UN Humanitarian Aid Chief and What He Said

Jan Egeland is the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, appointed in 2003 by Kofi Annan. Normally I pay these folks no mind as they are in charge of an organization that hosts thugs, authoritarian regimes, dictatorships and terrorists as part of their look at the World. Why the United States is still a *part* of this despicable organization that can do no right and castigates everyone else for the wrongs THEY do, while not cleaning their own house, is beyond me.

But when blatant and easy to check hypocrisy shows up, then it is really a trifling thing to do a quick search and find the necessary quotes. So here is Mr. Egeland in all of his grand poobahness [24 JUL 2006 By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer][bolding mine throughout this piece]:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The U.N. humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah on Monday of "cowardly blending" in among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.

The militant group has built bunkers and tunnels near the Israeli border to shelter weapons and fighters, and its members easily blend in among civilians.

Jan Egeland spoke to reporters at Larnaca airport in Cyprus late Monday after visiting Lebanon to coordinate an international aid effort. On Sunday, he toured the rubble of Beirut's southern suburbs, a once-teeming Shiite district where Hezbollah had its headquarters.

During that visit, he condemned the killing and wounding of civilians by both sides and called Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law."

...

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

Everyone points to the LAST paragraph being cited and not to anything BEFORE that in the article. This is a self-fisking of this meme. But, just to be fair, perhaps he was vociferous BEFORE this and no one noticed [24 JUL 2006, Beirut, Washington Times]:

U.N. humanitarian aid coordinator Jan Egeland condemned the Israeli air strikes as "a violation of international law" after touring a neighborhood in southern Beirut that had been largely leveled by air strikes. He said about $100 million was needed immediately to provide relief to an estimated 600,000 displaced Lebanese.

"It's terrible. I see a lot of children wounded, homeless, suffering," said Mr. Egeland, who visited a Hezbollah-dominated slum that was once home to several thousand people. "This is a war where civilians pay a disproportionate price in Lebanon and northern Israel. I hadn't believed it would be block by block leveled to the ground."

Looks a bit different, no? Ok, same day, possibly the same meeting, just rendered differently and gives the same self-fisking... oh, also note that he is asking for $0.00 for rebuilding Israel. Such a fair and nice minded guy to REWARD the antagonists in this. And that IS the Hezbollah 'heartland' and it is a SLUM. But, perhaps another source has a different take on this [24 JUL 2006, Beirut, Skynews]:

The United Nation's humanitarian chief has strongly condemned Israel's continued aerial assault on Beirut.

Jan Egeland said Israel's targeting of a crowded neighbourhood in Beirut is a violation of humanitarian law.

His comments came as he toured the shattered Haret Hreik district where Hizbollah's headquarters were.

So, while in the Hezbollah 'heartland' Mr. Egeland bravely CRITICIZES ISRAEL! But he might have said different things on the same day after the very first quote was taken, no? Oh, but the first piece was a self-fisk... never mind.

Ok, lets dig just a bit more and see what he said at the OUTSET of this conflict [ 15 JUL 2006, Paris, France, NZ Herald]:

Egeland called Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure a violation of international law and of common sense. "You are supposed to do something with the armed troops, you are not supposed to hurt the children and people who had nothing to do with all of this."

No, Mr. Egeland has been bravely and consistently citing ISRAEL as the problem here. That Nation was merely attacked and defending herself against thugs and terrorists. When said thugs and terrorists use civilians as human shields to decry the counter-attack upon them, then all of this sympathy pours out for the attackers and their heinous use of civilians for this very end. And yet, Mr. Egeland really has a problem with saying *that* and giving the least bit of sympathy to the VICTIMS of such wanton acts of senseless violence, that being the Israeli population targeted by Hezbollah.

The UN: Protector of Aggressors the World Over. Terrorists may use ALL the violence and killing they want, while Nations may use NONE to defend themselves.

Say, sounds like a suicide pact between Nations, doesn't it?

I suggest the United States simply crumple this bit of diplomatic detritus and just walk out of the UN and cut its funding completely. Send these jokers packing to some nice Nation that prefers National Suicide as a common form of diplomacy... France, say...

And let other Nations choose obscure means of self-destruction as they will.

We the People do NOT sign International Suicide Pacts.

Strategypage on Iraq - The Civil War that wasn't

Strategypage has always kept a close finger on the pulsebeat of the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they do another good job of explaining why mere sectarian violence does not offer the opportunity for any sectarian leader to openly declare war with the last paragraph offering the summary:

The problem with civil war in Iraq is that it's not possible to have a civil war in Iraq. That's because one side is too weak to muster much more that terrorists. Because of voluntary, and forced, departures from the country, the Sunni Arabs are only about 15 percent of the population. Moreover, because of American air power, any concentration of Sunni Arab gunmen would just provide a target for smart bombs. Declaring that there is now a civil war in Iraq ignores the fact that the Sunni Arabs have been resisting their loss of power for over three years. Military historians refer to this sort of thing as "mopping up" after a hostile government has been defeated. Saddam and his government were ousted in early 2003. But Saddam's followers fought on, and are still at it. At least those that are still alive and in a murderous mood. Call that a civil war if you like, but that doesn't make it one.

Actually there is one faction capable of mustering enough to do this, but they do not want to. Those folks are the KURDS. Also noted by Strategypage is the fact that another 60,000 New Iraqi Army soldiers are being fielded, most likely into quieter areas to relieve MNF forces of command, and that the US is concentrating on Baghdad and only bringing in limited re-enforcement and holding BACK orders for new troops to rotate INTO Iraq. This is what is known as a 'limited draw down via replacement', with the native Iraqi troops replacing MNF troops that have been on anti-insurgency and policing duties elsewhere. Strategypage has also done a nice summary of the players in the current low intensity conflict in Iraq and it is quite the hodge-podge of groups and outlooks and comes up with this succinct summation at the end:

While pundits go on about Iranian desires to dominate Iraq, the reality is more about vengeance against Sunni Arabs for past sins. Nothing too complicated, but it's a fire that's very difficult to put out.

Yes, it is a mess in Iraq, but as the quieter provinces finally settle into their regular and age-old inter-tribal rivalries and are told to keep it down to a 'dull roar' OR ELSE by their New Army, things are getting better. Not INSTANTLY, but no one, and I do mean no one, expected that. But, as I have been pointing out the trend-lines have been good for going on two years now. Iraqi's now have total control with NO oversight by the MNF of one province outside of the Kurdish ones and more are slated to go in the coming months. Iran is already calling for Act II in the Eastern Med and trying to dictate to the Arabs from that vantage point, to use Lebanon as a missile platform to interdict shipping and commerce. They will push more to destabilize Iraq *if* they have the resources.

Iran did not expect Israel to forcefully go to war over kidnappings and missile attacks from Sovereign National Territories of its Neighbors. They have always overlooked the niceties of diplomacy and always gone for the grandstand and megaphone of the media. It is a rude awakening to find that they will need to resupply Hezbollah now that it is embroiled in a *real war*. Iran will try to broaden this into Iraq, no doubt... and be seen as interlopers and trying to dictate to ARABS what they should do. Yes, Persians trying to lord it over Arabs does not sit well in Iraq, no matter sectarian allegiances. Remember that Shia's VOLUNTEERED to fight Iran under Saddam and not 'forced volunteering' but WILLINGLY. And with fervor.

The US must act now to bring in one more partner to the conflict. I peg Egypt as it has been directly attacked and has an old alliance with Syria. Both can be used for pretext, as well as the Persians and Assyrians trying to dictate to Egyptians angle. Along with the threat of cutting off aid to Egypt if they do *not* help, but that sotto voce and the hint the aid goes to the NEXT in line, which is Jordan. The US can offer to do an 'Afghanistan' to Syria with lightly armed and capable military against an incapable State. If not Egypt, then Jordan. And if neither of those, then the Kurds who have a small and highly capable force *perfect* for liberating the Kurds of Syria... perhaps we can offer them land all the way to the coast so that all of Iraq then connects to Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf. Now wouldn't *that* be an enticement?

The Prince of the People's House Rises Against the Law

Oh my! The Landed Aristocracy of the People's House upon the Hill has bequeathed us, the poor lowly mere 'citizens' with the message that, in his Princely Wisdom, he may challenge the Law of the Land so as to secure those members of the Aristocracy from accountability to the Law. If you remember this very same Prince did quiver at the mere thought of law enforcement upon that high body of Aristocrats, and said the Law was much more than it said it was so as to set apart those Nobles upon the Hill from all accountability.

Of course, in that doing, the beginnings of the Zero Party State started to take form and was becoming a de facto proposition as the Two Party State has been in decline for some time. And when the President did bend to the demands of this August Body of Rulers, why he did no more than to try and appease his *betters*. Unfortunately the President has been unwilling to go directly at issues head-on, save when the very Nation itself is directly and without question at stake. In this shilly-shallying to and fro and being unable to state a clear case for what it is he is doing, this President attempts to ensure that the paint job on the Nation is not scratched in a frantic effort to *avoid the iceberg* that looms ahead.

So, thusly this President having wavered once, the Prince of the House now is emboldened to push this Aristocratic Vision of the Nobility further [via Yahoo! News, 23 JUL 2006]:

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Sunday he may challenge a judge's order allowing FBI agents to examine documents seized at a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office in a bribery probe.

Hastert said he believed Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was "in big trouble" and that the House would not be joining in support of Jefferson himself. But he said the House separately might seek to make clear its position that the Justice Department cannot randomly and wantonly search lawmakers' offices.

"The gentleman from Louisiana is in big trouble, as far as I'm concerned. And we're not trying to protect him," said Hastert, R-Ill.

"But there has to be a procedure for the Justice Department to come in and start just searching any congressman's office," he said. "We may take a fine line depending on how the negotiations are. There is a constitutional division there that we have to protect."

There is 'protection', dear Prince, and 'obstruction of justice'. If you do not trust Federal Law Enforcement given due Warrant by the Judicial Branch to do such a search of Congressional offices for a Felony investigation, do just say so! I am sure that we, your poor and unworthy supplicants within the Nation known as mere 'citizens', will understand Your Highness' worries that an investigation of wrong-doing at a very high level might just impact the Nation in an untoward way and lead to lawlessness in some strange manner or form. Speak on, Prince Hastert!

Let the poor peons of the Nation know how far ABOVE the Law Congress actually IS.

Speak forth so that yon Aristocrats can show how above all ill-consideration they are in the running of their affairs in High Office for the Nation. Tell we poor plebes your August worries over these things so as to protect your sinecured positions from any change or investigation whatsoever.

Your Great Congress has already vested itself with limited numbers so as to divide up the Nation as *spoils* between parties, so that these great Seats for the People's Representatives will rarely, if ever change hands and that, once elected, you shall remain in High Office till your death do us part. Let us hear upon the fairness of this system you endorse and why adding in MORE protections upon these Royal Personages will help to keep the Nation from further harm. Your Great Body of Congress Upon the Hill has ALREADY limited the mere say of the People and now you wish to lock up anything that would hold any accountability upon these Great Ones behind the Hallowed Halls of Congress.

One election, One vote, Once is what this Great Body is heading towards by this, Prince Hastert. Tell us ALL why this is so Good for the Nation!

I am quite sure that His Highness will come up with *some* reason... no matter how farfetched it may sound.

Just what is a 'civilian' in the age of terrorism?

Well, Alan Dershowitz puts forth the idea that we need to expand the vocabulary of the MSM so that a differentiation between 'civilian casualties' can be noted. He does see that there is a *difference* between those that are not affiliated with terrorist organizations and get killed in the course of battle, those that aid and assist terrorists and are likewise killed in the course of battle, and those that dress up LIKE civilians but are terrorists.

Perhaps Mr. Dershowitz has a 'terrorist-o-meter' to determine the level of terrorist affiliation of a corpse? Scan it over the body and you can get a read out:

Sex: Male
Age: 27
Cause of Death: Concussion Blast Trauma and Shrapnel Wounds; Internal Bleeding
Terrorist Affiliation: 10% Hezbollah, 6% PLO, 3% Shi'ite Extremist, 2% Muslim Brotherhood
Culpability for Own Death: 37%

Now wouldn't THAT be a handy-dandy thing to have along? Even better if it worked on LIVING bodies! But, sadly, such is currently not available from the DoD supply warehouses...

Barring that we are left with regulations, and here the US Army, again, serves as a good demonstrator with this document (compliments globalsecurity.org):

Section III. PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE TERRITORIES OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT AND TO OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

266. General

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. (GC, art, 27.)

267. Danger Zones
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. (GC, art. 28.)

268. Responsibilities
The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred. (GC, art. 29.)

269. Application to Protecting Powers and Relief Organizations
Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to the Protecting Powers, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Society of the country where they may be, as well as to any organization that might assist them.

These several organizations shall be granted all facilities for that purpose by the authorities, within the bounds set by military or security considerations.

Apart from the visits of the delegates of the Protecting Powers and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, provided for by Article 143, the Detaining or Occupying Powers shall facilitate as much as possible visits to protected persons by the representatives of other organizations whose object is to give spiritual aid or material relief to such persons. (GC, art. 30.)

270. Prohibition of Coercion
a. Treaty Provision.

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties. (GC, art. 31.)

b. Guides. Among the forms of coercion prohibited is the impressment of guides from the local inhabitants.

271. Prohibition of Corporal Punishment, Torture, Etc.
The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents. (GC, art. 32.)

272. Individual Responsibility, Collective Penalties, Reprisals, Pillage
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. (GC, art. 33.) (See also pars. 47 and 397.)

273. Hostages
The taking of hostages is prohibited. (GC, art. 34.)

Thus we see that Civlians are PROTECTED PERSONS. Yes, those are actual Rules of War that are followed by the US Armed Forces and since the Geneva Convention is mentioned throughout, these are all in accordance with the Conventions that the US has signed on to. We go further, however, and restrict upon other things that other Nations may do. Yes, we are nice EVEN IN WAR! And if one side uses such Protected Persons as shields, then *they* are the ones culpable for damages as they are doing something no civilized Nation will do. Further, Nations may even kill such Protected Persons if used as 'shields' by those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions and are Not a State. That is the 267 provision which does *not* render hospitals, schools and other such things immune from attack if the enemy is using them. And that is UPHOLDING the Geneva Conventions.

If you are a Civilian in a War Zone, may I suggest a White Flag and coming out with your hands up and any jacket open or taken off so that an explosive device may be seen in its absence? Civilians do *not* have protection from military operations and mishaps of same. You stay in a war zone, you are putting your life at risk. If you are disabled, wounded or other such, then do your best to identify yourself to any soldiers. Those following the Geneva Conventions *must help you*.

What do you call those who stay in and around places that terrorists use?

If done so willingly, then the concept of 'collusion' comes to mind.

If held hostage you are a 'victim' and should seek to be saved by Legitimate Armed Forces following the Geneva Conventions.

Who are these dead civilians in and around rocket launching points?

'Fellow travelers'? 'Quislings'? 'Supporters by assent'? 'Willing fools'?

Take your pick... if they have stayed long after seeing the launch rails and additions to the house put on and more rockets put in, the one thing that they are NOT is 'innocent'.

Save those in hospitals or sanitariums and the such co-opted by terrorists. Those are victims OF those terrorists, no matter who or what kills them.

And all of this goes for 'Human Shields', too. Save they are aiding and abetting the enemy and giving comfort to them. I believe the term for that is somewhat a bit more lethal... they are *not* Civilians but willing participants for the enemy. And due the same bullet that any terrorist should duly get.

Signs... portent... and oddities

Ok, mostly oddities, still you really do have to wonder about some things like the following...

Suadi Fatwa against Hezbollah (h/t to Donald Sensing):

NY Sun [20 JUL 2006] - One of Saudi Arabia’s leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.

The day after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12, Sheik Hamid al-Ali issued an informal statement titled “The Sharia position on what is going on.” In it, the Kuwaiti based cleric condemned the imperial ambitions of Iran regarding Hezbollah’s cross border raid.

The surprising move demonstrates that Sunni Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East are deeply divided over whether Moslems should support Hezbollah, Iran’s Shiite proxies in the war raging in Lebanon.

Now you would think that all those folks could at least stick together in things, but I guess the Saudi's didn't really like the Iranian bombing of the Khobar Towers that they did through Hezbollah. Go for the old: My enemy is my enemy.

From GMMAC at Free Republic we get this from The Edmonton Journal [21 JUL 2006] talking about the whining Canadians complaining about the lack of accommodations during the evacuation from Beirut:

There is a simple solution to this carping. The boats have to go back to Beirut for more evacuees. Anyone who profanes a Canadian worker or whines about conditions on the free boat gets put back on board and returned to Lebanon where they can find their own way out.

Probably just folks from Quebec and Ontario.

From PJM [21 JUL 2006]:

The New York Times reports a US resupply of precision weapons to Israel. “Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.”

I can difinitevely say that the NYT is now no longer 'in the opposition' but 'on the other side' with the terrorists and Transnationalists. Good-bye to the last of journalistic integrity as the Times becomes more yellow than those papers it was founded to fight against.

From via Cool Blue Blog via PJM on Human Rights Watch [18 JUL 2006]:

“Attacking civilian areas indiscriminately is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and can constitute a war crime,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “Hezbollah’s use of warheads that have limited military use and cause grievous suffering to the victims only makes the crime worse.”

You mean they aren't just 'freedom fighters' who happen to be killing civilians that just 'happen to get in the way'? I am sure that HRW will find some way to turn against the legitimate Israeli response. No less than a week, I would think.

Pat Buchanan bloviates, yes even worse than usual:

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked.

...

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria...

Perhaps Mr. Buchanan should check his history texts back to 1979 and and onwards.
Ever hear of the invasion and occupation of the US Embassy in Iran in 1979?
Does he forget the April 1983 US Embassy Bombing in Beirut by Hezbollah?
How about the 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut?
And the September 1984 Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut?
And the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing aimed at US Air Force personnel?
Mr. Buchanan is obviously in some far reaches of space-time where being attacked is not the same as... being attacked. And note that TWO of these were on Sovereign US Soil! And Mr. Buchanan may forget that Iran has declared war on the US a number of times and puts this Nation down as the 'Satan' of the world. Need a few hundred more dead Americans to satisfy you, Mr. Buchanan?

Mind you, Hamas is only indirectly related to kidnappings, bombings and such like directly against the US... but they are connected to Syria, and we already have cause not to like them. And as for having Syria in the Desert Storm war... well, what *exactly* did they do to make up for their involvement in the Embassy Bombings?

I really cannot resist this next quote from Mr. Buchanan:

What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shiites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

That would mean that they had to come to an 'accommodation' with EACH OTHER FIRST! Hey, if we had to exit Iraq out of, oh, Syria, that would be a GOOD THING. And we would be leaving two factions now having a unifying factor... unfortunately they see just the opposite from that, Mr. Buchanan, and prefer to fight each other. By dint of hard work and honest dealing the US is now seen as an 'honest broker' in Iraq for the Sunni's and many Shia. So sorry to ruin your doom and gloom with unhappy reality.

From The Arabist via PJM: Egyptian police is cracking down on pro-Lebanon and pro-Palestine demonstrations.

Why, yes, one of your merchant vessels has been sunk and you are keeping your powder dry and the foolish from demonstrating. That is one I may actually understand... put that in the Signs and Portents category! Just one, but that is fine for now.