Selective enforcement

What with Israel suggesting that it might occupy parts of Lebanon again, I suppose now's a good time to bring up the UN Resolution gambit.

For anyone who's had the fortune of listening to Israeli spokespersons recently, you've no doubt heard much about UN Resolution 1559, which calls, in part, for the disarmament of Hezbollah (what's not usually mentioned is how the resolution begins, inconveniently reaffirming "the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon.").

The international community must uphold the sanctity of UN Resolutions, we're told, or, sadly, the international body will descend into irrelevance. According to Olmert and crew, Israel is doing its part to enforce 1559 since the weaklings at the UN cannot.

Often missing from these bold declarations is the crucial caveat -- UN Resolutions are relevant if and only if they are congruent with US/Israeli goals. The background here, unearthed by a pesky Stephen Zunes in the run-up to the Iraq war when similar arguments were being floated, is that nations in violation of UN Resolutions tend to be US allies, with Israel at the top of the list.

Thus, the most flagrant violators of the UN are the ones that tend to whine the most about unfulfilled obligations by other member states. It doesn't get more hypocritical than that.

Making things even worse is that I can almost guarantee you nobody in the media will be rude enough to raise this conundrum. It's up there with the hypocrisy of US/Israeli officials and pundits crying about Syria and Iran providing weapons to Hezbollah, while nobody dares think to ask where those Hellfire missiles that are knocking out cars of fleeing Lebanese originate.