Hezbollah, Israel and the Responsibility to Protect Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Despite the ongoing tantrum  involving those who insist on cramming the Israel-Hezbollah conflict into a Cold War era rationalization of state self-defense, other more promising discussions are occurring. One of them is rooted in a report issued by Canada six years ago.

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty issued a report called The Responsibility to Protect . The report's central theme is that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.

Unfortunately, this report was marginalized by 9/11 and subsequent conflicts--yet its importance as a new way to think about international security is evident in the current fight between Israel and Hezbollah.

The laws of armed conflict are divided into two categories: laws that apply in wars between states (such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949), and a more limited set of rules that apply in civil wars and other "non-international conflicts."  The fighting in the Middle East shows how contemporary conflicts are often difficult to accommodate within this division. 

A recent exchange on the blog of a British development organization has some  interesting insights.  Hezbollah, Israel's government and Lebanon's government are criticized while its clear that both Israeli and Lebanese citizens deserve protection.

The current events in Lebanon and their impact on the civilian population raise urgent questions about who is responsible for the protection of civilians. The emergent doctrine of the responsibility to protect (colloquially 'R2P') locates primary responsibility squarely with the government of the state in question. But it also stresses the collective responsibility of other states for protecting civilians of any state facing genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. This response should be the exercise of first peaceful and then, if necessary, coercive (including forceful) steps to protect civilians. While the emphasis of the R2P doctrine has tended towards internal conflict, a key question in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East is what responsibility does the international community have in ensuring that civilians are protected in international conflicts as well?

I found this website in a footnote of a report by BASIC  the British American Security Information Council.

Perusing the rest of the footnotes, I was struck by this tale of refugees becoming refugees...Iraqis in Lebanon .This one sad family is a symbol of exactly what is wrong with the way we're solving bad international relationships these days. Relying on overwhelming military dominance is a failing strategy for the Israelis just as it is for the USA in post-war Iraq. Hopefully we will learn this lesson before it is taught to us.

Comments

[John E. Desiderio]

Israelis Caught Red Handed
Planning 'Arab' Terrorism
The Voice of the White House
8-12-6

WASHINGTON, DC -- "Here, as promised, is an interesting conversation that somehow accidentally got intercepted and transcribed. There are lots more where this came from!"

Transcription of telephone conversation on August 3, 2006

from
Israeli Embassy, Washington D.C. Telephone Number (202) 364-5582.

to
unidentified individual at AIPAC , Washington D.C., Telephone Number (202) 639-5201

Commenced 1821 hrs, concluded 1826 hrs.

Speaker A: Reuven Azar - Counselor for Political Affairs, Embassy of Israel

Speaker B: Unidentified individual located at AIPAC headquarters

A. Well, things are going as well as expected, better perhaps than expected. There is military progress there (Lebanon) and we have wonderful cooperation here.

B. For sure, but don't forget the dangers in having too much cooperation. All right for this moment but in the long run, this can certainly backfire on us. You know, we are seen as being too much influential with the Bush people.

A. I wouldn't worry too much about that. The media is certainly not to worry about and most Americans really do not care about things there (Lebanon) The main point is that by the time the U.S. makes itself felt at the UN, we will have accomplished our goals and established the buffer we need.

B. Absolutely butthere is still the future to think about.

A. Who cares? Once we establish the buffer, the rest is just shit. It will all be hidden soon in the coming press reports of Arab 'attacks' on the U.S. This is for the voting in November. You know, 'many Arab groups will for sure attack American targets.' They (the U.S. Government) will choose so-called target areas where they need the most support. We don't need to worry about Miami, Skokie or Beverly Hills after all. (Laughter) and this is a little crude but the public here is terribly stupid and the warning color days worked before, didn't they?

B. Yes, but there are second thoughts on all of that. If you go to the well too often, there are problems. People lose interest.

A. The British are being such swine about this, aren't they? They are causing trouble about the bombs these days.

B. Just a few troublemakers. The press here does not cover that and who reads the foreign media? Most Americans can't read anyway. But there is danger that the U.N. might be motivated to move a peace keeping force into Lebanon and this might negate our purposes. Hesbollah must be utterly wiped out and Syria must be made to realizewith force if necessarythat it cannot supply the terrorists with more Iranian rockets. Maybe an accidental airstrike on Syrian military units could say to them to mind their own business. We have done this before.

A. It is too bad that we cannot teach Tehran a lesson. The ultimate goal would be to have America attack Iran but I am afraid the American military is dead set against this

B. They are all Jew-haters up there.

A. For sure, but we know that Americans can bomb the shit out of Tehran and hopefully kill off a number of the militants, probably disrupt their atomic program and teach all of the area that the U.S. means business. We support them, they support us. But they cannot send in ground troops and if we did that, our losses would not be borne at home. As it is, there are the usual malcontents bleating about the Lebanon business.

B. They are just afraid they will get a rocket on their house and there are the same ones here. The Lieberman business is not that good, after all. Yes, of course he is a liberal Democrat but his support of us is too obvious. He could be a little critical too. We see the Bush people doing this, just to keep the people quiet. Yes, they say, see, we too are actually critical of Israel.

A. But not too critical, right?

B. No, never that. Too many pictures of dead jerks for example. We need to see more pictures of grieving Israelis, mourning lost sons and children. Can't we get more of those? Fuck the Arabs.

A. I feel sorry for the American media. Their instincts are to defend dead Arab children

B. But nits make lice, don't they? Who mourns dead Israeli children?

A. I'm sure there would be more on this but not enough children are dead.

B. Not yet, anyway. But if they rocket Tel Aviv

A. Well, then, for sure.

B. We should have pictures all ready if that happens. Do you think it will?

A. Tehran directs that part of the business. We don't have as much inside gen on them there

B. The fucking Russians are on their side.

A. We have always had trouble with those Slavic pricks. First weapons

B. The Chinese assholes also do this, don't forget.

A. No one around here will forget that, be assured. The time will come when we get them too. Say we cut off their oil from the Gulf? What then? They will dance to our tunes then, not Tehran's.

B. If we had oil

A. But we do not. The filthy Putin has the oil. They should get rid of him while they are at it. Our people almost had it but he forced them out.

B. They can always come back. The people here would really support this. We put our people back in after we get rid of Putin and then a guaranteed flow of oil to America.

A. And Russia is off the chessboard too.

B. They all want that badly here, too. Cheney is the strongest supporter of cutting the nuts off of RussiA. The military here are against fishing in troubled waters.

A. They can't be replaced, Bush can't sack them all.

B. Set an example. Sack a few more of the assholes and the rest will shut up. They always do. So, send me your latest list and I'll see what I can do here.

A. Send someone to pick it up. The mail here is awful. It will take a week if some black doesn't steal it, throw it away or wipe his ass with it.

B. Tomorrow for sure.

A. OK. And one other matter. We feel very strongly that if the current people get kicked out in November, as it looks like they might, we owe them to help them stay right where they are. It has taken a long time and much money to get all the ducks lined up and we don't want to have to start in again. We can generally rely on sympathy from the Democrats but they will not support any more military ventures over there. That's for sure.

B. Then what do you suggest?

A. The terrorism card works wonders. We were going to release a statement that Arabs were going to attack an El Al plane on takeoff, with rockets.

A. Probably leftovers from the CIA businesses in Afghanistan.

A. Let's not get into that now. But this scare would only affect flights to Israel and we don't think it would have any impact on the election.

B. Well then, why not have these attacks aimed at American aircraft? Where would they attack from?

A. Say at the perimeter fence lines at airports. Or better still, why not a plan cooked up to smuggle explosives on board transatlantic flights to or from America? Something clever that will catch the public imagination.

B. That stupid bomb in the shoe routine?

A. Don't knock it. It worked, didn't it? We can always find some suckers with a bent to this we can fill up with real enthusiasm and then turn them in, complete with plans. They actually believe they are going to paradise and fuck virgins and we have another propaganda coup. Let's give this some effort. You know, a terrified public will not want to change horses in mid stream. So far, the Rove people have a good line: If you're against the Republicans, you're encouraging the evil terrorists sthick.

B. Well, they did that with the alert warnings and it workedmore or less.

A. Face it, they aren't too bright here. They ran it into the ground, had to fire Ridge and Ashcroft, one of our very best friends ever, and put those things on ice. They need to discover a huge plot but in America

A. You know, as you said, infiltrate a group of crazies, plant things on them, call the FBI

B. Oh, they do that themselves. That business in Florida was pathetic

A. But it worked, didn't it?

B. For about ten minutes at six o'clock for about three days.

A. Well, think about it and get back to me.

B. Right.

A. What's the situation with your two people? Are they going to be tried or not?

B. Probably not, as far as the Bush people are concerned. But it is up to the courts and we are very careful not to fuck with them. They are expected to have the charges thrown out soon

A. Well, I'll pray for them. I have to go now so I'll get back to you later. Don't forget to send someone for the list

B. OK.

(Conversation terminated)

This is just the tip of a very large iceberg. Other inside information will be published in upcoming editions. On Monday, August 14, I will put up a complete listing of all members of Congress who have received money from AIPAC, state by state, amount by amount.

Dear old crazy, and defeated, Lieberman, shrieking with rage at seeing all his extra income flowing down the drain, has received over $227,758 so far from AIPAC . Tell me, children, what did he do for all that money? There are many more names and amounts to entertain you as well as to give you a concrete guide as to your voting in November next.

As far as the recent stories about "terrorist attacks" coming from England, don't believe them. It is well known around the White House that this invented story is designed to offset the crushing defeat of the Administration's darling liberal, Lieberman. This theme, by the way, according to position papers circulating here, is the main theme of the November elections. The thesis? Why the Iron Trio of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have protected, and will continue to protect, innocent America from evil terrorist threats.

Of course, if you vote Democratic, all bets are off and armies of rabid Muslim (read non Christian) fascists will at once invade America, to rape, loot and pillage while setting off bombs in the Des Moines Public Library. Please note that in spite of all the shit the Bush people have spread around about "proctecting America" there has not been one proven incident of any real terrorist group caught or no attack thwarted. The WMD lies were the father and the "terrorist threats" and the illegitimate child of this corrupt and dangerous gang."

Disclaimer

Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros