The plot thickens, but does the fog of war thin?

The New Neo Posted on by

Today seems to be an all UN, all the time day.

Take a listen to an interview with retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, here. Quote: “there’s an information war going on.” Indeed there is, and I’m afraid Hezbollah, with the cooperation of the UN, is winning.

Other quotes: the UN observer said that “Hezbollah fighters were all over his position.”

And, if this is true, why (as Canadian PM Harper asks) had the position not been evacuated by the UN weeks ago?

And then, take a look at this. I’m not sure about the provenance of the video, or who “Alan Peters” actually is, but things seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser.

What hath the UN wrought?

The New Neo Posted on by

I used to like the UN.

As a child growing up in New York City, I would visit there with my class and gaze at the snazzy modern architecture, and watch the General Assembly talk while listening to simultaneous translations on the seemingly-magical headsets.

My admiration wasn’t just for the esthetics, either. I knew about UNICEF, and the goal of eradicating smallpox–and of course, the UN was working towards peace. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that one of my very early childhood fantasies involved an image of myself as successful worldwide peacemaker, addressing the UN after some sort of diplomatic triumph I’d engineered that had averted a war.

That fantasy ended long ago. But my admiration for the UN lingered. Yet, over the decades, my disillusionment with the UN has grown. The Oil for Food scandal didn’t help; that was in the nature of a final straw in the breakdown of any admiration I ever had for the UN. And journalist Claudia Rosett was instrumental in covering that terrible instance of destructive UN corruption.

Now Rosett has written another article about the UN, this time about its role in fostering the conditions leading up to the current Lebanese crisis. I’ve linked to her article in an addendum to this previous post of mine, but I’ve decided it needed to be spotlighted even more.

The article describes how the UN has failed in its mission in Lebanon, allowing the conditions to develop that led directly to this war. Rosett makes the point that, for the six years since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah has been arming itself with weaponry that it is not supposed to possess, all under the auspices of the UN “peacekeepers”:

Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. ”” disproportionately ”” required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border. The “peacekeepers” of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, called UNIFIL, sat passively looking on, costing about $100 million a year and doing nothing to stop Hezbollah from trucking in weapons, digging tunnels, and running the armed protection rackets with which it has kept a grip on swathes of Lebanon, including the southern border with Israel, parts of the Bekaa, and southern Beirut.

Rosett goes on to list the biases UN officials have expressed since this war began (the article seems to have been written prior to the death of the UN obervers and Anna’s remarks on that, since it makes no mention of them). It makes sobering reading.

The other day I got into an argument with a friend about the UN. He agreed that it was flawed, but said that it’s our only hope for peace in the world. My answer to him at the time was that the institution has shown such corruption and bias that it cannot act as a force for peace at all, and that it’s a pipedream to think otherwise at this point.

A pipedream, and a dangerous one at that. I have become convinced that the UN and its officials are not just powerless to solve the problem, but that they are contributing to it. How? By their rather large pockets of corruption, by holding themselves out to be equal to tasks they are utterly incompetent to deal with, by their biased prononuncements, and by giving false hope to those who want to believe that problems are being dealt with when they are not. And, while all this happens, the conditions that contribute to wars are allowed to grow and to fester, all under the auspices of the UN, supposed force for peace.

Those infallible Israelis: through the fog of war, Annan jumps the gun

The New Neo Posted on by

The killing of the four UN observers in Lebanon is a tragic and regrettable event, to be sure. But it’s the sort of event that occurs with some regularity in war, and is one of the many reasons why war is universally regarded as a very bad thing–although not always the worst of things.

The expression “the fog of war” is a cliché for a reason, and that’s because it’s a useful and descriptive term for the confusion that inevitably occurs on all sides in a war–for the commanders, the fighting forces, the civilians, the obervers, and the commentators.

When events such as the shelling of the UN post, and the resultant deaths of the UN personnel, occur–and occur they will, almost without fail, in every hot war, no matter how careful the military might be–each side makes statements about what has happened. It’s understood that all such statements are preliminary. An investigation can help dispel the fog, but only imperfectly, and only over time.

In this instance Israel has said that this was a tragic accident–no surprise there. One would also imagine that the UN–an institution at least theoretically dedicated to damping down conflicts, judicious restraint, withholding judgment until all the facts are in–would avoid making premature statements about what happened and what Israel intended.

But in this case, the UN is also the injured party, which makes the fog even thicker. And Kofi Annan’s response has been to interpret this action in the worst light for Israel. At the same time that Annan said he is “trying to get the details” of the attack (a reasonable response), he also called it an “apparently deliberate targeting” on the part of Israel.

It seems clear to me that the latter statement is so excessively inflammatory that it should never have been uttered by any UN official in the absence of strong and incontrovertible evidence that it was true.

So, what gives? Annan was clearly upset by the deaths–as well he might be. In moments of strong emotion, people often let words slip out that would otherwise–and should otherwise–have remained unsaid. And in those moments, people often reveals their biases. However, none of this is the sort of behavior the Secretary General of the UN should display.

It’s not as though Annan’s biases–or those of the UN–were hidden prior to this, though. Case in point: this article, written by Alan Dershowitz on July 20 (prior to the deaths of the UN observers), lists some examples for Annan. And anyone familiar with the history of the UN and Israel since the 1970s knows the sad story there (see also this).

What happened at that UN outpost, and why? I don’t pretend to know. If this report is true–and I have no reason at the moment to think it isn’t–the fog of war must have been unusually thick at the time, allowing some sort of total breakdown of communication that led to the incident.

But, as Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor has said, the accusation that Israel would have deliberately targeted UN officials simply makes no sense:

“Why on earth would we deliberately target U.N. observers?” he asked. “What good would that do either on the military or the political level, because it so obvious that this would be harmful. Of course it is a tragedy for the observers and their bereaved families and we truly share their sorrow and we deeply regret the incident. It was obviously a fatal mistake.

Palmor has said it’s obvious that the accusation makes no sense “on the military or political level,” and I agree. So where does the accusation come from? The charges do make sense in one way, and that is on the emotional level of those making the accusation.

To those who are predisposed to believe that Israel and Israelis are not demonic Nazis, but merely citizens of a country that’s been fighting for its very existence ever since the beginning of that existence, it would seem obvious that this was an error rather than a top-down policy of the Israeli government. But it’s not obvious at all to those who have bought their own rhetoric about Israeli evil.

Those who believe that this was a case of deliberate targeting of UN personnel are not only operating under the supposition of Israeli evil intent, but of Israeli infallibility. The latter two characteristics–evil coupled with genius, as in “evil genius”–have been part and parcel of anti-Semitic thought for centuries. Now that type of thinking has been transferred to those who demonize Israel.

Israel–unlike its enemies–attempts to be a country that fights wars in a relatively humane way. It tries to avoid killing civilians; it does not deliberately target them. This, of course, is in contrast to its enemies, whose main stock in trade is to deliberately target civilians–both Israel’s and its own. And that is no secret; it is obvious and up-front. The enemy targets Israeli civilians directly by methods such as suicide bombing in pizza parlors and restaurants, as well as firing unguided Katusha rockets into Israeli cities. And it targets its own civilians by hiding weaponry and “insurgents” among the civilian population (see this for a discussion).

Israeli weaponry (like that of the US) has developed a remarkable degree of sophistication. In an effort to kill only the guilty, amazing advances have been made. Smart weaponry and good intelligence cannot, however, be infallible, and they can never dispel the fog of war entirely, nor protect innocent civilians (or UN obervers, or reporters), who will always remain at risk.

It is paradoxical, then, that those very advances in “smart” weaponry–and the intent behind those advances, which is the desire to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible–have backfired. Because Israeli attacks are targeted as opposed to indiscriminate, the Israelis are somehow assumed to be omniscient and omnipotent in this regard. And this, combined with the idea that they have evil intent, gives rise to statements such as Annan’s.

[ADDENDUM: Belmont Club offers his usual detailed and knowledgeable analysis of the situation. A must-read.

See also, this: Claudia Rosett on how the UN has grievously mishandled the Lebanese situation since the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from that country. Strong stuff.]

The dump and the lost and the found

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I went to the town dump.

I live in a town where–despite fairly hefty property taxes–we don’t have garbage collection. I’m not sure why, but my guess is that there’s some sort of ethos here that garbage isn’t esthetically pleasing enough; all those cans and bags by the road tend to spoil the bucolic charm. And the town dump is supposedly a happy place where everyone meets and greets, although I can’t say I’ve seen too much of that. Also, I hear tell that the richer among us (that’s not me!) hire private garbage collectors to do their dirty work for them.

Even though I’ve lived in New England for most of my adult life, this was the first place I’d ever resided in that didn’t have garbage pickup. At first I was a bit miffed–after all, what were those high property taxes all about? I don’t have kids any more in the school system, even though I see the need to support it–so I figured I should at least be getting garbage collection for my pains.

But now I’m used to the rhythm of my visits to the dump. If I’ve had guests and the garbage piles up faster and it’s hot out, I can make more frequent visits. It’s vaguely relaxing and mindless work, sorting things out; and I also enjoy the sense of making a clean sweep and a fresh start every time I return home and see those momentarily empty recycling bins of mine.

At the dump there’s a complex system of carefully labeled containers, telling us what goes in where and what doesn’t go in where, with so Byzantine a set of rules that an attorney might be of assistance in deciphering them (and perhaps dump law is a new legal specialty, for all I know). There’s an area where you can bring the sort of waste that’s good for compost, which they then make and sell to raise money; and there’s a huge pile of brush and one of scrap and one of concrete and one of batteries and one of–well, you get the idea.

And the dump has a few more perks. There’s a Goodwill bin that I visit regularly in an attempt to simplify my life. And then there’s the car vacuum machine.

And here I have a confession to make–I sometimes procrastinate at the task of cleaning my car. Yes, I do; indeed I do. But going to the dump and passing by that large suction hose reminds me to look down and notice that, now that mud season is over and it’s truly summer, there’s a lot of debris in my car that could use some getting rid of.

Vacuuming the car is one of the most satisfying tasks of all. First, I clear out all the odd papers and place them in a bag, to be sorted out when I get home. This requires moving the seats and crawling down under them to find the wealth of paper that has somehow, unbeknownst to me, found its way there. Then, put the coins in the machine (four quarters these days, and I’ve found it accepts Canadian!) and off to the races.

Because the vacuum is timed, there’s a sense of urgency to beat the clock, a nice game to play. Floors, cushions, little cracks in between this and that, even the trunk; can I fit it all in? Yes and yes and yes.

And now the inside of my car looks, if not new, certainly newer.

Afterwards, though, sorting out the papers at home (most of them worthless scrap), I found a stamped envelope addressed to the state but unmailed. Not good. I had the sinking feeling that I knew what it was and, opening it, discovered that I was correct.

Speaking of property taxes–inside was a note I’d written three weeks ago that was part of the process of applying for a partial property tax refund that I seem to be entitled to. It was supposed to have arrived at the state office by July 15. I’d filled it out and sealed it and stamped it and put it in the car as I do with all my mail, but somehow it had slipped under the seat and not been posted with all its fellows. And I never noticed till now.

I called the state office involved, and the woman I spoke with suggested I send it to them with a note of explanation. I have no idea whether I’ll still get that rebate I’d been counting on and very much looking forward to, though.

The moral[s] of the story: go to the dump more often? Clean out your car more often? Quit your complaining? Be more careful? Don’t sweat the small stuff? All will be well in the end? The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley? There’s no way to beat death and taxes, even if you try? Mama said there’d be days like this? There’s no business like show business?

At any rate, it’s a nice respite from talking about war all the time.

Hezbollah: entwined and enmeshed in Lebanon

The New Neo Posted on by

Many–including myself–have used the phrase “hostage” to describe the Lebanese people in the current crisis. And no doubt many of the citizens of that country are in just that position.

But not all. Although it’s difficult to know the true percentages, one cannot deny that Hezbollah has a great deal of support in Lebanon.

Hezbollah, the organization that is driving the present action in Lebanon, was originally a foreign graft from Iran. But over the years it has insinuated itself so deeply and profoundly into Lebanese life that one can say that, if the Lebanese people are being held hostage, it is by an organization that many of them have supported and/or tolerated, and have been the social beneficiaries of, for decades. Lebanon has not only failed to eradicate Hezbollah, the group has grown in power in recent years and is now closely intertwined in Lebanese life and politics.

Take a look at the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon (and yes, it’s from Wikipedia, but it seems to be a fairly straightforward and undisputed article). Originally arriving in Lebanon 1982 as an arm of the mullahs of Iran, devoted to the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeni and aimed at engaging the Shiite majority of Moslems in Lebanon, Hezbollah positioned itself from the start as the potential liberator of Lebanon from the Israeli occupation that began in 1982 and lasted until Israel’s withdrawal in 2000. All the while, Hezbollah has been openly and unabashedly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, rather than any sort of coexistence or negotiation with it.

There is no question that the events of 2000 allowed Hezbollah to claim victory over Israel, and earned it regard throughout Lebanon for this. In 2003, for example, the Maronite Christian President of Lebanon at the time, Emile Lahoud, is quoted as saying [emphasis mine]:

For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn’t for them, we couldn’t have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.

Like many terrorist organizations, and in the time-honored fashion of other political groups with power agendas, Hezbollah has also won over the people by establishing organizations such as schools and hospitals, filling gaps in the system of social services (much as the decidedly non-terrorist but extremely corrupt Tammany Hall did in New York City of the 1850s through 1930s).

After 2000, Hezbollah made it clear that not only did it take responsibility for the Israeli withdrawal, but that it considered said withdrawal a reflection of Israeli weakness. Ever since, Hezbollah has been consolidating its power in Lebanon and burrowing its way ever deeper into Lebanese political and military life.

The relative calm in Lebanon has enabled Hezbollah, in its role as liberator, to become the de facto army of southern Lebanon, and to seed throughout that area the Syrian- and Iranian-supplied rockets used in the present attacks, storing them in strategic locations–“strategic,” in this case, being (of course!) embedded in the midst of civilians, the better to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties when Israel retaliates.

In the Lebanese election of 2005, Hezbollah increased its representation in Parliament by a multiple of three, going from a previous high of eight representatives to its present twenty- three, as well as gaining, for the first time, ministers in the executive branch of the government.

It’s interesting to speculate whether those Lebanese who supported Hezbollah as liberators and social workers ever thought about the hidden Hezbollah agenda, which was to use the Lebanese people as the aforementioned hostages to score propaganda points with the press and the West when those hostages inevitably become victims. Were they aware of this plan, as well as the very clear statements by Hezbollah that their goal was not peace, but the eradication of the state of Israel? If so, did the supporters of Hezbollah care? Did they see the possible consequences for themselves?

Going back to the bank robber/hostage analogy, one might say that many of the Lebanese people are in the position of having been minor accessories to the crime–roughly analogous to those who might gain prior knowledge of a crime about to be committed but who fail to act or to alert authorities so that it might be prevented–who then find the main actor in the crime (the bank robber), a former trusted friend and accomplice, suddenly grabbing them and placing them between the police and himself. It may be a surprise to the hostage–but should it be?

It’s clear that Hezbollah needs to be rooted out of Lebanon. But it’s very difficult to see how this could happen if the Lebanese people themselves don’t wish it to happen–and even then, it would be far from easy to accomplish at this point. Syria, as Hezbollah’s main supplier, could theoretically be involved, but that has the danger of “inviting” the Syrians back into greater power in a country that’s only recently begun to detangle itself from its nefarious influence.

That word “detangle” is a good one, because excising Hezbollah from Lebanon is not going to be a simple act of surgery. Many metaphors come to mind: Hezbollah in Lebanon is like a tumor without sharp borders or boundaries; a neuroma that’s burrowed itself into the tissue in a deep and complex manner, a family that’s too deeply enmeshed for members to individuate and separate.

This is one of the reasons that Condoleezza Rice’s words at Friday’s news conference were so interesting. If you read the transcript, you’ll find that, over and over, she emphasizes the issue of Lebanese sovereignty, an appeal to Lebanese pride in its own autonomy. Knowing how instrumental Hezbollah was in Lebanese perception of that autonomy from Israel back in 2000, and how pleased the country is to have recently expelled the Syrians, she carefully phrases the eradication of Hezbollah from Lebanon as an issue of Lebanese sovereignty as well.

Whether this will be at all effective is unclear. But it’s the right sort of rhetoric for the occasion, to be followed by tough negotiations that–as Rice herself says–don’t just put into place a meaningless cease-fire that perpetuates business as usual, but some sort of lasting change for the better that damps down Hezbollah’s power in the region.

[Cross-posted at Winds of Change.]

Hezbollah and the “occupation” argument

The New Neo Posted on by

If you look at the wide variety of opinions in the highlighted articles at Real Clear Politics as to how the current Mideast conflict is going to play out, you realize how much disagreement and confusion there is. In truth, we’re in the fog of war, and no one knows. Read them and decide what makes the most sense to you, and then watch as events unfold, no doubt in some direction no one quite foresaw.

That’s one of the many problems with war; it’s unpredictable, and unleashes strong and powerful forces that are destructive to human life, although in the end they can resolve certain issues and topple certain regimes. As Churchill–no stranger to war, and a man who did not shy away from it–said:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

That said, Dennis Ross (former Mideast “peace process” negotiator) has an interesting article in the New Republic about the significance of Hezbollah’s actions in this war, and the message it sends to the world, including the Arab world. For decades, the Arabs of the region have presented their animus towards Israel as the result of Israeli “occupation.” Although the historical record indicates otherwise–the Arab nations tried to destroy Israel long before there was any occupation–it was a convincing argument for many.

According to Ross:

When Hezbollah was fighting Israeli “occupation,” it was untouchable. But the general Arab narrative has been that the violence, meaning terrorism, is driven by occupation: no occupation, no violence. Hamas has already cast doubt on this narrative by launching attacks from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, but it is hard for Arab regimes to challenge Hamas’s legitimacy. Hezbollah, however, is another story.

Ross goes on to list the many condemnations of Hezbollah’s recent actions offered by the Arab countries of the region. He sees the situation as an opportunity–a tricky one, to be sure, filled with perilous traps and the need for delicate balance–to check Iran’s rise in the region.

In recent years, Israel has pulled back from the Arab territories it formerly occupied and fortified its borders with the famous defensive fence. These acts had the effect of calling its enemies’ bluffs. But this retreat was widely seen by those enemies as Israeli weakness rather than strength. Now Israel is trying to show that perception to be a false one.

Getting around in their Pajamas

The New Neo Posted on by

The Anchoress observes that Pajamas Media is doing an impressive job of covering the current Mideast war.

I’ve noticed the same thing myself. Of course, as a member of Pajamas, I guess you can’t call me unbiased; I most definitely have a dog in this race.

When PJ began, I saw it as an experiment that might or might not work out. But I was more than willing to go along for the ride. After all, I had nothing to lose, and it sounded like a good idea and a fun idea.

At first, I didn’t go to their website much. It seemed a haphazard collection of random blog posts, with nothing special to recommend it. But I figured that would change over time, as they found out what worked and what didn’t.

And it most certainly has. Now I go there not because I’m curious about how they’re doing, or loyal, but because their coverage has become excellent. In fact, they feature the best roundups of news and opinion about the war that I’ve found online.

One of the ways I can tell that the Pajamas readership has risen considerably is by the amount of traffic they drive. At first, when I was linked there, the uptick on my sitemeter was very modest indeed. Then there was a slow increase over time. Now any link from PJ causes a very respectable surge.

I noticed a sharp upturn in both the traffic and quality of the website with the appointment of Gerard Van der Leun, who brings his extensive expertise and ebullient energy (love those alliterations–watch for more!) to the job of Editor in Chief. Head honcho, the refreshing and resourceful Roger Simon, has been burning the midnight oil as well, as have those cover-the-globe editors: the judicious and jocund Juliette Ochieng, the hardworking and humane Jose Guardia, and the remarkable and reflective Richard Fernandez.

Last November, at the PJ kickoff in New York–back when the group was laboring under the fortunately short-lived moniker OSM–I met the majority of these people, as well as a host of my fellow PJ bloggers. You can read my description of the event here, in case you missed it first time round. Fun.

Fighting elephants; trembling mice

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s an old saying, rendered variously as:

When elephants fight, it’s the mice who must tremble.

When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.

The applicability to the current situation in the Middle East? When Hezbollah goads Israel from its hiding place in Lebanon, and Israel retaliates, the ordinary people in both countries suffer.

Right now, as Fouad Ajami points out in today’s Opinion Journal (and as I pointed out some days ago, here), the Lebanese people are being held hostage by Hezbollah. Yes, of course, some of the Lebanese people support Hezbollah, even though it was originally a foreign graft from Iran. But the majority? Doubtful. But that didn’t stop Nasrallah from provoking the Israelis into this war in Lebanon; elephants don’t ordinarily ask the mice’s permission when they start a battle.

Ajami believes that Nasrallah miscalculated, thinking it would be just business as usual when he provoked Israel, underestimating the spine of the new, non-Sharon, government (as well as the opposition of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan). Gone were the old warriors of Israel, Nasrallah thought–the elephants, as it were–and in their place were the bureaucrats.

But Israel seems to have found a new resolve, exemplified by this passage from a speech Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made last Monday:

“There are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more!” Olmert said in a speech in the Knesset plenum Monday evening. “And I say to everyone: no more! Israel will not be held hostage – not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state.”

There’s that metaphor again: being held hostage. And the linked Jerusalem Post article goes on to point out that Israel and its leaders (usually so fractious) are presently united behind Olmert.

Why is this? It seems to me that it’s because so much else has been tried, for so very long, and been found so very wanting. If the slogan of the peace movement is “Give peace a chance,” Israel can honestly say (although its enemies will never credit this, of course) “Been there, done that, many times. And it didn’t work.”

Another reason Olmert can stand firm is that the Bush administration is refusing to pay any more lip service to the ‘peace process” as a way of dealing with terrorist entities such as Hezbollah.

The tricky part, of course, is to stand firm in such a way that the Green Revolution in Lebanon is not destroyed–that the mice and the grass (to continue the green metaphor) don’t tremble too much as the elephants collide.

Secretary Rice is going to the region to try to strike that delicate balance. It will not be easy, as blogger Alcibiades at Kesher Talk points out, here:

…the crumbling of prosperous, pro-Democrat Lebanon may represent a crumbling of what could have been a very important bulwark against the Islamist night that will never be built up again in quite the right way.

But, unfortunately, for Lebanon to ever become that bulwark, Hezbollah has to be rooted out. You can’t have it both ways. The hope is that the cure isn’t worse than the disease.

Secretary Rice is declaring her own version (or Bush’s version, or their combined version) of Olmert’s cry of “No more!” Her version is a “no more, enough!” to the false promise of the ceasefire in this case:

We do seek an end to the current violence and we seek it urgently,” Rice told reporters at the State Department. Still, “a cease fire would be a false promise if it just returns us to the status quo.”….`Hezbollah is the source of the problem,” Rice said. No diplomatic solution can allow Hezbollah to stay in place, she said. The U.S. is working to put pressure on Iran and Syria, which sponsor Hezbollah, to ease the strife diplomatically…

Rice is clear: a diplomatic solution is not ruled out. But it must involve an end to the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. Only then can a ceasefire be meaningful; until then any cease-fire would be premature and counterproductive.

“Cease-fire.” It’s a wonderful word, is it not? It speaks of peace and tranquility; the poor mice and the defenseless grass can finally stop suffering. Who wouldn’t want that? And there are those who are calling for an immediate ceasefire–such as Kofi Annan, not unexpectedly.

But ceasefires in the region, especially ones with a terrorist entity as one of the parties, don’t have a good track record. The status quo is unacceptable.

Enough is enough.

Oh yeah? (who is “bound” by international law?)

The New Neo Posted on by

The International Red Cross has said that Israel’s response in Lebanon violates the “proportionality” principle of the Geneva Conventions (see this for my views on proportionality). The group has also issued the following statement about the terrorist group Hezbollah:

Hezbollah fighters too are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law, and they must not target civilian areas.

I’m sorry, but what’s the International Red Cross been smoking?

Earth to International Red Cross: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They exist to target civilians.

Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:

To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.

The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.

And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.

I’m wondering: has any Islamic terrorist ever been successfully tried under international law for violating the Geneva Conventions? None comes to mind–the only trials I can think of, such as those of Richard Reid or the 1993 WTC bombers, are national rather than international. (I can’t say, however, that I’ve done an exhaustive search, so please feel free to offer any such international cases in the comments section, if you can find them.)

The remark by the International Red Cross about Hezbollah being “bound” by the Conventions made me think of a popular comeback when I was a kid. When someone would say, I’m gonna make you do it, the usual retort was Oh yeah? You and what army?

Somehow I think that’s exactly what Hezbollah would say.

Beating the heat while you sleep

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night was the first night in I don’t know how long that it wasn’t beastly hot.

I’m one of those people–not all that rare in New England–who doesn’t have air conditioning, so believe me, these things get my attention.

I live in an area where it doesn’t get too hot too often. But every summer there are always a number of sweltering days and nights, although that number varies widely from year to year. My bedroom is distinguished by casement windows and something called awning windows (I had to look the term up to get it right), neither of which are particularly simpatico to the installment of an air conditioner. I’ve never gotten around to cutting a hole in the wall for one, either.

And really, most of the time there’s no need. I have windows on three sides of the bedroom, so I not only have cross-ventilation, I have double-cross ventilation, as well as a large ceiling fan. In fact, when the windows are open on all three sides and it’s a bit breezy outside, I find I don’t have to sweep the floor–the dust just piles up of its own accord in whatever corner the wind happens to be blowing towards. Better than a Roomba.

But this past week there was no breeze to be had, except for the steamy air, weakly stirred by the feeble ceiling fan. Sweating was continual, perpetual, and copious (yes, I know; too much information).

I hear it’s been that way throughout much of the country. So, for those of you who, like me, might be air conditioner-challenged, here are some tips for how to keep cool without AC on a hot summer night.

Absent among the suggestions is a traditional New England fixture, the sleeping porch. You can see them on big old houses here. They’re usually attached to the second floor and adjacent to the bedrooms there, screened on all sides to let in the cooler night air and keep out the ubiquitous mosquitoes. But, since most of us lack sleeping porches, the fan and the ice cubes and the wet sheet and the wet socks might just do the trick.

I hope you sleep well tonight, and every night.