The Israeli assault on
All their previous invasions of
Consider the implications of their arrogance: with the exception of Tony 'Yo' Blair, who is beleaguered by a cabinet revolt disavowing his shameful policy of disappearing up Bush's rectum on the issue, every country in the world wants an immediate ceasefire.
Israel's chutzpah in announcing world backing for its invasion when the US effectively vetoed everybody else in Rome, was too much even for the US, which repudiated it quickly-but, one may add, quite mendaciously, since it is quite clear the Bush administration is indeed encouraging Olmert in his folly.
When Qana again became the focus of IDF barbarism, even Condoleezza Rice insisted on and got a 48-hour halt to the Israeli air assault.
But the woman has no pride. Did she not notice that the so-called halt still allowed Israeli operations in support of ground offensives, and retaliation against alleged Hezbollah rocket launch sites? Since that is the excuse that
And then, in
But of course Schumer is entirely correct in his diagnosis. Bolton, presumably with the full support of the White House, has not only sat on resolutions calling for a ceasefire, he managed to stonewall and then attenuate a resolution condemning the bombing attack on the UN camp at Khiyam, which killed four UN observers. Whatever happened to resolution 1502, passed unanimously in the wake of the bombing of the UN headquarters in
At a time when most countries of the world are trying to pull together some type of peacekeeping force for the border, the message that the
The Israeli leadership seems conflicted. On the one hand, they are admitting that they conceived their grand plan with false intelligence (does this sound familiar?), and have met far more opposition and paid a far higher cost than they expected.
So they are poised. Either they follow the NeoCon plan of digging themselves deeper into the hole they have made, and continue their assault, sending in more troops, or they look for a face saving multinational force.
The fig leaf for the multinational force would be the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, symbolized by the disarmament of the militias called for in resolution 1559. But what if the sovereign Lebanese government does not want to disarm Hezbollah, how does the international community enhance its sovereignty by forcing it to something that a majority of the Lebanese, according to the Zogby poll, does not want?
But apart from pulling the Israeli chestnuts out of the fire, what would a UN or multinational force achieve? On the current basis, little or nothing. If it robustly defended the border area against Hezbollah, which does after all have the support of most of the people living there, it will be getting the attention that has driven
The only way it would have local credibility would be it tries to resist Israeli incursions into Lebanon, which are in fact much frequent than those going the other way, it can count on zero backing from the US and, at present, from the UK.
A pay off that may persuade the Lebanese and Hezbollah could be the handover of the
But that returns us to first principles. A
But at least the other members of the Security Council should be making it plain that there will be no concessions to US polices on Iran, Korea or anywhere else, until the US shows signs of recognizing that international law applies to itself and Israel, as well to others. If they agree to a multinational force, then they should get cast-iron guarantees from NATO and the US on protection for the force - including anti-aircraft capability.And for a ray of hope, here is another ad from Gush Shalom in the Israeli paper Haaretz
"We warned them
And called on them
That is disgusting
Because we have:
Bombed the roads.
Destroyed the bridges.
Cut off the supply of gasoline.
Killed whole families on the way.
There is only one way
Of preventing more such disasters,
Which turn us into monsters:
T O S T O P!
There is no military solution!
Help us to
pay for actions and ads
by checks to Gush Shalom
Ad published in Haaretz,
August 1, 2006.