In the Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defines peace as a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. The Israeli version of a ceasefire might be defined as a moment of war deceptively halted to enable conflict to continue. War as cosplay and camouflage. Under such fragile conditions, military objectives can still be pursued with a ruthlessness offensive to international law, custom and common sense.
Seeing as Israel was a central, if not the central power in pushing the crime of aggression on February 28 against Iran, wooing with seductive voice and lurid promise a deranged egoist in the White House (glory and oil awaits thee, Mr President), not to mention the dedicated thorn in any Middle East peace process that threatens sabotage to any enduring arrangements, the continued attacks on Lebanon seemed quotidian. With a war crimes habit well and truly formed, Israel had already issued displacement orders for some 14% of Lebanon, including areas south of the Zahrani River, a majority chunk of Beirut’s southern suburbs and cuts of the Beqaa region.
With their campaign hitting its strides, the Israeli Defense Forces showed no intention of ceasing operations, despite a Pakistan mediated ceasefire that had paused hostilities between Tehran and Washington. While the parties wrangled over what conditions the Strait of Hormuz would be opened under and what a more lasting peace agreement might look like, Israel exempted itself. While not striking Iran, it would continue its onslaught in Lebanon, despite statements from Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that the ceasefire would also apply to Lebanon. In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel supports President Trump’s decision to suspend strikes against Iran for two weeks subject to Iran immediately opening the straits and stopping all attacks on the US, Israel and countries in the region.” However, the “ceasefire does not include Lebanon”.
Even homicidal routines can shock with spikes of freakish, callous intensity. These included the 100 strikes within 10 minutes on April 8 that resulted in the deaths of at least 303 people, with 1,150 injured. The Israeli authorities claimed that the majority of those killed were members of Hezbollah, though even a two-third fraction takes it into less than principled territory. The targets lay in the southern suburbs of Beirut, southern Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. In justifying the slaughter, the IDF expressed the usual pride akin to tribes seeking scalps: the raids had “eliminated Ali Yusuf Harshi, the personal secretary and nephew of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem.” Another official dead, only for another to take his place in due course.
The usual, casual destruction of infrastructure that would rankle most justice departments was also celebrated, with the IDF striking “two key crossings used by Hezbollah terrorists and commanders for movement from north to south of the Litani River in Lebanon to transfer thousands of weapons, rockets, and launchers.” Use of such crossings by civilians was of no interest, though the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) did state on March 23 that the destruction of crucial bridges had “significantly [disrupted] movement and humanitarian access”, with certain strikes severing the link between Tyre and Nabatieh, while also limiting “movement between south Lebanon and West Bekaa, including Marjayoun and Hasbaya.”
The previous night, Israeli forces struck a building in front of Hiram Hospital in Al-Aabbassiye, near Tyre. This damaged the hospital and cost the lives of four people. Another strike on the Islamic Health Authority in Qlaileh hit an ambulance, resulting in three deaths. When it comes to targeting and the IDF, categories are highly mutable.
The scale of such killings astonished the United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. “The scale of the killing and destruction in Lebanon today is nothing short of horrific,” stated the High Commissioner on April 8. “Such carnage, within hours of agreeing to a ceasefire with Iran, defies belief. It places enormous pressure one a fragile peace, which is so desperately needed by civilians.” In truth, they need far more than a fragile peace, and certainly not the targeting pedantry that appears in IDF briefings and justifications, the sort that see corpses as more useful and living civilians. Even in war, Türk states in firm reminder, “Each and every attack must comply with international humanitarian law fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions to protect civilians.”
The UN official must surely know by now that Israel operates in a vacuum all who have committed crimes in international law inhabit, the quarry of the necropolis, the architectural vision of the Grim Reaper. Even the names for Israel’s military operations are drawn increasingly from the dark – literally. “Operation Eternal Darkness was a very powerful blow to Hezbollah, leaving it stunned and confused by the depth of the penetration and the scale of the track,” glowed Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz in his video statement. “More than 200 terrorists were eliminated yesterday, bringing the number of those eliminated in this campaign to 1,400.” This was “more than double the number in the Second Lebanon War.” It’s all about thanatotic accounting.
This butchery has taken place in conjunction with the establishment of a four-line security zone in Lebanon. The first is the unimaginative and common destruction of Lebanese villages that might serve as launching posts for Hezbollah attacks and briefing notes for prosecutors of international criminal law; the second constitutes a “defensive line” in Lebanon, currently made up of five forward army posts, and set to bulk to 15. The third comprises the “anti-tank” line and the fourth the Litani River, a goal of security so cherished as to be fetishised in Israeli military objectives. There, according to Katz, the IDF will “prevent further infiltration of terrorists and the return of residents southbound.”
A stunning volte face in these arrangements would be the acceptance of a ceasefire and a genuine affirmation that peace is preferable to war. But the Israeli military-political complex seems to relish the view of US President Theodore Roosevelt, who proudly thundered that the benefits of a prosperous peace would never eclipse or exceed those of war, especially waged with a righteous temper. But budgets for killing and conquest thin over time, as do the support of powers who, for all their abundant hypocrisy, may finally relinquish their backing. The momentum is against Israel, however slow the turning.
Comments