
the international legal order.
The terms of reference of the International Commission were originally
agreed to at the Constituting Session of the Commission held in London on
28 August 1982. These terms of reference were contained in seven questions
that were formulated by the Commission. These terms of reference were
arrived at before the massacres took place at the refugee camps of Sabra and
Chatila in the Beirut area between the 16 and 18 September 1982. Following
upon these massacres, the Commission met on 23 October 1982 and added an
additional question, thus enlarging the terms of reference to eight questions.
Accordingly, these eight questions, together with the concluding paragraph
at the end of the eight questions, constitute the terms of reference of the
Commission.
The Commission held its initial plenary meeting in London on 28 August
1982, and decided on how to proceed with its enquiry. It was realised that
while it was very important that the Commission should carry out its
mandate as carefully as possible, it was also important to complete the tasks
of the Commission as rapidly as possible; it was decided to seek every kind of
evidence available, both oral and written. The Commission, or Sub-
Commissions thereof, received evidence in London, in the Lebanon, in
Google Original from
Digitized by HARVARD UNIVERSITY