inside the glass house

NEW YORK -- As a helpless Lebanon continues to be turned into rubble by Israeli firepower, the United Nations remains politically impotent and unable to take any action because of a hard fact of life: the unrestrained and overindulgent US support for an intransigent Israel. US Ambassador John Bolton says there will be no ceasefire unless it is part of "a comprehensive solution that lays a real foundation for peace." Until then, he seems to argue rather ironically, Israel has the right to destroy the whole of Lebanon just to disarm a single militant group: the Hezbollah. Looking at it from a military perspective, the Israelis are using a monstrous tractor to kill a fly.

The UN, long viewed as the keeper of world peace, has been transformed into a political laughing stock because it has remained ineffective despite a desperate plea by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. "Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted on us?" he asked in a letter to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council last week.

The "cedar revolution in Lebanon" -- which introduced renewed multi-party democracy to the long-suffering Arab nation -- was hailed by the US as a model for other states in the region. But the Bush administration, which treated Lebanon as one of its political allies in the region, has refused to step in to halt the ongoing destruction of one of its user-friendly countries in the Arab world.

In his letter to the UN, the Lebanese Prime Minister asks: "Will you allow innocent civilians, churches, mosques, orphanages, medical supplies escorted by the Red Cross, and people seeking shelter or fleeing their homes and villages, to be casualties of this ugly war? Is this what the international community calls self defence?"

The only visible movement so far is a planned visit to the Middle East by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But the irony of the proposed visit was underlined by a reporter who asked the Assistant Secretary of State Sean McCormack at a news briefing last week: "Since she cannot speak to Hezbollah, she cannot speak to Hamas (both considered terrorist organisations by the US), she cannot speak to the Syrians, she cannot speak to the Iranians (both countries considered "terrorist states" and supportive of Hezbollah), that leaves only Israel, and what, Lebanon?" The reporter went further: "She cannot go to Lebanon (either) if there is no ceasefire, and you don't call for a ceasefire. So, what is she going to do there?" And McCormack came out with a lacklustre response: "We're going to keep you upto date on her itinerary and the timing of her travel." End of story.

In a statement to the Security Council last week, Secretary-General Kofi Annan tried to be predictably even-handed by blaming both Hezbollah and the Israelis for the current impasse. The figures he presented to the Council gave a clear indication of the grossly disproportionate use of Israeli firepower, mostly against civilians. After nine days of Israeli bombings, Annan said, over 300 Lebanese have been killed and more than 600 wounded. On the other side of the battle zone, 28 Israelis have been killed and over 200 wounded.

"Israel states that it has no quarrel with the government or the people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precaution to avoid harm to them," Annan told the Security Council. "Yet a number of its actions have hurt and killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel and caused great damage to infrastructure. While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, as I've said Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned."
Annan also came up with several proposals to contain the military confrontation: an immediate halt to the fighting; a battle-free humanitarian corridor to provide assistance to some 500,000 people in urgent need of food and medical supplies; an expanded UN peacekeeping force; and an international conference to find a long term solution to the problems facing Lebanon. But all -- or most of the proposals -- are bound to fall on deaf American and Israeli ears.

Meanwhile, human rights groups, along with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour of Canada, have been slamming Israel and "expressing grave concern" over the killings and maiming of civilians, which could best be categorized as "war crimes." Arbour said that international humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during military hostilities.

"International law also demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she pointed out in a statement released last week. In layman's language, it means those giving the orders to bomb Lebanon can be liable for war crimes before an international tribunal. But then, Israelis have always got away with murder - literally -- under a US protective umbrella. The destruction of Lebanon will be no exception.

The protests against civilian killings have also come from several human rights organisations, including the International Federation for Human Rights, the National Lawyers Guild and the US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation. While Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- all American allies -- have toned down their protests for fear of angering the Bush administration, Iraq's US-installed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki caught the Bush administration by surprise when he forcefully denounced the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Speaking from inside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, he called on the Arab foreign minister's meeting in Cairo for immediate action to stop the "Israeli aggression." Not surprisingly, the US embassy in Baghdad did not respond to his comments.