A year later, the world is simply watching as Israel imposes its new regional order

Just last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations: “Israel seeks peace. Israel longs for peace. Israel has made peace and will make peace again.”

The irony of approving Operation New Order from a hotel room in New York while attending the UN General Assembly is not lost on all 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 United Nations to demonstrate their commitment to international humanitarian law ( IHL) in warfare.

Still, Netanyahu stood behind the podium and claimed to be seeking peace after the week-long carnage his soldiers wrought in Lebanon. For the people of this region, this is a symbol of the power the United Nations has 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 real action to bring this rogue state into line.

In fact, the USA complains about Netanyahu’s regression and condemns his behavior.

And yet, on the same weekend that the Israeli government drops tons of bombs on civilians in Beirut, it manages to secure another $8.7 billion in aid.

Intentional complicity

Obviously, the willpower to punish human rights violations only exists when it is consistent with the national interests of a state. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, has so far indicted 44 people, and all 44 were from the African continent.

This means that the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people across the region by the Israeli war machine has not yet harmed the national interests of any Western state.

Follow Middle East Eye’s live coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian war

The purpose of international humanitarian law and the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect underscore the global commitment to curb the tyranny of states and prioritize humanity – and yet the international community simply stands by.

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 labeled as such, the world would have to let it run its course and then spend the next decade debating its legal justification, only to scream, “Never again.”

Although genocide researchers agree that genocide occurs in stages, the world refuses to listen. What is the point of the International Criminal Court denounced by the United States?

What is the purpose of the Genocide Convention if we first have to wait until the genocide is carried out and completed?

Experts sit on television and debate this changing global order – in their words, the move away from a rules-based order. However, nothing has changed in our region.

The Dahieh Doctrine was not formulated on September 27th. This policy, based on the use of disproportionate force against civilian infrastructure and urban areas, dates back to Israel’s war against Lebanon in July 2006.

This has always been the order imposed by Western powers, and the people of this region attach no value or importance to such a world order.

It is a damning indictment of international law that Israel was allowed to wage a year-long genocidal “war of self-defense” after seven decades of relentless occupation and just before a pre-emptive invasion of Lebanon.

This is all the more worrying considering that Israel’s allies are using legal tricks to justify and facilitate its aggression while continuing to call for a peace process and the implementation of a two-state solution.

This conscious complicity and appeasement policy will not only fail to bring peace in the region, but will 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.