UN's Heart Beats for Israel
Zaman
Sometimes a governmental forum can appear to be functioning even when it's not. It may perform all the motions: conduct its electoral and legislative ceremonies, pass proclamations and laws.
But real capacity is weak or missing. Laws come to nothing or simply parrot the will of some other authority, while the constitution or charter that confirms its authority over events is quietly ignored. Especially when it was formerly powerful, such a forum can roll on functioning this way for a considerable time, operating on image and collective pretence. But when the image and pretence begin to falter, real unrest and new dangers can ensue.
We see that kind of unrest brewing in the US, as pretence cracks regarding the US Congress, now reduced to mechanically reproducing the Bush administration's rash edicts and endorsing its reckless Middle East "adventures". As a result, fears are rising of an "imperial presidency" and authoritarianism. And we see it in the UN Security Council, where weakness has now advanced to dysfunctionality, as the US trashes the great-power pact and rules that confirm the UN's authority as the world's highest arbiter of international security. Fears here center on what will ensue for world peace and order.
The UN's weakness has been building for years, coming into sharp relief with the US's illegal invasion of Iraq. Fears rose further when the US stalled and vetoed Security Council efforts to denounce Israel for its ravaging attacks on civilians in Gaza. But the UN's implosion has finally reached critical mass over the crisis in Lebanon. First we had weeks of shameful delay, as the Security Council could do nothing whatever. Now we have the draft resolution on a "full ceasefire" in Lebanon, composed by the US and the hapless French, which may signal the Security Council's swan song.
The draft resolution makes a mockery of the international principles that the UN was founded to defend, and is rightly drawing fire from a terminally exasperated and outraged Arab world. For example, the opening reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides" falsely equates the damage in and behaviour of the two countries, equating Hizbullah's border skirmish against an army patrol, which has required no Security Council resolution, with Israel's massive attack on civilian lives and infrastructure, which certainly has done. The second phrase, "emphasising the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers," offers no equivalent recognition that thousands of Lebanese prisoners in Israel must also be "unconditionally" released. Instead, we get only intentionally vague language about "encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue" of Lebanese prisoners - Condolesa-speak if ever we heard it - which suggests they may never get out.
Everyone has also noted the crippling failure: no clear provision for Israeli military withdrawal. Withdrawal is implied by lines like "strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon" and "elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government". But with no timetable or sequence, Israeli withdrawal is not made prerequisite to peace, as any impartial observer knows it must be. Withdrawal is merely a "principle" for the long-term cease-fire. On these terms, Israel can withdraw whenever it considers other ceasefire conditions to be fulfilled. Since Israel found ways not to abide by the Oslo Accords for ten years, on grounds that Palestinian "terror" was never ended (having regularly bombed or assassinated some Palestinian figure to make sure of continued Palestinian violence), we can imagine how easily Israel can find excuses to postpone withdrawing from Lebanon.
But all these details of language, which will be debated and amended anyway, miss the larger point. The real purpose of the draft resolution is, clearly, to extend Israel's window of opportunity. Like the Bush administration's "Road Map," the ceasefire resolution is designed to aborb diplomatic energies, distract media attention from Israel's bombings and abuses, and tangle up discussion and analysis in a myriad of bogus details. In short, it is diplomatic cover for the same US policy that has shocked the world for past weeks: i.e., to postpone peace.
The idea that the US might actively seek to postpone peace in the Middle East might seem strange to some people. For example, - analysts commonly speak of US "neglect" of that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the Bush administration's "failure" to engage effectively. They do not grasp that standing off, while protecting Israel from international blame or some new peace initiative, reflects a very active US policy to support Israel's "convergence" plan to annex portions of the West Bank. That plan requires the continuation of military occupation and therefore a state of hostilities.
Still, the success of the collaboration requires that observers fail to recognize its character. In Lebanon, the same effort at deception has failed because the collaboration is too transparent, too baldly and crudely pursued. For the past month, every Bush administration spokesperson has repeatedly insisted that Israel's assault on Lebanon must continue until "the conditions that created the conflict are eliminated" - that is, Hizbollah is pulverized, which means all of southern Lebanon is pulverized. The immediate conspiracy with Israel could not be plainer, and we have seen a collective reeling back from the spectre of a rogue United States openly plotting the ruin of an entire country and terrorization of nearly a million innocent displaced people.
But we also find a deeper sense of international unease becoming tangible, as the larger strategy also becomes more clear. Peace is the enemy of US and Israeli plans in the region at this point. A general state of hostilities is far more conducive to their agendas, because it frees Israel to complete the "convergence" plan in the West Bank and to orchestrate the fall of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The alliance between the US and Israel to pursue this cruel war in Lebanon has not only trashed international law and humanitarian norms but has turned the Security Council, the vital arbiter of international peace, into just another hapless tool of US hegemonic ambitions. As its hollow image and collective pretence finally fail, the dangers for international security will be very high. Read more
Sometimes a governmental forum can appear to be functioning even when it's not. It may perform all the motions: conduct its electoral and legislative ceremonies, pass proclamations and laws.
But real capacity is weak or missing. Laws come to nothing or simply parrot the will of some other authority, while the constitution or charter that confirms its authority over events is quietly ignored. Especially when it was formerly powerful, such a forum can roll on functioning this way for a considerable time, operating on image and collective pretence. But when the image and pretence begin to falter, real unrest and new dangers can ensue.
We see that kind of unrest brewing in the US, as pretence cracks regarding the US Congress, now reduced to mechanically reproducing the Bush administration's rash edicts and endorsing its reckless Middle East "adventures". As a result, fears are rising of an "imperial presidency" and authoritarianism. And we see it in the UN Security Council, where weakness has now advanced to dysfunctionality, as the US trashes the great-power pact and rules that confirm the UN's authority as the world's highest arbiter of international security. Fears here center on what will ensue for world peace and order.
The UN's weakness has been building for years, coming into sharp relief with the US's illegal invasion of Iraq. Fears rose further when the US stalled and vetoed Security Council efforts to denounce Israel for its ravaging attacks on civilians in Gaza. But the UN's implosion has finally reached critical mass over the crisis in Lebanon. First we had weeks of shameful delay, as the Security Council could do nothing whatever. Now we have the draft resolution on a "full ceasefire" in Lebanon, composed by the US and the hapless French, which may signal the Security Council's swan song.
The draft resolution makes a mockery of the international principles that the UN was founded to defend, and is rightly drawing fire from a terminally exasperated and outraged Arab world. For example, the opening reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides" falsely equates the damage in and behaviour of the two countries, equating Hizbullah's border skirmish against an army patrol, which has required no Security Council resolution, with Israel's massive attack on civilian lives and infrastructure, which certainly has done. The second phrase, "emphasising the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers," offers no equivalent recognition that thousands of Lebanese prisoners in Israel must also be "unconditionally" released. Instead, we get only intentionally vague language about "encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue" of Lebanese prisoners - Condolesa-speak if ever we heard it - which suggests they may never get out.
Everyone has also noted the crippling failure: no clear provision for Israeli military withdrawal. Withdrawal is implied by lines like "strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon" and "elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government". But with no timetable or sequence, Israeli withdrawal is not made prerequisite to peace, as any impartial observer knows it must be. Withdrawal is merely a "principle" for the long-term cease-fire. On these terms, Israel can withdraw whenever it considers other ceasefire conditions to be fulfilled. Since Israel found ways not to abide by the Oslo Accords for ten years, on grounds that Palestinian "terror" was never ended (having regularly bombed or assassinated some Palestinian figure to make sure of continued Palestinian violence), we can imagine how easily Israel can find excuses to postpone withdrawing from Lebanon.
But all these details of language, which will be debated and amended anyway, miss the larger point. The real purpose of the draft resolution is, clearly, to extend Israel's window of opportunity. Like the Bush administration's "Road Map," the ceasefire resolution is designed to aborb diplomatic energies, distract media attention from Israel's bombings and abuses, and tangle up discussion and analysis in a myriad of bogus details. In short, it is diplomatic cover for the same US policy that has shocked the world for past weeks: i.e., to postpone peace.
The idea that the US might actively seek to postpone peace in the Middle East might seem strange to some people. For example, - analysts commonly speak of US "neglect" of that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the Bush administration's "failure" to engage effectively. They do not grasp that standing off, while protecting Israel from international blame or some new peace initiative, reflects a very active US policy to support Israel's "convergence" plan to annex portions of the West Bank. That plan requires the continuation of military occupation and therefore a state of hostilities.
Still, the success of the collaboration requires that observers fail to recognize its character. In Lebanon, the same effort at deception has failed because the collaboration is too transparent, too baldly and crudely pursued. For the past month, every Bush administration spokesperson has repeatedly insisted that Israel's assault on Lebanon must continue until "the conditions that created the conflict are eliminated" - that is, Hizbollah is pulverized, which means all of southern Lebanon is pulverized. The immediate conspiracy with Israel could not be plainer, and we have seen a collective reeling back from the spectre of a rogue United States openly plotting the ruin of an entire country and terrorization of nearly a million innocent displaced people.
But we also find a deeper sense of international unease becoming tangible, as the larger strategy also becomes more clear. Peace is the enemy of US and Israeli plans in the region at this point. A general state of hostilities is far more conducive to their agendas, because it frees Israel to complete the "convergence" plan in the West Bank and to orchestrate the fall of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The alliance between the US and Israel to pursue this cruel war in Lebanon has not only trashed international law and humanitarian norms but has turned the Security Council, the vital arbiter of international peace, into just another hapless tool of US hegemonic ambitions. As its hollow image and collective pretence finally fail, the dangers for international security will be very high. Read more
posted by exoplanet at 2:47 PM
<< Home