Mincing words

The most difficult word to pronounce for the leaders of the West seems to be "immediate". Undoubtedly, the English vocabulary of at least some Western leaders stretches to include this word. Yet, in recent days, it proved quite beyond these leaders to put that rather necessary adjective to proper practice in the following direly needed phrase: immediate ceasefire.

The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?

In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.

Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.

Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.

Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.

The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.

The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.