Why ceasefire in the interest of Israel

Isaac Deutcher, the Jewish historian whose entire family perished in the Holocaust made the following observation after the end of the 1967 six day war with the Arab states: "To justify or condone Israel's wars against the Arabs is to render Israel a very bad service and harm its own long term interests". This statement is relevant today as Israel in a blaze of military tiumphalim is close to achieving abbolute mastery over Lebanon. The unrestrained use of firepower, and the highly self righteous rhetoric from Israeli leaders and the undercurrent of racist antagonism against the Arab population and the callous disregatrd for Arab lives--women and children-- not excluded.. all suggest that Israel is using the opportunity provided by the war on terror and the disturbed conditions prevaileing in the region to redraw the boundries to its advantage.

The offensive againt Hamas in Palestine has already cost hundreds of lives and now the war against Lebanon. Hamas, a Sunni outfit and Hizbollah a Shiaa outfit have now joined hands.. It is possible that Israeli military offensive could completely jeopardise the stability of the present regime and the large scale violence and bloodshed unleashed by Israel makes the Lebones population yearn for the days of Syrian occupation. The Maronite Christian and the Druze population were at the forefront of the struggle against Syria aznd having rid Lebanon of Syria, the people find themselves under seige by land, air and sea from a far more ruthless adversary. The Western powers used the pretext provided by the killing of Rafik Hariri to exple the Syrians from Lebanon and the Bekaab Valley. Now the world can see for itself the real gameplan behind the killing of Rafik Hiriri and the expulsion of the Syrians.

The military operations against the Hizbollah will only serve to intensify the problem in the middle east. A parallel with Iraq is obvious. Just as US occupation of Iraq fuelled an isurgency that has now gone out of control, the Israeli presence in SDouthern Lebanon will only intensify the resistance. Isral has gone in for prisoner swaps earlier, why not now. Obviously it wants to use this opportunity to consolodate itself in souther Lebanon and create what it calls a "buffer zone" there. USA has shown lack of political understanding when on the one hand it admits that Israel has used dispropotionate force against the civilian population and on the other uses the threat of veto on the question of a UN sponsored ceasefire

Is rthere any evidence that Iran has instigated the Hizbollah in order to divert attention from the nuclear tangle? In fact the dispropotionate use of air power against the civilian population by Israel itself will be a major talking point that Israel and the USA understand only the language of military might making the solution of the issue more difficult. So far Israel has provided no information about a possible Iranian link except the inuendo that since Hizbollah is a Shiaa organisation it must be a surrogate of the Iran. The logic of such statements is similar to Joseph Macarthy's famous aphorism" It walks like a duck, squacks like a duck so it must be a duck. Unfortunately the Iranian angle to this crisis has not been established. Syria is belamed for everything that happens in Lebanon. In fact it was Syria that brought peace to the war torn country and inspite of the UN intervention it has not been establishe that Syria was involved in the Rafik Hiriri assasination. The Katuysha rockets are of Soviet vintage and there are no signs of direct military support to Hizbollah by Syria. It is obvious that Israel is making thse accusations in order to widen the amit of conflict and draw the US directly into armed confrontation with Iran.

The response of the Arab nations to this unfolding catastrophe has been timid, tepid and spineless. Of course there is no love lost between the Arab powers and the Hizbollah but when Arabs are being killed in such numbers it is a shameless act of perfidy on the part of Arab Governments to remain silent spectators. However on the ground there is overwhelming suppot for the victims of Israeli aggression and that is a dangerous factor in the violent social and political undercurrents of the Middle East.

USA must suppot a ceasefire as desired by the government of Lebanon in the interes of peace and to stem a spiralling humanitarian cris in the region."

The Supreme Court Judgement on Hamdan vs Rumsfeldt is a victory for civil liberty

It is one of the surprising features of the US constitutional history that the power of "judicial review" is not explicity granted to the Supreme Court. In fact it is through a long process of delicate and careful interpretation of the statutes and laws of the US that a doctrine of judicial review came to fashioned.One looks in vain in the writings of Washington, Jefferson and Madison for any suggestion of the principle of judicial review. In fact it was Alexander Hamilton in Fereralist # 78 spoke of the "judiciary having neither force nor will only judgement". arecognition of the idea that legislative intent not action can be adjudicated upon by the US Supreme Court. This notion was further expanded by Justice John Marshall who in his enthusiasm propounded a theory of judicial supremacy, i.e. the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution. We must say that in the Dred Scott Judgement the US Supreme Court came close to embracing this expanded view of the powers and functions of the Courts, a road that is now seldom taken.

There are a few principles laid down by the US Suprecourt that govern the process of judicial review. In the pre civil war days and well into the last century the Supreme Court deferred to "excecutive interpretation", a principle that was invoked even in the famous Chevron vs EPA judgement. By the principle of negative exclusion those provisions that were not explicitly provided by statute could be derived unless Congress has precluded them. The traditional tools of statutory interpretation has been (a) legislative history and (b) policy consequences. Second, there is the famous latin adage:Ratio est legis anima;mutata legis ratione mutatur legis.The reason for the law is the soul; when the reason for the law changes the law changes as well. Since the Dred Scott ruling the Supreme court hasn ususally preferred modest and narrow ruling and the present judgement is a good example of such a ruling.

Thre were three basic issues before the Supreme Court as far as the Hamdan vs Rumsfeltd case is concerned. First, can the President of the USA acting as C in C invoke the Councilman verdict in order to detain and try Hamdan as an enemy combattant through the Uniform Code of Military Justice.Here the court held that the Councilman judement is not applicable for the simple reason that Hamdan is not a US serviceman. The grounds for denying the 4 articles of tge Geneva convention were set aside by the SC on the ground that since Cingress authorised the War against the Taliban all provisions of the articles opf the Convention must apply.

The second issue concerned the procedures adopted by the Commissions to try the detainees at the Git Bay. The Court held that the appelate procedures laid down by US law must prevail and hence the defendants have a right to have the charges brought before them to be examined and evidence presented in their presence. Here there is an ambiguity in the judgement: Had Congree enacted a special Act establishing the hybrid Commissions then tyhis major part of the Bush policy may not have been struck down.

Third, therwe cannot be any curtailment of the right of due process even in times of war. The fact is that this judgement will make it easier for civil libertarians to challenge the illegal and I dare say treasonable actions of the government. It is only a matter of time when Bush and the Bush men will be tried for the "extraordinary rendition". This judement has a direct bearing on that case as well.

All in all this is a splendid judgement and will be a landmark in the judicial history of the USA.