Unresolved counsel

Last Thursday's (8 Jan 2009) attempt to craft a ceasefire agreement by the UN Security Council has fallen flat through its resolution on the situation on Gaza -- SC Resolution 1860 (2009). Despite working to create the language of the resolution, the US abstained while the other 14 country members voted in favor.

In the words of the UN Press Release:

Explaining her abstention, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US wanted to see the outcome of the Egyptian initiative first, but allowed the resolution to go forward because it was a step in the right direction. A negative vote by the US, one of the Council’s permanent members with veto powers, would have killed the measure.

Stressing the urgency of “an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire,” and calling for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance,” it called on UN Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through additional contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

It also called on Member States “to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re-opening of crossing points.” Israel has accused Hamas of smuggling more advanced rockets and weapons and has closed crossings into Gaza in response to Hamas rocket fire.

The US rationale is a lame excuse and seems to have made the resolution DOA. With its veto power, it could have just as easily called for, by either politely requesting or threatening a veto to delay the vote to wait for the results of Egyptian initiative. Their behavior in addition to showing the ineptness of the Bush foreign policy (and Sec. Rice) also opened the door for both sides to ignore the call.

According to the Barak Ravid in Sunday's Haartez [11 Jan 2009], Israel was disappointed with the lack of support it received form its 'allies.'

• France (President Nicolas Sarkozy) broke its promise to prevent the proposal from being finalized, if Israel agreed to a joint French-Egyptian ceasefire proposal.
• The US (President George Bush) refusal to veto.
• The failure to incorporate the release of Gilad Shalit (the abducted IDF soldier) from its captors in Gaza.

Aluf Benn in a front page story in Sunday's Haartez labeled the UN Resolution as "a serious diplomatic malfunction" for Israel and its struggle for having its concerns addressed.

[E]ven if the decision bears no operative significance, it should stir
concerns in Israel for three reasons.

First, things are not going to get better. This is the international position, which identifies with the Palestinian suffering and ignores Gilad Shalit's fate and the suffering of the people in Israel's south.

Second, although Hamas is not mentioned in the resolution - which it has rejected - ... their friends have good reason to smile. Hamas' Gaza regime now enjoys the legitimacy afforded it by the Security Council, the international community's highest institution. That's because Resolution 1680 refers to a Hamas republic as a fait accompli. The resolution does not demand that the Strip be returned to the Palestinian Authority, except in the call for a renewed settlement for the crossings, which will be based on the old agreement between Israel and the PA. Nor does the resolution call for disarming the militias and terrorist groups operating in the Gaza Strip.

Third, the process that led to the passing of the resolution points to Jerusalem's failure in handling the issue. Israel objected to having the war end in a Security Council resolution similar to the one that ended the Second Lebanon War. This is probably why Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni - who led those who oppose an agreement for fear it might legitimize Hamas - opted to stay at home instead of heading over to the UN headquarters in New York.

In the battle for public opinion, Israel is failing. Despite the lack of real Arab support for Hamas, there's wide support for the plight of the Palestinian Gazans and disgust for the Israeli military response -- in the media, Arab masses and governments -- as witnessed as the ongoing anti-Israeli protests throughout the globe. Israel has failed to ensure that its message is given mass support. So while, Israelis may still support the need for war, there's a clear realization that time is quickly running out to continue the war and ensure its goals of significantly reducing the Hamas bombing and terrorist capabilities are achieved.

To reinforce the ambiguous situation, I'll close with two voices from leading UN officers.

From Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in remarks to the Security Council following the adaption of the resolution said:

An immediate and durable ceasefire is the first step. However, we also all know that more will be needed, and that a political way forward is required to deliver long-term security and peace.

Earlier, the General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto chided the lack of action by the Security Council.

“I can’t stand the smell of formaldehyde,” he told a news briefing at Headquarters. “Rigor mortis seems to have taken over, and we are failing the world, we are failing the cause of peace,” he added, referring to “the dysfunctionality” of the Council.

They both may be correct. However, until the international community ceases to perpetuate its "business as usual" approach--pity on the Palestinians (and the terrorist Hamas) and shame on Israel for responding militarily to provocation--and honestly (in good faith and evenhandedness) lays the groundwork for creating infrastructure for a political solution, the the wheels for peace instead of inching forward will be left spinning in the mud a process sullied by the slinging mud (which could be better being used to build "peace cabins").

The fog of war

Beyond the usual 'fog of war' the confusion and lack of real time and accurate information about is actually occurring in the battles, the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict seems to add an additional sheet of fog.

People view the conflict through a specific ideological lens (=fog). Few, if any, seem able or willing to approach the issue 'objectively' evaluating the situation without preconditions or assumptions. All too often, there are knee jerk reactions especially as it relates to Israel's actions. People's "minds are already made up, they don't want to become confused with the 'facts'".

Protests seem de rigour in the Arab countries. Sponsored (encouraged at minimum) by the government to publicly demonstrate their support of the Palestinian cause (without having to do anything concrete like financially support their [the Palestinian] economy and social needs). I get the sense that Israel seems a convenient whipping post to deflect criticism of the regime and a way to promote their call (not generally considered politically correct) for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Israel--post 1967--no longer is seen as a victim of Arab/Palestinian aggression. That Israelis suffer under constant bombings or terrorist attacks (like suicide bombings) with minimal (less than 100's of deaths) seems unworthy of comment. On the contrary, it's the result of their [Israel] "occupation" of Gaza (which it officially--de jure and de facto--disengaged its presence) and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the building of settlements. For me, the left (including some in Israel), the non-aligned countries and the Islamic world have joined forces to protest each and every Israeli action.

That Egypt has 'failed' to fall into lock step with the other Arab countries, has made it a target for tremendous criticism -- betraying the Arab cause and engaging in "treason". There's no such thing as an honest broker, it's either "us" or "them" (a la the George W Bush world view).

How to cut through the fog?

First, we must recognized its complexity and lack of a simple solution. Benny Morris' op-ed piece in the New York Times on 30 Dec 2008 is a start.

Next, biases must be disclosed (if that's actually possible).

Equity without moral equivalences must be the rule. Both sides need to have their feet put to the fire. The comments of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon yesterday (29.Dec.2008) is a start.

“While recognizing Israel’s security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza, he firmly reiterates Israel’s obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law and condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians, ... condemns the ongoing rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and is deeply distressed that repeated calls on Hamas for these attacks to end have gone unheeded"

As was his statement of 24.Dec.2006 calling on Hamas to cease its rocket attacks on Israel.

“The Secretary-General is gravely concerned about the situation in Gaza and southern Israel and the potential for further violence and civilian suffering if calm is not restored,” a statement issued by his spokesperson said. “He condemns today's rocket attacks on southern Israel.”

What influence this will have on UN deliberations--in the General Assembly and especially within the Security Council--is anyone's guess.

In the meantime, some fog lights are being shined on the issue. Hopefully, it'll start to cut through the ideological fog too.