The Legal Implications of Israel's 1982 Invasion into Lebanon
![handle is hein.journals/calwi13 and id is 466 raw text is: THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ISRAEL'S 1982 INVASION
INTO LEBANON
On June 6, 1982, Israeli armed forces swept into southern Leb-
anon in an invasion of unprecedented magnitude.' The long ex-
pected invasion' was the epilogue of deep-rooted tensions and
hostilities between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO).3 For months prior to the invasion, Israel had expressed
concern over a PLO arms build-up in southern Lebanon.4 The Is-
raeli army had also massed its troops along Israel's northern border
with Lebanon.5 The final act which triggered the Israeli invasion
occurred on June 4, 1982, when Palestinians in London staged an
assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain.6
Israel blamed the PLO for this attack, but the PLO denied responsi-
bility.7 The following day Israel's air force and artillery fired upon
1. N.Y. Times, June 6, 1982, at Al, coil.
2. No one was surprised by the Israeli action. Based on United States intelligence
reports and analytical news stories, it was speculated that it would be a matter of time
before Israel would be forced, in her view, to act to protect her security interests. The Situa-
tion in the Middle East. Hearing before the Comm. on Foreign Relations United States Senate,
97th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (July 15, 1982)(statement of Richard Allen, Former National Secur-
ity Advisor) [hereinafter cited as Senate I]. See also the statement of United Nations Lieut.
Gen. Callaghan, infra note 227.
3. See infra text accompanying notes 18-54. There are many Palestinian groups within
the Palestinian movement. The principle groups include: PLO, Al-Fatah, PLA, PLF, PFLP,
PDF, PFLP-GC and Al-Sa'iqua. In addition, there are many smaller splinter groups affili-
ated with these larger groups. See D. HOWLEY, THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE PALESTINI-
ANS 135 (1975). For the purposes of this article, the name PLO will be used to represent
all of those Palestinian groups who are involved in the Arab-Israel conffict. This in no way
implies that the PLO was responsible for all Palestinian actions against Israel.
4. On March 2, 1982, Secretary Haig informed the United States Committee on For-
eign Affairs of an introduction of additional arms on the part of the PLO into southern
Lebanon. Developments in the Middle East, March 1982.- Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Europe and the Middle East of the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 9
(1982)(statement of Peter D. Constable, Deputy Assis. Sec.) [hereinafter cited as House I]. In
regard to the arms build-up, Mr. Constable stated: Our position is that there have been
additional arms brought into Lebanon . . . . [A]nything that threatens the stability of the
cessation of hostilities is something that has to concern us. It concerns the Israelis, too, and
we share that concern. Id. at 5.
5. N.Y. Times, June 7, 1982, at Al, col. 4.
6. N.Y. Times, June 4, 1982, at AI, col. 1. See also Comm. on Foreign Relations, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess., Report on Lebanon and the Prospects for Peace in the Middle East I (Comm.
Print 1982) [hereinafter cited as Comm. Print].
7. The four assailants actually were not members of the PLO. However, the Lebanese](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/calwi13&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Legal Implications of Israel's 1982 Invasion into Lebanon
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most