Divest, In Principle And Practice, From Israel -- 2004

WHEREAS the Israeli government with its illegal occupation and expansionist program in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip is engaged, and has been engaged in grave human rights violations including but not limited to: the use of live ammunition on unarmed civilians (including men, women, and children); massive and disproportionate use of force including the firing of missiles from Apache helicopter gunships against defenseless civilian populations; illegal mass arrests and institutionalized torture (including men women, and children); the willful destruction of agricultural land; the deprivation of water; forced malnutrition with concomitant health consequences including stillborn deaths and irreversible developmental damage to children; the mass demolition of homes and confiscation of land; hostage taking and extra-judicial assassinations; denial of medical services to the sick and wounded; the use of human shields (including children); the targeting of schools, and hospitals; the building of illegal fortified "Jewish-only" Israeli colonies/settlements on confiscated land connected by "Jewish-only" bypass roads, and the heavily subsidized transfer of hundreds of thousands of its own civilian population into these colonies/settlements;

WHEREAS the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's Apartheid Wall violates international humanitarian law which governs Israel's administration of the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967 as well as the fundamental human rights of the Palestinians;

WHEREAS by virtue of, but not limited to, the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgement; The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; The Geneva Conventions, in particular, but not limited to the 4th Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, as well as other international covenants and the general humanitarian principles of international law, these acts constitute war crimes, and in some cases crimes against humanity.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 USC sec. 2304, provides that "no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights;"

WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly on October 22, 2003, reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and stressing the need to end the occupation and reiterating its call upon Israel, the occupying power, to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention and reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories almost unanimously, with the exception of the US, Israel,

WHEREAS "complicity in the commission of a ...war crime, or crime against humanity is a crime under international law." Principle VII of the Nuremberg Tribunal;

BE IT RESOLVED that the National Lawyers Guild seeks, in principal and practice, supports national and international campaigns to divest from Israel;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Lawyers Guild will (a) support divestment campaigns to make full public disclosure of any and all investments it or other institutions have in Israel and of any and all profits earned from companies invested in Israel, and (b) either immediately divest from those companies, or cause such companies to disinvest from Israel until all of the following conditions are met:

1) Israel complies with United Nations Resolution 242, and all subsequent and related resolutions, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the Occupied Palestinian Territories;

2) Israel accepts and immediately begins full implementation of the inalienable individual and collective Palestinian Right of Return as enshrined in international law, especially United Nations Resolution 194, thereby permitting Palestinian refuges wishing to return to their homes to do so immediately while paying compensating for the property of those choosing not to return and for the loss of or damage to property that, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Israeli Government;

3) Israel immediately complies with the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the UN Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid;

4) Israel complies fully with the Fourth Geneva Convention including, but not limited to Article 49, paragraph 6 ("The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies"), which requires that it cease building new settlements, and vacates all existing "Jewish-Only" Israeli colonies/settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip;

5) Palestinian victims of torture, home demolitions, and other grave violations of human rights by the Israeli government are justly compensated as provided by international law

Attacking Iraq, Subverting International Law -- 2003

Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter states that nations “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . .” The Charter was signed by President Truman and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1945. Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Charter is therefore part of “the supreme Law of the Land.”

The Charter contains only two exceptions to the use of force: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law.

(a) Self-defense

Article 51 of the Charter sets forth the exception for self-defense. A nation can employ self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs,” or, as a number of authorities have argued, in response to an imminent attack. None of the reasons given by the Bush Administration for attacking Iraq, including destruction of claimed weapons of mass destruction or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, constitute self-defense under the U.N. Charter. The Bush Administration has presented no evidence that Iraq currently presents an imminent threat of attack against the U.S.

In a speech to the West Point graduating class in the summer of 2001, Bush set forth a doctrine that rejected this critical legal principle that force can only be used in self-defense. He built on that idea in his State of the Union address in 2002 where he warned the “axis of evil” nations that the United States would not wait “while dangers gather,” and then articulated the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. In this radically new approach Bush proclaims that the United States can use military force against any state the administration perceives to be hostile. This new U.S. position, obviously aimed at justifying an attack on Iraq, is a public renunciation of the U.N. Charter’s limitation on the use of force.

Pre-emptive strikes are different from an earlier doctrine that was labeled “anticipatory self-defense” under which the United States and some other countries argued that they had the right under the U.N. Charter to attack a country that was planning an armed attack. This latter doctrine at least gave lip service to the restrictions on the use of force embodied in the Charter that force could only be used in self-defense or as authorized by the Security Council under Article 42. Past administrations viewed pre-emptive strikes on other nations as illegal, as evidenced by the Reagan administration’s vote in the Security Council that unanimously condemned Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981. The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes moves beyond the restrictions of the Charter by stating that force will be used even if there is no immediate threat. It may well take the world back to a period prior to World War I when the employment of force had no legal restraints; countries could use force when and where they wanted. The creation of the U.N. Charter made the world safer; pre-emptive strikes will make it more dangerous.

The administration and now the Congress have abandoned the U.N. Charter’s core legal restraints in favor of a system in which the United States unilaterally decides which regimes warrant replacement by force. By at least rhetorically supporting the heart of the U.N. system over the past 54 years, the United States has supported its continuance. The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes wounds the U.N. system irrevocably.

The consequences of this new doctrine are frightening and will result in the exercise of unabashed imperial power. This path will lead to more terror against the peoples of the world and the people of the U.S.

(b) U.N. Authorization

The United States has for almost a decade claimed that it does not need a new Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq. The U.S. claim is that Iraq has materially breached Resolution 687, the cease fire resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War. This material breach, according to the United States, resurrects Resolution 678 which authorized U.N. members to use force “to oust Iraq from Kuwait and so restore international peace and security in the area.”

A majority of the permanent members of the Security Council - France, Russia and China - have consistently rejected this U.S. legal position. During the last crisis with Iraq over inspections in 1998, a majority of all the Security Council members disagreed with the U.S. position and argued that no existing Security Council resolution authorized the U.S., Britain or any other member state to enforce Iraq’s disarmament obligations imposed by Resolution 687. France, Russia, China and other nations argued that only a new, explicit Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq could provide a legal basis for such U.S./British action.

On November 8, 2002 after almost eight weeks of negotiation and tremendous pressure by the United States, the United Nations unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 which set a new timetable and a new regime of inspections for Iraq. What it did not do, no matter what the United States claims about the resolution, is to authorize any country to use force against Iraq. The United States still must as a matter of law go back to the U.N. Security Council for authority to use force. Its claim that it need not do so is not law; it is an exercise of sheer power.

Resolution 1441 represents a compromise between the French/Russian view and the American/British perspective. The Council acquiesced to the U.S. by deciding that Iraq “was and remains” in “material breach” of prior resolutions, including Resolution 687. It also decided that any future “false statements or omissions...and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach.” Finally, &13 of the Resolution recalls that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face “serious consequences” as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. The “material breach” and “serious consequences” language will be used by the United States to argue that the Security Council has essentially allowed it to use force in response to any Iraqi non-compliance. Moreover, the United States can also argue that the Resolution does not explicitly require another Council vote on authorization of military force, as the French and Russians had sought.

The Resolution also has clear language supporting the French, Russian and Chinese position. Paragraph 4 declaring that any failure by Iraq to comply with the Resolution will constitute a “material breach” also requires that such a breach “will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12” of the Resolution. Those paragraphs require the Chairman of the Inspection Team to report to the Security Council which will itself convene “immediately” to consider the situation and decide what to do. It seems clear from the Resolution that no member state should be able to use any violation by Iraq, whether very minor and technical or more serious, as legal justification to attack Iraq. The U.S. position leads to the absurd conclusion that any mistake by Iraq would justify U.S. military action, a conclusion at odds with common sense, international opinion and the U.N. Charter. The Resolution requires the Security Council to meet immediately and decide what to do about an Iraqi violation - a requirement inconsistent with member states taking their own, unilateral action. Indeed, France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enaction that “Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force” and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq.

The United Nations Security Council and international law have thus far slowed the Bush Administration’s mad rush to war against Iraq. Resolution 1441 reflects U.S. coercion and heavy-handedness, but also the enormous international and domestic opposition to the Bush Administration’s goal of war against Iraq. Resolution 1441 obviously doesn’t resolve the issues. That Resolution and the U.N. Charter do provide a framework for continued opposition to war against Iraq. The National Lawyers Guild strongly condemns the Bush Administration’s disregard of international law and the U.N. Charter and supports resolution of the current conflict with Iraq within the parameters set forth by the Charter. Any U.S. military action now would not constitute self-defense. Therefore, no war against Iraq can be initiated without the explicit approval of the Security Council, which it has clearly not yet given.

Violating International Law - Israel's Military Offensive Against Palestinian Towns and Villages -- April 2002

The ongoing Israeli military offensive against Palestinian towns and villages has resulted in serious Israeli violations of international legal norms designed to protect civilians. A broad spectrum of respected international organizations has condemned these violations. On April 5, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a rare public rebuke, branding the Israeli Army’s behavior “totally unacceptable,” for attacking its vehicles and buildings.

That rebuke followed weeks of complaints by the Red Cross’ staff and other international organizations that the Israeli Army was deliberately blocking their ability to feed and provide medical care to Palestinian civilians. UN General Secretary Kofi Annan has publicly protested Israel’s wounding and killing of “hundreds of innocent non-combatant civilians,” firing on ambulances, and blocking medical access to the wounded, and on April 10 he demanded that Israel honor its obligations under international law to protect civilians.

On March 6, 2002, the special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights issued a comprehensive report setting forth the serious violations of humanitarian law and human rights law by the Israeli military and Palestinians, and concluding that Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory “is responsible for most of the violations of humanitarian law and human rights in the region.” Mary Robinson, UN Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “Palestinians continue to be subjected to a wide range of human rights violations related to the ongoing occupation.”

The National Lawyers Guild joins this international condemnation of Israeli violations of international law in the Palestinian territories. Those violations are basically twofold. The first is the wanton attacks on civilians and the infrastructure of civilian life in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The second basic violation is the continued denial to Palestinians of any real effective control over their territory. As Israeli writer Uri Avnery put it, Israeli policy seeks “to imprison the Palestinians in several enclaves...each one surrounded by settlements, by-pass roads and the army.”

The core of the Fourth Geneva Convention is the protection of the civilian population in times of warfare or occupation. Israel has violated this Convention by:

1. Deliberately destroying what New York Times reports have termed, “the infrastructure of life itself” in the West Bank. Many Palestinian have been without water, electricity, telephone service or access to food or medical care for long stretches of time. Schools, roads, electricity pylons, water pipes, telephone lines, have been devastated, according to reporters who have had only limited access to Palestinian areas. Facilities which have no connection to terrorism such as an independent public television station, or offices of independent human rights organizations offices, been deliberately and wantonly destroyed.

This destruction violates Articles 53, 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention which impose a duty on an occupying power to ensure services, public health and hygiene in occupied territories. It also constitutes an indiscriminate and disproportionate attack on civilians prohibited by the Geneva Convention, specifically Protocol 1 to that convention, and customary international law. Such actions effectively constitute collective punishment on the Palestinian civilian population in reprisal for terrorist acts in violation of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.

2. The Israeli attacks on ambulances, the refusal to allow wounded Palestinians to obtain medical care, and the deliberate blocking of food and medical supplies to hospitals and often desperate civilians, violates Articles 16 through 20 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. While the Israeli government claims that several Red Cross ambulances were involved in terrorist activities, the Red Cross disputes those assertions, and in any event the Israeli claims do not warrant the wholesale violations of the Convention that have led the Red Cross to so vigorously protest.

3. The wide scale demolition of houses not justified by military necessity, as for example in Jenin, where Israeli bulldozers are reportedly demolishing several hundred houses after fighting has ceased in that town, violates Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes collective punishment prohibited by Article 33. In the Gaza Strip alone, over 400 houses were completely destroyed prior to the March military offensive. On January 10, 2002, 60 houses were completely demolished in the refugee camp of Rafah, leaving 614 persons homeless. Article 53 of the convention forbids the destruction of property in the occupied territories “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

4. The prolonged curfews with severe restrictions on the movement of people also constitute collective punishment against civilians and unduly interferes with the civilian population’s ability to obtain the minimum necessities of life in the occupied territory.

5. The indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas with the inevitable loss of life, as well as the wanton and deliberate damage to homes, cars, and civilians, violates Article 51 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention. Violating International Law: Israel’s Military Offensive Against Palestinian Towns and Villages

6. The reported use of Palestinian civilians as shields during house-to-house searches by the Israeli military violates Article 51(7) of the 1st Protocol.

The international community is not yet cognizant of the full extent of the death and destruction the recent ongoing military operation has visited upon the Palestinian population, insofar as the Israeli Defense Forces have closed entire towns such as Ramallah and Bethlehem to outside observers, United Nations representatives and the International Red Cross. It is therefore almost impossible to verify reports about extra-judicial executions, the deliberate use of lethal force against civilians or prisoners, or to obtain information about the identities and whereabouts and treatment in confinement of hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian detainees. Whole communities such as Jenin have been apparently depopulated.

The Israeli government cannot justify these grave breaches of the Geneva Convention as the unfortunate consequences of warfare. The Geneva Conventions, negotiated in light of the atrocities and abuses of World War II, were designed precisely to address the minimum humanitarian standards that civilized nations should observe during war or occupation. As Kofi Annan recently stated: “Respect for international humanitarian law and the humanitarian organizations is the most basic requirement for any nation that lays claim to democracy and membership in the international community.”

Prime Minister Sharon has stated that the goal of the current Israeli military offensive is to eradicate the infrastructure of terror. The widespread destruction wreaked upon the occupied territories suggests that its aim is also to destroy the institutions of Palestinian life necessary for an autonomous Palestinian state. The military offensive - the destruction of infrastructure, houses, schools, roads, and water supplies - escalates Israeli policies, best illustrated by the continued building of settlements, designed to foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state by destroying the territorial integrity of the Palestinian territory. More than 200,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank in some 190 settlements linked by special highways (from which Palestinian vehicles are excluded) that have effectively cut the West Bank into isolated enclaves surrounded by Israeli military forces and checkpoints.

In numerous resolutions, the UN Security Council and General Assembly have condemned these settlements as illegal under Article 49(b) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an Occupying Power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. In May 20, 2001, the Mitchell Report urged that Israel completely freeze building more settlements. Nonetheless, an Israeli group, Peace Now, reported in March that an aerial survey of the West Bank showed thirty-four new settlement sites built in the last year. The recent military offensive continues the same process that the settlements reflect, and in so doing is an attempt by Israel to effectively continue the occupation indefinitely or to drive the Palestinian population from the West Bank.

There is a further, domestic implication of Israel’s violation of international law. Much of the weaponry in Israel’s arsenal is American manufactured, jointly developed by Israel and the United States through U.S. Department of Defense programs, or purchased in Israel with U.S. foreign assistance.

The provision of this foreign assistance to Israel by the U.S. must comply with a federal statute, the Foreign Assistance Act. That law prohibits the sale of arms to countries which have a consistent pattern of violating internationally recognized human rights. Further discussion of Israel’s violations of the Foreign Assistance Act can be found in the Report of the National Lawyers Guild Delegation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel, January 2001, available at the Guild’s website: www.nlg.org.

The National Lawyers Guild intends to send a delegation to several Palestinian villages and towns in May 2002 to investigate international law violations and possible war crimes committed by Israel as a result of its military offensive.

The National Lawyers Guild strongly condemns these violations of international law, calls for an end to all acts of violence in the region which target civilians or cause civilian deaths, and supports the immediate dispatch of international peace forces to the West Bank and Gaza to protect Palestinian civilians from these continuing abuses.

Resolution Adopting The Report Of The January 2001 Middle East Delegation -- 2001

WHEREAS, the National Lawyers Guild, by resolution of November 2000 called for the dispatch of a ten?member delegation of National Lawyers Guild attorneys and law students (the Middle East Delegation) to investigate the misuse of U.S.?manufactured weapons during the Al Aqsa Intifada in violation of U.S. federal statutes, and

WHEREAS, the National Lawyers Guild, by resolution of November 2000 also called for the Middle East Delegation to investigate the nature and extent of institutionalized discrimination suffered by the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and

WHEREAS, the Middle East Delegation traveled to Israel and Palestine in January 2001 and investigated the facts and produced a report with the following findings:

The Israeli military and police have consistently used excessive force against the Palestinian civilian population, leading to a large number of Palestinian casualties as well as extensive and unnecessary property damage;

The Israeli military and police have inflicted indiscriminate attacks on the Palestinian civilian population as a form of collective punishment;

Most of the weapons that Israel has used and is using in these acts of aggression were manufactured in the United States, jointly developed by Israel and the United States, or financed by the United States;

The use of U.S. military assistance in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories against the Palestinian civilian population has not promoted the purposes and policies of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA);

The excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli police is not necessary to Israel's legitimate "self defense" or "internal security";

Israel has demonstrated a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" which has been well documented by numerous non­governmental organizations and which pattern violates the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA);

Palestinian citizens of Israel face systematic discrimination with respect to economic, social, and cultural rights including, but not limited to, housing, unrestricted movement, equal employment, quality of public education, proportional access to governmental resources, and property rights;

Therefore, be it resolved that the National Lawyers Guild:

Accepts the findings of the Middle East Delegation;

Calls on the President of the United States to immediately report to Congress that he has received information that a substantial violation of the AECA has occurred:

Calls on a joint session of Congress to issue a report and determination that Israel has acted in substantial violation of the AECA and the FAA;

Calls on the joint session of Congress to pass legislation suspending all current foreign assistance to Israel until Congress. in concert with the Executive Branch, has determined that Israel is no longer acting in violation of the AECA and the FAA;

Calls on the joint session of Congress to pass legislation conditioning any fixture foreign military and economic assistance on Israel's compliance with the AECA, the FAA, and international law;

Calls on the President of the United States to work with the UN Security Council in implementing the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights contained in her report on the Al Aqsa Intifada;

Calls on the President of the United States to support the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in the occupied Palestinian territories;

Calls on the joint session of Congress to establish an independent commission to monitor Israel's compliance with the AECA and the FAA;

Calls on the joint session of Congress to pass legislation conditioning any future foreign economic aid to Israel on the passage of laws designed to better protect the civil rights of Palestinian and other non?Jewish citizens of Israel and to equalize (proportionally) the provision of government resources provided to Jewish populations with the non?Jewish minority populations in Israel:

Calls on members of the National Lawyers Guild to contact members of Congress to encourage them to support the initiation of congressional hearings to investigate Israel's misuse of US weapons in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Israel; and

Commits itself to supporting the Middle East Subcommittee of the National Lawyers Guild in its work for enforcement of the AECA and the FAA and international laws related to resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

Resolution Calling For The Enforcement Of International Law In Israel/Palestine -- November 3, 2000

WHEREAS:

1. Despite the Oslo Agreements signed since 1993, the State of Israel continues to occupy and largely control the lives of the Palestinian people in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and the Syrian people in the Golan Heights;

2. Since September 28, 2000, the Palestinian people have been engaged in an uprising against the Israeli military occupation;

3. Israel has, in order to suppress this uprising, intensified its violations of international law and used excessive use of force in a disproportionate reaction against Palestinians, including shelling and firing at Palestinian cities from tanks and helicopters;

4. The UN issued Resolution 1322 condemning Israel’s excessive use of force and calling for the establishment of an international inquiry to investigate the deaths of over 160 Palestinians, 8 Israelis and over 4000 wounded Palestinians;

5. Amnesty International has issued a report condemning Israel’s excessive use of force as possible war crimes;

6. Physicians for Human Rights issued a report on November 3, 2000, in which one of its findings was that Israeli Defense Forces violated international law as follows: “The numerous head and eye injuries, the high proportion of thigh wounds and fatal head wounds, and the fact that similar patterns of such shootings occurred over a period of weeks demonstrate two disturbing patterns: 1) IDF soldiers are not firing only in life threatening situations and 2) they are firing at heads and thighs to injure and kill, not to avoid loss of life and injury.”;

7. On October 3, a week after the bitter fighting and killing began, the United States government announced it would provide Israel with the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade;

8. The sale of military helicopters was condemned by Amnesty International (October 19), in so far as “US-supplied helicopters have been used to violate the rights of Palestinians and Arab Israelis during the recent conflict in the region”;

9. A Pentagon official recently acknowledged that “anti-tank missiles and attack helicopters are not traditionally considered tools for crowd control”;

10. One-fifth of the population of Israel is Palestinian, of which half are internal refugees, who continue to suffer from discriminatory and segregationist policies favoring the Jewish citizens of Israel;

11. In September and October 2000, 13 Palestinian citizens of Israel were killed and hundreds injured by Israeli police;

12. The progressive community of Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel is isolated and under attack within Israel and has called for progressive forces in the United States and internationally to pressure the United States government and to educate the people in the United States about the apartheid regime that is forming in the area;

13. The US government has undermined a fair and just resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict by its persistent support of Israeli impunity in the face of international law and its massive funding of the Israeli military and nuclear weapons industries,

Therefore, be it resolved, that the National Lawyers Guild:

1. Calls on the international community to immediately provide international protection for Palestinian civilians;

2. Calls on the international community to take all necessary steps to enforce the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied territories, beginning with reconvening the Geneva meeting of member states which was postponed indefinitely in July 1999;

3. Calls on the United States government to cease its monopoly over the peace process and work together with the United Nations and others to forge a new paradigm for negotiations based on international law, UN resolutions and on justice and equality for all residents, Jewish and Palestinian, in the area;

4. Calls on the United States government to immediately halt all foreign aid to Israel that is used by Israel for ends that violate the rights of the Palestinians and Syrian residents of the Golan, until Israel complies with international law-- including the United Nations Charter, UN Resolution 194, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination-- and calls on Congress to use its oversight power to ensure that no aid given to Israel is used for the aforementioned illegal purposes;

5. Calls on the United States to freeze immediately all sales of weapons, military hardware and weapons technology to Israel and the Israeli arms industry until Israel ceases to use these weapons on Palestinian civilian populations;

6. Calls on the Israeli government to immediately cease its use of military force including tanks, missiles, live ammunition and metal bullets coated by rubber, dismantle its military occupation, fulfill its agreement to implement UN Resolution 194 and allow for international protection to be provided for Palestinian civilians;

7. Recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-determination and the right of return of all Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolutions 194;

8. Calls for the elimination in Israel of laws, institutions, regulations and practices which have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of religion, national or ethnic origin, sex or race;

9. Directs the National Executive Committee to communicate this resolution to the President of the United States, the Department of State, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the United Nations, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the Palestinian Bar Association, the Israeli Bar Association and other relevant governmental and other bodies.

Resolution Calling For An End To The Economic Sanctions And Bombing Aginst Iraq -- 2000

WHEREAS:

The imposition of economic sanctions against Iraq results in the denial of basic services, food and healthcare for the civilian population;

More than 500,000 children have died as a direct result of sanctions;

The international community has condemned the continuation of economic sanctions against the people; and

The United States and England continue to engage in ongoing bombing of Iraq, clearly illegal under the 1996 opinion of the World Court, and are the driving forces for the continuation of the sanctions;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:

That the National Lawyers Guild calls for support for the anti-sanctions work in the United States that has been carried out with great courage and perseverance by a committed and growing community of individuals and organizations;

The Guild chapters sponsor forums on the subject of sanctions;

The National Lawyers Guild calls for the General Assembly of the United Nations and Security Council to vote for an immediate end to the sanctions against Iraq;

The National Lawyers Guild calls for an immediate cessation of U.S. and British bombing of Iraq;

Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the U.N. High Commission on refugees, the U.S. Department of State, the U.N. Secretary General.

Resolution on Sanctions Against Iraq and Cuba -- October 24, 1998

WHEREAS:

US sanctions against Iraq and Cuba and Sudan have now been extended for many years, and they have caused enormous suffering on the part of the peoples of those countries; and

These sanctions have caused extreme shortages of medical supplies of all kinds, books of all kinds, including school books, as well as extreme shortages of food supplies and beverages; and

There is no benefit to the people of the United States in continuing these sanctions, and the underlying purpose of sanctions is to cause the people of these countries to overthrow the governments of Hussein and Castro, rather than addressing a genuine threat to the peoples of neighboring countries an the US.

THERE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD:

Declare that such sanctions should be abolished immediately.

Resolution On US Missile Attacks On Iraq -- 1996

WHEREAS the United States government in September 1996 attacked Iraq with missiles and expanded its previously established "air exclusion zone" in Iraq without a vote by Congress declaring war; and

WHEREAS the firing of missiles into the territory of another state constitutes an act of aggression under international law; and

WHEREAS this kind of action violates humanitarian laws of war by indiscriminately killing civilians as well as military personnel, and violates UN Charter provisions that state that no nation shall use force or threat of force against another nation to settle disputes; and

WHEREAS the precipitating events in Iraq, namely, the Iraqi government's action in August, 1996, to support one Kurdish faction against another, provided no justification for this action; and

WHEREAS United Nations Security Council Resolution 5\688 of 1990, which has been cited by the United States as justification for these actions and which relates to the Iraq government's treatment of Iraq's Kurds, does not call for, or permit, military force by member states of the United Nations; and

WHEREAS United National Security Council Resolution 678 of 1990, which has also been cited by the United States as justification for these actions, does not call for the use of military force except in response to Iraq's occupation in 1990 of Kuwait; and

WHEREAS this kind of unilateral action by the United States, in the context of several decades of military and political interference by it in the region, exacerbates widespread hostility there towards the United States, in particular because it fuels the impression that the United States is using military force to protect is access to oil;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT FESOLVED that the National Lawyers Guild

Condemns the actions of the United States in attacking Iraq with missile and expanding its air exclusion zone in Iraq; and

Calls on the United States to take steps to reduce, rather than increase, tensions in the region.