Thursday, August 31, 2006

Cluster bombing of Lebanon "immoral" UN official tells Israel

The behaviour of Ehud Olmert in the last three days of the conflict with Hizbullah struck most of us as bizarre. The US had finally engaged and a resolution was set to follow and yet Olmert, for reasons best known to himself, decided that this was the time to launch a ground offensive.

He claimed recently that he did so to ensure that the UN adopted the resolution, a ridiculous claim that suggests Israel was keen for a ceasefire whilst the UN dragged it's feet, which is about as far from reality as you can get.

However, his behaviour in that last 72 hours has come under even greater scrutiny with a stinging rebuke from the UN concerning Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, with most of them having been dropped in the last three days as the resolution was being finalised.

"What's shocking - and I would say to me completely immoral - is that 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution," Mr Egeland said. "Every day people are maimed, wounded and are killed by these ordnance."

It is impossible to argue that Olmert did not mean to bring about civilian casualties using the weapons he was using in civilian areas. Indeed, as I reported at the time, he stated:
"Each expansion of Hizbollah terrorist operations will lead to a harsh and powerful response and its painful response will not be confined to Hassan's gang of criminals".
There is no way to interpret that statement as anything other than a threat to inflict "a painful response" upon the civilian population of Lebanon. And as the civilian population attempt to return to their homes in southern Lebanon, Israel's unexploded cluster bombs are making good on that threat.
Jan Egeland said civilians were facing "massive problems" returning home because of as many as 100,000 unexploded cluster bombs, most of which were dropped in the last days of the war.
Olmert was always out of his depth in this conflict but it's beginning to look like he's strayed into criminality. But, of course, because he's not East European or an Arab, there is no chance that he will ever face prosecution for his crimes. In the world view of the USraelis, war crimes are things committed by the other side which our cultural superiority renders us incapable of committing.

Meanwhile, flying under the world's radar thanks to the conflict in Lebanon, Israel's pounding of Gaza continues on a daily basis.

It is strange that, having seen these tactics fail so spectacularly in Lebanon, Olmert should choose to continue this strategy in the Gaza Strip. But, of course, Hizbullah were properly armed and could inflict genuine pain on Israel, the Palestinians cannot; therefore, the brutal attack on them continues.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, called on Israel to end its closure of the Gaza Strip and to halt the fighting that has claimed the lives of more than 200 Palestinians in the past two months. Palestinian officials say more than half of those killed in the past two months have been civilians - among them 39 children killed in July alone.

"Over 200 Palestinians have been killed since the end of June. This must stop immediately," Mr Annan said, after meeting Palestinian officials in the occupied West Bank. "I have made my feelings known in talks with Israeli officials. Beyond preserving life, we have to sustain life, the closure of Gaza must be lifted, the crossing points must be opened, not just to allow goods but to allow Palestinian exports out as well."

Israel continues to defend it's behaviour in Gaza by claiming it is still trying to find Gilad Shalit, the young Israeli captured at the very beginning of this conflict; however, it has already abandoned military action as a way of recovering it's kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon, so what possible reason can there be for continuing this failed policy in Gaza?

Is it simply to punish the Palestinians because the Israelis can do so without fear of retribution? Is it an attempt to ethnically cleanse the area by making life there unbearable for the civilian population? I don't know. All I know is that the reasons given by Olmert don't make any sense.

But, to be fair, little Olmert says these days implies that he has any firm grip on reality. He recently stated that "he hoped the ceasefire agreement might be the "cornerstone" of a new relationship between Israel and Lebanon."

Is he on smack? What makes him think that bombing a country back thirty years heralds the hope of a new understanding between them? Does he think a new relationship can be built even as Lebanese civilians are being maimed by the cluster bombs that he cynically dropped as the ceasefire was being negotiated?

Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese Prime Minister, gave Olmert a reality check by stating:
Lebanon "will be the last Arab country that could sign a peace agreement with Israel".
No doubt Olmert will be puzzled by such a reaction, just as Bush would be puzzled that there are some of us who think Olmert should face charges for the cynical and illegal things he did during the final days of that disgraceful conflict.

The US and Israel's determination to inflict their reality on the Middle East is the source of almost all the conflict there. And as long as the US and the Israelis continue to think that they need not consider what any other nation thinks or needs - see the unilateral solution they are attempting to impose on the Palestinians as an example - then conflict in the region is set to continue and Israel, consequently, will be less safe.

That is the irony.

No comments: