One year on, the world simply watches as Israel imposes its 'new regional order'
Just last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations: "Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. Israel has made peace and will make peace again."
The irony of then approving operation "New Order" from a hotel room in New York while attending the UN General Assembly is not lost on the rest of us.
While Israeli jets dropped over 80 bunker busters on a densely populated area of Beirut, the International Committee of the Red Cross, along with Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan and South Africa, launched a global initiative on the sidelines of the UN to renew their commitment to international humanitarian law (IHL) in warfare.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu stood behind the podium and claimed to seek peace following the week-long carnage his soldiers carried out in Lebanon. To the people of this region, this is emblematic of the power the UN holds to prevent war: none.
It is clear that Israel believes it is above the rest of the world and that the rest of the world - with all its power - cannot, or will not, take any real action that brings this rogue state to fall into line.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Indeed, the US bemoans Netanyahu's regressions and decries his behaviour.
And yet, the Israeli government can secure an additional $8.7bn in aid the same weekend it drops tonnes of bombs on civilians in Beirut.
Deliberate complicity
Evidently, the willpower to punish human rights violations is only present when it aligns with a state's national interests. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for instance, has indicted 44 individuals to date, and all 44 have been from the African continent.
This means that the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people across the region at the hands of the Israeli war machine is yet to harm any western state's national interests.
Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
The purpose of IHL and the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect underscored a global commitment to limiting the tyranny of states and prioritising humanity above all - and yet the international community simply watches on.
The International Court of Justice continues to deliberate, and the ICC continues to debate arrest warrants under the threat of the US, while the genocide continues unabated.
For genocide to be labelled as such, the world would need to let it take its course and then spend the next decade debating the legal merits only to cry: "Never again."
Though genocide scholars agree that genocide occurs in stages, the world refuses to listen. What is the point of the ICC, which has been accosted by the United States?
What is the purpose of the Genocide Convention if we must first wait until the genocide is carried out and completed?
Pundits sit on TV debating this changing global order - the shift away from a rules-based order in their words. In our region, however, nothing has changed.
The Dahiyeh doctrine was not formulated on 27 September. This policy, which is premised on the use of disproportionate force on civilian infrastructure and urban settings, dates back to Israel's 2006 July war on Lebanon.
This has always been the order enforced by western powers, and the people of this region do not assign any value or meaning to such a world order.
It is a damning indictment of international law that Israel has been allowed to wage a year-long genocidal war of "self-defence" following seven decades of unrelenting occupation and immediately before a preemptive invasion of Lebanon.
This is all the more concerning given the legal gymnastics performed by Israel's allies to justify and facilitate its aggression while continuing to call for a peace process and the implementation of a two-state solution.
This deliberate complicity and the policy of appeasement will not only fail to bring peace to the region but also prolong the reality of occupation and genocide.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
