Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

UN draft resolution « Previous | |Next »
August 8, 2006

As noted below the United States and France have produced a United Nations resolution of sorts aimed at ending the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It does not look promising:

Peter Brookes

This resolution puts some constraints on America's apparent willingness to allow the conflict to run its course - under the belief that it is only a matter of time before Israel destroyed Hezbollah. But the resolution is willing to sacrifice Lebanon. So what does the draft resolution say?

It expresses:

...its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons

That makes the destruction equivalent. Isn't the destruction caused by Israel more than that by Hizbollahl? The bias implicit in that paragraph becomes more explicit in the next:
Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing 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

What about the Lebanese and Hizbollah prisoners held by Israel? Yet Hizbollah is saying that it would only release the 2 Israeli soldiers in return for Lebanese prisoners. Are only Israel demands to be recognized? The UN acknowledges this as it says it is mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encourages the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel.

The bias towards Israeli in the words 'sensitivity ' and 'settles' compared to 'unconditional release' gets worse. The next paragraph:

Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations

So Hizbollah lays down its arms but not Israeli. As there is no mention of Israel withdrawing or retreating from Lebanon , so the Israeli army can be seen as an army of occupation. A full cessation of hostilities would allow the Israeli army to take 'defensive military operations' against Hizbullah. I would have thought that the departure of Israeli forces is the main hurdle to the United Nations security council adopting a ceasefire resolution. Whilst Israel is occupying Lebanon, Hezbollah is not allowed to take any military action against this occupation. If it does, the resolution draft allows Israel to defend its occupation militarily.

This resolution waives the moral and internationally accepted legal principle of the right of occupied peoples to resist occupation. That implies Lebanon accept its role in the new regional order – that is, to submit to Israel's superiority and give up its South. How can that be acceptable to Lebanon and to Hezbollah? The latter has said that it would not accept any deal that leaves Israel occupying southern Lebanon.

The resolution is so weighted towards Israel that it risks destabilising Lebanon's moderate democratic government Hezbollah then becomes the only effective force fighting Lebanon's partition. The UN draft resolution is less a papering over the cracks and more a political way to help the Israeli government claim victory over Hizbullajh and to legitimate the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:45 PM | | Comments (0)