Yesterday the UN Security Council voted to go to war with Libya. Of course that isn’t what the resolution says, but it is what the resolution does. The resolution recognized that the government of Libya was involved in armed conflict where civilians were not being protected; condemned systematic human rights violations, which it noted had also been condemned by the League of Arab States, the African Union, and the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference; condemned the treatment of journalists; suggested that Libya was involved in crimes against humanity.

Then it set out demands:

·         An immediatea cease-fire and end to violence and abuses directed at civilians;

·         Iintensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis;

·         Demands that Libya complies with international law.

It discusses how civilians will be protected:

·         Member States are authorized “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack” other than occupation of Libya;

·         Requests that League of Arab States works with other Member States in the implementation of this resolution;

·         Bans on all flights in Libyan airspace, except humanitarian flights delivering medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers, or evacuating foreign nationals, or flights necessary to support this resolution;

·         Calls for the inspection, “at seaports and airports, and on the high seas, any cargo going to or from Libya to ensure that it does not contain “armed mercenary personnel” or any arms previously prohibited in another UN resolution;

·         Bans all Libyan aircraft from overflying the territory of Member States, or taking off or landing in their territory, unless it is an emergency landing;

·         Freezes all Libyan assets worldwide, and requires Member States to preserve them for the benefit of the people of Libya;

·         Restricts certain Libyans (high level officials) from any travel and subjects them to the same asset freeze.

The reaction from the Libyan people suggested that they were pleased with the resolution, and would welcome ground forces.

I’m not saying Gadhafi and his family don’t deserve all the attention, and I’m glad that the UN is insisting that the League of Arab States be assigned a dominate role, but this puts America into another war. A no-fly zone starts with an attack on government anti-aircraft installations. Gadhafi has already announced that he will respond by attacking vessels in the Mediterranean. That has the potential for disrupting a lot of international trade, including things like American supply ships destined for the Suez Canal and carrying supplies to the other two wars. American voters are being asked to pay for one more war, at a time when the GOP is insisting on cutting all domestic programs. When will the civilians here catch a break?

 Homework

Voice of America Report on UN Resolution

Text of the Resolution

Things are moving so quickly and dramatically in the Middle East that it is almost impossible to keep up. Egypt is struggling to create a new government, while Libya is in the process of destroying the old government. Subtle diplomatic activities get lost in the shuffle because it is two people on the phone or multiple people quietly meeting over lunch or in a board room. But that doesn’t mean that the diplomatic activities aren’t just as dramatic.

Last month at the UN, the US vetoed a resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  Our European allies, Briton, Germany, and France, voted in favor of the resolution. The Obama administration exercised its first veto at the UN Security Council, even after the resolution was worded in a way that supported official U.S. policy on the matter. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, said that the veto did not represent support of the Israeli settlements. Her official statement was, "We reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity”.

The international community is adamant that these settlements are illegal under international law. They are also one of the continuing sources of conflict between the Palestinian people and Israel—a conflict that colors all of the diplomacy in the Middle East. In fact, a “Day of Rage” has been called for today to protest these settlements in Palestinian territory. When Netanyahu phoned German Chancellor Angela Merkel to express his displeasure with Germany’s vote in favor of the resolution, her reaction was anger. Rumor has it that she said, "How dare you? You are the one who has disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."

Israeli governments truly haven’t done much to either stop the settlements or actually try to find a diplomatic solution. Palestinian governments aren’t blameless; they’ve been headed by some hot-heads, too. But it is my opinion that Obama should have done the spanking that Merkel dished out. Since 1985, the US has given $3-billion annually to Israel. Almost all of that aid is directed toward the Israeli military.  A September 2010 report details how unusual that aid is from aid delivered to other nations. We give them money, on condition that they buy fighter planes from us. The only real beneficiaries are the military/industrial complex of two nations. Peace is a casualty.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a belligerent man. He would rather peruse war than peace. We need to hit him upside the head with a 2 X 4 that leaves the lasting impression that the US will not continue to give Israel war toys, to the detriment of our own security—both economic and political—if Netanyahu keeps destroying Palestinian homes and taking their land.

Homework

Merkel Spanks Netanyahu

Rice's Statements

Congressional Research Service Report on US foreign Aid to Israel

Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Benjamin Netanyahu