Sickeningly hilarious? Or just plain contemptible?

As Israel perfects its ability to annihilate entire families in Gaza (of the 23 Palestinians killed by Israel today in Gaza, 14 were civilians and nine were from the same family), it ran into some trouble on its northern border when Hezbollah killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two. 

Not wanting to destroy innocent Arab lives in Palestine only, Israel responded to Hezbollah's military operation by killing 19 Lebanese civilians...so far. UPDATE: Now it's 53 civilians. 

But that's just the context - not the hilarious part.  What cracked me up and put a disgusted smile on my face was watching Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the US on CNN International.   He said,

We clearly moved to the other side of the border, the blue line...The international-recognized border was endorsed by the U.N., which also called for the Lebanese government to exercise its sovereignty over the southern border with us, namely to disarm the Hezbollah...The Lebanese government, in order to be viable, must exercise their sovereignty and exercise and also perform their duty and obligation according to international law.

Then seeing David Makovsky from the AIPAC-financed Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer.  He said,

There was even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1310 which ratified that border...And then, since then, the French and the United States...joined hands to pass U.N. Security Council 1559...So now you have a U.N. Security Council Resolution 1310 that the Israelis are out...And then you have 1559, also approved by the Security Council, also calling for Hezbollah to be disarmed...First of all, you need the U.N. Security Council, which has made clear its views...You need a Security Council resolution.

What is that?  Israel and its US lackeys are clamoring for respect for international law?  For the observance of Security Council resolutions?  Has hell frozen over?  Is Israel now going to follow international law?  Or does it just want to have its cake and eat it, too?

What I'd love to ask Amb. Ayalon is if he's so keen on UN Security Council resolutions 1310 and 1559, when we'll get to see Israel implement UN resolution 194 (calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees expelled from Israel in 1948) or UNSC resolution 242 (calling for an end to the occupation), or UN resolutions 127, 252, 271, 298, 425, 497, 607, or any of the other 60+ UN resolutions targeting Israel, not to mention the dozens vetoed by the US on Israel's behalf.

Isn't violating international law for 58 years and then suddenly demanding that others follow it hilarious?!  Well...it's something.

Comments

[Jbg]

The Palestinians will get the "right of return" when the Jewish Arabs do - which everyone knows will be never.

Pursuing this impossible, nay idiotic, idea merely prolongs the conflict.

[Sappho]

Israel needs to be wrapped in a straight-jacket and chill the fuck out! If they dont, they will surely lead us right into WW3.
In solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, among others,
-Sappho

[Jbg]

I think you'd find Israel would be very chilled if her soldiers weren't being kidnapped and Kassams and Katyushas weren't being fired at her cities and towns.

A lot of Arabs are blaming Hezbollah for this escalation.

IMHO this all has to do with Iran and the stand off regarding its attempts at aquiring nuclear weapons.

[Jonathan]

194 is a UN General Assembly Resoultion

UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal authority.

Remember the Palestinian side turned down Bill Clintons' peace plan.

[scott]

Yes, but resolutions 242, 127, 252, 271, 298, 425, 497, 607, etc. are SC resolutions.

And the right of return is upheld in international law.

And Bill Clinton's (one of the most pro-Israel presidents ever, and that's saying A LOT) "peace plan" was nothing more than a plan to ghettoize the Palestinians and strip them of their fundamental human rights. No one in their right mind would have accepted such a scheme.

It's a cute popular myth of the "generous offer", but like most myths, it's false.

[Michael Brenner]

"Yes, but resolutions 242, 127, 252, 271, 298, 425, 497, 607, etc. are SC resolutions."

Of these, only 242 and 425 is binding. The others are Chapter 6 non-binding resolutions. 425 was Lebanon, and was fulfilling by the withdrawal in 2000.'

"And the right of return is upheld in international law."

Not as a tactic to undermine the sovereignty and security of a state it isn't. And no government outside of the OIC believes that 242 includes any right-of-return.

"And Bill Clinton's (one of the most pro-Israel presidents ever, and that's saying A LOT)"

Based on what, exactly? That he held peace talks?

" "peace plan" was nothing more than a plan to ghettoize the Palestinians and strip them of their fundamental human rights."

C'mon Scott. The Clinton Plan was a legit two-state solution that would have resulted in territorial contiguity in the West Bank and Gaza. You may be thinking of the Barak plan, which was contiguous though for less land. Neither one deserved the straight rejection it received from Arafat, who acted against the advice of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and his own negotiators in rejecting the Clinton parameters.

"No one in their right mind would have accepted such a scheme."

The Zionists, who had originally been promised everything West and East of the Jordan, accepted about half the land West of the Jordan as a state. It's called compromise.

"It's a cute popular myth of the "generous offer", but like most myths, it's false."

It is not false. You are simply going by the Palestinian narrative (a propaganda-laced narrative that was produced about eight months or so after the fact after public opinion turned against the Palestinians) of what happened at Camp David.

[Michael is wrong]

PALESTINIAN VIEW
Without the right of return there can be no solution
by Sari Hanafi

The right of return of Palestinian refugees to their place of origin is enshrined in four separate bodies of international law: humanitarian law; human rights law; the law of nationality as applied to state succession; and refugee law. Beyond these laws, which apply to all refugees in the world, the UN General Assembly specified the Palestinian case in Resolution 194, paragraph 11 which sets forth a framework for a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees, including the possibility of return: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

To understand the importance of the refugee issue to Palestinians, we must in addition understand that the Palestinian nation and Palestinian nationalism as it exists today was born with the expulsion of more than half the Palestinian people from their land in 1948 and one of the fundamental aspects of Palestinian identity is "refugeehood." Such an understanding obliges us to address the problem of the Palestinian refugees as fundamental to any solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

There are five reasons for this:

First, as long as the Israelis do not take into consideration what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 and the expulsion of the indigenous population from 78 percent of the land of historic Palestine, they will keep bargaining about the remaining 22 percent (the West Bank including east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). There is no solution to the land issue without coupling it to the refugee issue. This may be the reason why Oslo failed.

Secondly, resolving the refugee issue is not just a technical matter of absorption nor is it a matter of reciting international law like reciting the Koran. Rather, it is to deconstruct the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict to its very premises, to understand how its causes led to a certain kind of colonial practice, and to recognize the need for a debate, not just to understand, but to acknowledge and accept historic responsibility. This is the very precondition for any true reconciliation and mutual forgiveness, as suggested by Edward Said.

Third, irrespective of whether the final resolution of the conflict takes the form of a two-state or a bi-national state solution, the refugee issue cannot be considered secondary. The current intifada has revealed the importance of the refugees; they are the social and political actors most unable to bear the impasse in the Oslo process.

Fourth, beyond the moral and symbolic value of realizing the right of return, the right is useful in creating a framework for providing refugees with a choice between remaining in their host countries, returning to their places of origin or coming to a future Palestinian state (or third countries). The right of choice is a necessity for those who have, for half a century, been forced to live as aliens without basic rights in miserable camps and in states that have not always embraced them with open arms.

Finally, if the right of return and the right of choice is accepted, it will open many possibilities for the refugees to choose from. The movement of refugees depends on many factors related to the social, economic, cultural and identity spheres. The return of refugees does not mean that the whole refugee community will move. In almost all cases, the experience of refugees across the world shows that the number of those who return is less than those who choose other solutions. The Israeli phobia to return is unjustified.

Hannah Arendt, in her study of totalitarianism, reminds us of "the decision of statesmen to solve the problem of statelessness by ignoring it." She insisted on the necessity of examining displacement through the prism of often xenophobic nation states, and she traced the political and symbolic logics that had the effect of pathologizing and even criminalizing refugees. The contemporary linkage that has been forged between Palestinian return and a disturbance of the regional order, especially in Israel, attests to the continuing relevance of Arendt's point.-