Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Dealing with the Devil

At National Review Online, Anne Bayefsky raises some serious concerns with the pending UN Security Council resolution:
In short, the United Nations — which to this day cannot define terrorism — did not come to the aid of a U.N. member under fire from one of the world’s leading terrorist organizations. It came to the aid of the terrorist by attempting to prevent the member state from exercising its right to hit back. The Geneva Conventions clearly state that combatants are prohibited from using civilians as human shields, but if they do so, the presence of civilians does not render the area immune from military operations. Israeli soldiers and civilians are paying with their lives daily as a consequence of Israel’s efforts to avoid disproportionate action — a dramatic exercise of restraint taken in order to reduce Lebanese civilian casualties.

But in the face of the U.N.’s obvious predilection to subvert Israel’s well-being and American foreign policy interests, to whom has Secretary Rice turned to save the day? The United Nations!

The result has been as predictable as it has been disastrous. The U.N.’s verbal assault on Israel is coupled with a three-pronged political agenda. The United Nations seeks to: (1) protect Hezbollah from further Israeli attacks; (2) produce a political win for Hezbollah by giving them the territorial prize of the Shebaa Farms ; and (3) increase U.N. presence, oversight, and control of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every element of this agenda is satisfied in the current U.N. resolution and is part of the declared intention of the second resolution to follow.

The resolution calls for a “full cessation of hostilities” and “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.” What offensive military operations? Has Israel been engaged in a single military operation offensive and not defensive in nature? Only according to Annan’s armed wing, Hezbollah.

The resolution reintroduces the notion that Israel occupies Lebanese territory, calling for action on “areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area.” It completely contradicts the secretary-general’s own final determination of January 20, 2005, that the Shebaa farms is not Lebanese: “The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab’a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978).”

The draft resolution on the current crisis says the Security Council “expresses its intention…to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to…contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution.” It calls for renewed involvement of UNIFIL, the U.N. troops that stood and watched Hezbollah rearm and plan its deadly assault on a U.N. member state for the last six years.

Such an international force is to be authorized under the first-ever Chapter VII resolution — a legally binding resolution that can be implemented through sanctions or the use of force — in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, Secretary Rice has approved of a U.N.-authorized and monitored force that has its sights set on Israel too, coupled with a claim that Israel is currently engaged in “offensive” operations. The very U.N. that accuses Israel of murder and heinous violations of international law is now to be charged with judging compliance with a legally binding instrument purporting to define the terms and conditions of Israel’s self-defense.

In addition, the draft resolution
fails to call in its operative section for the immediate release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers;

introduces the notion that settling the issue of all Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel — regardless of their crimes — will be the quid pro quo for the Israelis’ release;

speaks of financial and humanitarian assistance only to the Lebanese people while ignoring restitution or aid resulting from the one million Israelis in bomb shelters over the last three weeks and the 300,000 displaced;

lends credibility to another manufactured grievance, the return by Israel of “remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon” — though Israel has already returned maps of old mines years ago, and no mention is made of Hezbollah providing the U.N. with maps of its newly laid landmines;

enhances Kofi Annan’s authority to judge Israel by extending an open-ended invitation to inform the Security Council continually about any action he believes “might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution” ;

fails to mention “Hezbollah” or terrorism even once, let alone stating that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the Lebanese civilian casualties it cynically promotes;

omits entirely any reference to Iran or Syria, as if the address of the arms suppliers and bosses of their Hezbollah proxies are too sensitive to include.
There will be only one sure result of this move — the empowerment of terrorists whose ultimate target is the United States and all democratic values. Secretary Rice’s belief that there is a serious convergence between the United Nations agenda and American foreign-policy needs in the age of terrorism is a profound error in judgment for which democratic societies everywhere will be forced to pay a heavy price.
Read the whole thing.

2 Comments:

At 9:39 PM, Blogger ShumBaayaMyLord said...

Hi Carl, thanks for posting this incredibly good Anne Bayefsky/NRO piece--I only wish that it never had to have been written.

I guess the UN Charter Article VII concerns I alluded to in an exchange we had the other day had a certain amount of validity after all.

I'm tempted to add that Caroline Glick previously warned us all in JPost, but I risk being attacked ad hominem again by m.simon who seems to prize ability to add links (thus receiving m.simon official blogger certification) over and above cogency of argument.

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger Neurodoc said...

The problem with UN resolutions (and laws in general) is that few people read them before they come out. Run, don't walk to David Bedein's site Israelbehindthenews.com and read his analysis of the resolution. He says Israel will face a catch-22. It cannot any longer overfly Lebanon. The United Nations will say everything is hunky-dory. If Israel says arms smuggling is going on, they will be asked to produce evidence. If they show aerial evidence, then ISRAEL will be cited for breaking the chapter 7 resolution. If it does not show aerial evidence, the UN will say Hizbollah rearmament is not happening.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google