Isn't news supposed to be timely?

is this news to anyone?

Israel/Lebanon: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure

press release, 08/23/2006

Amnesty International today published findings that point to an Israeli policy of deliberate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, which included war crimes, during the recent conflict.

The organization's latest publication shows how Israel's destruction of thousands of homes, and strikes on numerous bridges and roads as well as water and fuel storage plants, was an integral part of Israel's military strategy in Lebanon, rather than "collateral damage" resulting from the lawful targeting of military objectives.

The report reinforces the case for an urgent, comprehensive and independent UN inquiry into grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by both Hizbullah and Israel during their month-long conflict.

"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong. Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy," said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

The Israeli government has argued that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities and that other damage done to civilian infrastructure was a result of Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield".

"The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible," said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

"Civilian victims on both sides of this conflict deserve justice. The serious nature of violations committed makes an investigation into the conduct of both parties urgent. There must be accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes and reparation for the victims."

The report, Deliberate destruction or 'collateral damage'? Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure, is based on first-hand information gathered by recent Amnesty International research missions to Lebanon and Israel, including interviews with dozens of victims, officials from the UN, Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Lebanese government, as well as official statements and press reports.

The report includes evidence of the following:
* Massive destruction by Israeli forces of whole civilian neighbourhoods and villages;
* Attacks on bridges in areas of no apparent strategic importance;
* Attacks on water pumping stations, water treatment plants and supermarkets despite the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;
* Statements by Israeli military officials indicating that the destruction of civilian infrastructure was indeed a goal of Israel's military campaign designed to press the Lebanese government and the civilian population to turn against Hizbullah.

The report exposes a pattern of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, which resulted in the displacement of twenty-five percent of the civilian population. This pattern, taken together with official statements, indicates that the attacks on infrastucture were deliberate, and not simply incidental to lawful military objectives.

Amnesty International is calling for a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry to be urgently established by the UN into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. It should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population, and should be undertaken with a view to holding individuals responsible for crimes under international law and ensuring that full reparation is provided to the victims. (is this the same kind of reparation the Palestinians were meant to be given? let's not hold our breath shall we?)

The New Israel

This guy makes a very good point - many (myself included) have been saying this for years ... i don't know about anyone else, but i never thought it could actually be an option because i didn't know about the land owned by the BLM .... now, i'm wondering whether human lives are worth that much less than land and money that it won't even be considered ........... am i idealistic? am i naive? probably. but i can hope. (bold etc. are mine)

The New Israel
Posted by: "Jon Presco" braskewitz@yahoo.com
Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:25 am (PST)
Stephen Kinsella and I share the same vision.
Jon

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella5.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Joshua/manifest.html

New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal
by N. Stephan Kinsella

Let me preface this with the following rather obvious denunciations of terrorism in order to avoid charges of pacifism and anti-Americanism now being hurled at those who dare to question the role American foreign policy might have played in the recent attacks. Here goes. The terrorists are 100% guilty, and they and any governments, organizations, or individuals that aided and abetted them deserve severe punishment. They are really bad guys. American intervention and meddling, even if it helped to provoke these savage people and to make such attacks more likely, provide no excuse for the atrocities of September 11. And since I'm discussing Israel below as well, I suppose I had better also say that I explicitly denounce antisemitism, some of my best friends are Jews, yada yada yada. Okay? Got that out of the way? Are all the PC idiots – whose perverse anti-discrimination laws helped contribute to the recent deaths of over 6,000 people – satisfied? Probably not, but let me proceed.

So. The terrorists are completely responsible for their unjustifiable, murderous actions. Nevertheless, it can still be pointed out that American foreign policy is a significant cause of the anti-American hatred which generates terrorism. It is implausible that we are attacked merely because we are "democratic" and they "hate our freedoms," as George Bush and others, such as neocons and Objectivists, imply. It is beyond cavil that they hate us, at least in part, because we hurt their fellow Muslims (e.g. civilians in Iraq) and aid their hated enemy, Israel. The enemy of my friend, the friend of my enemy, and all that.

Therefore, in addition to hunting down and extirpating those responsible for the recent attacks, we ought to re-examine our foreign policy. As Justin Raimondo writes, citing George Washington's Farewell Speech, "Our foreign policy should consist of the following principle, one handed down to us by the Founders: entangling alliances with none, free trade with all. It is a foreign policy that puts America first – not Israel, not Kosovo, not Taiwan, not 'human rights,' nor 'democracy,' but America's interests, narrowly conceived." Therefore, we ought to bring the troops home and stop sending billions of dollars a year to prop up regimes such as Israel and Egypt. Calling some of the troops home would, if nothing else, help save money. And if we had a less meddlesome, more properly limited foreign policy, there might well be less hatred of America and thus fewer terrorist attacks on us. We might not eliminate terrorism, but even reducing its level and frequency would save lives.

As noted above, our support for Israel seems to be one reason that so many Arabs hate us. As Norman Podhoretz reluctantly acknowledges, "To be sure, one of the great 'crimes' of America in Arab eyes remains its support of Israel." And Jacob Weisberg begrudgingly admits that for Osama Bin Laden, "the existence of Israel, and of Jews, is a significant irritant," and that "[o]ur abandonment of Israel might diminish one of Bin Laden's sources of suicidal recruits." So. Under a proper foreign policy we would not be militarily and financially supporting regimes abroad, including Israel and others in the Middle East. This could also be expected to reduce Arab/Muslim hatred of America.

But obviously, it is not politically acceptable for America to completely abandon Israel. Accordingly, I have another proposal: relocate Israel to America.

Yes, I'm serious. Consider: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently administers 264 million acres of public lands – about one-eighth of the land in the United States. Most of these lands are located in the western United States, including Alaska, and include extensive grasslands, forests, high mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. The federal government has no business owning millions of acres of public lands. These resources should be put into private hands, not hoarded by government.

Combine these insights – we should not be involved in the middle East; the feds have no business owning public forests – with the political reality that we cannot simply abandon Israel and allow it to be overwhelmed by hostile Arabs, and an obvious solution presents itself: offer to Israeli Jews a new homeland, carved out of BLM-administered public lands.

There is plenty room to do it. Israel has an area of only about 5 million acres (7800 square miles), just slightly smaller than New Jersey. Its population includes about 5 million Jews (about the same as the number of Jews already in America). Israel's area is less than 2% of the public land controlled by the BLM. Perhaps even a smaller area would suffice, say 2 or 3 million acres. Sufficient space could no doubt be carved out of the public land in any number of states – Alaska, Nevada, Wyoming, or Utah, for example. Or, as suggested in the "New Israel" map above, between Nevada and Utah Utah (yellow on the map denotes BLM-administered public land; the red patch indicates a possible location for New Israel). Or, heck, put New Israel up in Alaska's 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ("Anwar"), and lease the oil exploration and production rights to them. The (New) Israelis an oil power – how's that for turnabout! I propose, therefore, that we dedicate sufficient BLM land to form New Israel, and grant it special status as an independent territory. After a sufficient number of Israelis (and perhaps some American Jews) moved there, America could recognize it as a sovereign state. New Israel could either be a successor state to treaty and related obligations of Israel, or it could be a new state altogether, if some remnant of Old Israel survived. A treaty between the U.S. and New Israel should guarantee free trade. And New Israel's status as an independent state would prevent New Israelis from becoming American citizens, which is important because Israelis are socialistic, at least by libertarian standards.

After selecting a location and dedicating it to this purpose, the U.S. government would announce that it is withdrawing all support for Israel within, say, five to ten years (or sooner, if possible). That would give Israelis sufficient time to relocate. We could save $3 billion a year currently sent to Israel or, if politically necessary, use some or all that amount for some time, to help fund the relocation and to provide seed money to New Israeli businesses and homeowners. (Private alternatives would of course be preferable.) Some Israelis might move; others might stubbornly refuse the offer, valuing consanguinity with a specific patch of dirt over their own safety. That is their right, but I do not see that it is America's obligation to risk its citizens' lives to protect this preference. Those that would stay, would do so at their own peril. By offering them New Israel, we would be guaranteeing to Israelis a homeland and a better life (albeit, farther away from the Wailing Wall and Arab bombs). This is overly generous, in my view. We would have done all that is required of us, and more.

It might be objected that this proposal is heartless and does not give adequate weight to the importance Jews attach to the "Holy Land." I appreciate the argument that we should not let Israel and Jewry perish. But the location is secondary; certainly, it is not worth American lives to have the homeland in this place instead of that place. Why must thousands of American lives be lost to terrorism just because one subset of Jews have a preference for an arbitrary longitude and latitude? The primary purpose of a Jewish homeland was always to provide a sanctuary to Jews, not to give them prime real estate. Let them build a new Wailing Wall in New Israel if they want. It's what Americans would do.

In fact, Theodore Herzl, the so-called "Father of Zionism," and the Zionist Congress at one point considered forming a Jewish state in both Argentina and Uganda. While these plans were of course ultimately rejected, that they were seriously considered indicates that it is not outrageous or antisemitic to propose a homeland in a place other than Israel (Palestine).

If Uganda and Argentina were once considered possible locations for a Jewish state, why not America? Wouldn't everyone – Americans, Jews, Arabs – be better off? The New Israelis would be closer to civilization and their 6 million Jewish-American cousins; the land would no doubt be more fertile and scenic; and New Israelis would no longer have to put up with bombings and daily fighting. The Arabs would be happier and maybe even hate us a little bit less. They might even tolerate any Jews remaining in Palestine, as their smaller numbers would pose less of a political threat.

As for America, we could save several billion dollars a year by withdrawing aid from Egypt and eventually eliminating financial aid to Israel. We would also get to unload some of our public lands and put it in private hands. Additionally, Americans would no doubt benefit from a closer relationship with the Israelis, a productive, intelligent, and resourceful group (if that is not politically incorrect to acknowledge). And maybe not quite as many Americans would be murdered by Israel-hating Muslim terrorists.

UNHRC Resolution re: Israeli human rights violations in Lebanon

On Friday, 11 August, the Human Rights Council met in special session and adopted the resolution below.

The resolution was adopted through a roll-call vote with 27 votes in favour (Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, Zambia)

11 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, UK)

8 abstentions (Cameroon,Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Switzerland)

1 absent (Djibouti)

RESOLUTION AS ADOPTED
S-2/RES/1.

THE GRAVE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LEBANON CAUSED BY ISRAELI MILITARY OPERATIONS

The Human Rights Council, Reaffirming the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and recalling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of theChild and other human rights instruments,

Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system, Recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 in which the Assembly decided that the Human Rights Council: (a) Should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon; and (b) Shall respond promptly to human rights emergencies, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, relevant human rights instruments and international humanitarian law, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War on Land which prohibit attacks and bombardment of civilian populations and objects and lay down obligations for general protection against dangers arising from military operations against civilian objects, hospitals, relief materials and means of transportation, Recalling the commitments of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto, Reaffirming that each High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) is under obligation to take action against persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Convention, and recalling the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, Emphasizing that human rights law and international humanitarian law are complementary and mutually reinforcing, Stressing that the right to life constitutes the most fundamental of all human rights, Condemning Israeli military operations in Lebanon, which constitute gross and systematic human rights violations of the Lebanese people, Appalled at the massive violations of the human rights of the people of Lebanon by Israel resulting in the massacre of thousands of civilians, injuries, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure, displacement of 1 million people, and outflows of refugees fleeing heavy shelling and bombardment against the civilian population, Strongly condemning the indiscriminate and massive Israeli air strikes, in particular on the village of Qana on 30 July 2006, and the targeting of United Nations peacekeepers at the United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July 2006, Taking note of the strong condemnation by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of the killing of civilians in Qana, her call to take measures to protect civilian lives and civilian objects and her reiteration of the need for independent investigation, with the involvement of international experts,

Noting the extreme concern expressed by the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food about the continuing adverse impact on the human rights and the humanitarian situation of the civilian population in Lebanon,

Emphasizing that attacks and killings of innocent civilians and the destruction of houses, property and infrastructure in Lebanon are a breach of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and international humanitarian law as well as are flagrant violations of human rights,

Recognizing the urgent need to address the dire humanitarian situation in Lebanon, including through the immediate lifting of the blockade of Lebanon imposed by Israel,

Noting with concern the environmental degradation caused by Israeli strikes against power plants and their adverse impact on health,

Concerned at the targeting of the communication and media networks in Lebanon,

Outraged at the continuing senseless killings by Israel, with impunity, of children, women, the elderly and other civilians in Lebanon,

1. Strongly condemns the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon;

2. Condemns the massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations, especially the massacres in Qana, Marwaheen, Al Duweir, Al Bayadah, Al Qaa, Chiyah, Ghazieh and other towns of Lebanon, causing thousands of deaths and injuries, mostly among children and women, and the displacement of 1 million civilians, according to a preliminary assessment, thus exacerbating the magnitude of the human suffering of the Lebanese;

3. Also condemns the Israeli bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure resulting in extensive destruction and heavy damage to public and private properties;

4. Calls upon Israel to abide, immediately and scrupulously, by its obligations under human rights law, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and international humanitarian law;

5. Urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions;

6. Also calls upon Israel to immediately stop military operations against the civilian population and civilian objects resulting in death and destruction and serious violations of human rights;

7. Decides to urgently establish and immediately dispatch a high-level commission of inquiry comprising of eminent experts on human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the possibility of inviting the relevant United Nations special procedures to be nominated to the Commission:

(a) To investigate the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel in Lebanon;

(b) To examine the types of weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law

(c) To assess the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on humanlife, property, critical infrastructure and the environment;

8. Requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable the Commission of Inquiry to fulfil its mandate promptly and efficiently;

9. Calls upon the international community urgently to provide the Government of Lebanon with humanitarian and financial assistance to enable it to deal with the worsening humanitarian disaster, rehabilitation of victims, return of displaced persons and restoration of the essential infrastructure;

10. Requests the Commission of Inquiry to report to the Council no later than 1 September 2006 on progress made towards the fulfilment of its mandate.

The uselessness of Resolution 1701

August 14, 2006
Playing Into Israel's Hands: The Flaws in the UN Resolution
By KARIM MAKDISI
Beirut.

On 12 August, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1701 aimed at ceasing hostilities' between Israel andHizbullah. It went into effect at 8am this morning local time, 33 days after Israel used the pretext of Hizbullah's capture of two IDF soldiers to wage an open war on Lebanon in order implement a joint US-Israeli plan to permanently neutralize Hizbullah ahead of apossible US attack on Iran.

While Resolution 1701 is certainly an improvement on the disastrous initial draft presented by the US and France a week earlier (see my earlier piece in CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08072006.html), it remains a weak and ambiguous resolution that has ultimately rewarded the use of violence to settle disputes in breech of international law and the UN Charter itself; and is in any case not reflective of the reality on the ground in terms of the balance of terror that clearly exists between Hizbullah and Israel. This resolution will now be used by the US and Israel in a manner inconsistent with its spirit and intent, which as stated by Kofi Annan is "to save civilian lives, to spare the pain and suffering that the civilians on both sides are living through."

As such, Resolution 1701 includes a number of strategically placedTrojan horses that were inserted to circumvent Lebanese and Arab nopposition to the earlier draft resolution which would have effectively rendered Lebanon a failed state, its sovereignty denied. This earlier draft was reflective of initial US and Israeli political objectives, but its successful negotiation required a swift and decisive Israeli military victory over Hizbullah in order to impose a victor's peace terms on Lebanon under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The modifications to the early draft resolution that are embodied inResolution 1701 thus reflect the realities of Israel's military defeat. Perhaps more importantly, they reflect a belated, pragmatic US acknowledgement that it can no longer rely solely on Israel and the logic of a military solution to achieve its objectives in Lebanon. Key modifications thus center around reinforcing Lebanon's "sovereignty" (supported by a beefed-up UNIFIL) in the expectation that the pro-US elements of the Lebanese government will be able to successfully disarm Hizbullah politically where Israel failed militarily. In other words, it takes us back to where we were before the Israeli war, albeit with a greater sense of urgency and the real threat of civil war looming in Lebanon should Lebanon's current fragile political unity, achieved ironically because of Israel's onslaught, falter.

Here are a few observations with regard to the final text of Resolution 1701:

1. It does not stop the war and does little to ensure the protection of the civilian population of Lebanon. While Hizbullah must cease "all attacks," Israel must cease only those "offensive military operations." There is no need to point out the obvious loopholes that exist here for Israel to attack anything, anywhere, including civilian targets, in the name of self-defense, or indeed carry out any offensive non-military' operations (whatever these may be). Israel has already announced it will not lift is blockade of Lebanon in clear violation of both this resolution and international law norms.

2. The paragraph dealing with the principles of a permanent ceasefire and long term solution has removed a critical point referred to inthe original draft and that is key to Hizbullah's demands: resolving the status of the occupied Sheba'a farms. The only reference toSheba'a in Resolution 1701 is a part of a laundry list that the UN Secretary General must compile in the next 30 days. This apparent removal of Sheba'a from the negotiation of a permanent solution, coupled with the public US guarantee that Israel will not be required to give up Sheba'a regardless of any UN report, essentially guarantees that resistance will continue, at least in the South, for many months to come. (months -- what an optimistic guy)

3. It legitimizes temporary Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands until a combination of Lebanese army and expanded UNIFIL forces begin to deploy in southern Lebanon, and yet rejects the right of Hizbullah to resist occupation. Given that it may take weeks before a beefed up UNIFIL is in place to the satisfaction of Israel, Hizbullah has already made it clear that it will abide by the rules of set forth in April 1996 (agreed to by the US, Israel and Lebanon whereby the right of resistance was granted as long as they were directed against Israeli military targets in occupied Lebanon). This is a potential Trojan horse because it may lead to conflict between the Lebanese army and UNIFIL on the one hand, and Hizbullah on the other.

4. It adopts the Israeli narrative by placing the blame of this war entirely on Hizbullah and creating the false impression that civilian deaths and infrastructure damage in Lebanon and Israel were somehow equivalent. Hasan Nassrallah and the Hizbullah cabinet ministers made it clear that this was their first and most important reservation to the resolution, and one should not underestimate the importance to Hizbullah of setting the narrative straight in terms of legitimizing the right of resistance to Israeli occupation and aggression. It is impossible to see how any long-term plan to disarm Hizbullah if its narrative, and the terms which flow logically from that narrative (such as an effective security plan for southern Lebanon, and the negotiated exchange of Israeli and Lebanese prisoners), are not accepted by the Lebanese government and the UN.

5. It fails to question the legality of Israel's war and does not condemn Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbullah's operation as well as other clear violations of international humanitarian laws as documented by the UN Human Rights Council (which has begun an investigation into Israel's "grave violation of human rights"). In other words, it fails to distinguish between the laws of war (e.g. imminent threat to security) and the laws applicable in war (e.g. Geneva Conventions), and in so doing the resolution implicitly accepts Israel's and America's logic that self-defense may include civilians and civilian infrastructure. This could have major repercussions on the law of wars to come.

6. The resolution directs high praise to Lebanon's seven point plan in the preamble in order to play up the role of the Lebanese government, but then goes on to ignore most of its key substantive points: the unconditional cessation of fire; the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army to the Blue Line; the placement of the occupied Sheba'a and Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation is finalized; and the exchange of prisoners.

7. It removes reference to a second resolution authorizing an international force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. There can be little doubt that Hizbullah's success on the battlefield ensured the removal of this clause; and that the Lebanese government would otherwise have had to accept it. The significance of this cannot be under-estimated, as it has averted, for now, a civil war and total breakdown of the Lebanese state, and perhaps even a regional war in which Iran and the Shia'a of Iraq would have been involved.

However, there is a potential Trojan horse that is inserted in the resolution's final pre-ambular paragraph: "determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security." This language is derived from Chapter 7 logic, not that of Chapter 6 which is concerned with the "Pacific settlement of disputes." In other words, Chapter 6 is adopted before a "threat to international peace and security" is actually determined; while Chapter 7 deals with enforcement mechanisms after such a "threat" is in fact established. Since Hizbullah has been singled out for blame in Resolution 1701, and its disarming seen to be the main long-term remedy, then this is an attempt to manipulate the text to refer indirectly to Chapter 7 in order to determine that Hizbullah's presence as an armed group' is itself a threat to international peace and security.

8. It creates vague and thus potentially irresponsible terms of reference for an expanded UNIFIL force, which has been authorized to monitor the cease fire, accompany the Lebanese army as it deploys in the South, and assist in humanitarian issues and the return of displaced people, all in addition to its original terms under 425 and426. It is not clear how, or if UNIFIL can ever fulfill such lofty terms.

9. The key parts of Resolution 1701 as far as the US and Israeli interpretation is concerned are those dealing with the isolation and neutralization of Hizbullah. This plan requires that all states agree to an arms embargo as well as the prohibition of any technical training or assistance' save those authorized by Lebanese government. This is clearly intended to sever links between Hizbullah and Iran and Syria. There is no mention of any arms restrictions on Israel.

Resolution 1701 clearly envisions that the long-term solution to this conflict rests on the need for disarming "all armed groups" in keeping with Resolution 1559 (previously rejected by Hizbullah), the establishment of a buffer zone free of any "armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government," and a de facto arms embargo on Lebanon except for those authorized by the government itself. In other words, Israel and the US are openly interpreting this resolution as a de facto enforcement mechanism for 1559.

In this regard, UNIFIL is there to support the Lebanese government "in securing borders and other entry points to prevent arms or related material from entering Lebanon." More cryptically, the resolution authorizes UNIFIL to take "all necessary action" to ensure that that the areas under its mandate are not used for "hostile activities." This may result in UNIFIL being urged to confront Hizbullah or other armed groups in southern Lebanon. It is potentially very dangerous, and will place UNIFIL staff in danger of being seen as the enemy.

Overall, if the UN is to be judged in terms of its primary mandate,that of ensuring international peace and security via the principle of collective security, then it has quite clearly failed the people of Lebanon, just as it has the people of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. More than anything, Resolution 1701 confirms fears held by many that the UN as a political body has been demoted in the post 9/11 unipolar era to a subsidiary of the US government at the cost of its legitimacy and effectiveness. Lebanon avoided total capitulation in this resolution because of Hizbullah's resistance on the groundand its success in achieving a balance of terror with Israel, not because the UN Security Council international law in a just manner. This is a dangerous signal thatthe UN is sending to the world.

In the meantime, those of us living in Lebanon await news of another round of war, as political in-fighting has already begun in Lebanon between the March 14 camp and Hizbullah.

Karim Makdisi is Assistant Professor of International Relations inthe Dept of Political Studies and Public Administration at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Email: km18@aub.edu.lb

http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08142006.html

Sad but True

The rules of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict

Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "Retaliation".

Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "Terrorism".

Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called "Self-Defense", or these days "Collateral Damage".

Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "Reaction of the International Community".

Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2. This is called "Kidnapping".

Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10,000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1,000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. This is called "War on Terrorism".

Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran". This is called: "Axis of Evil".

Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict. This is called "Helping our Friends".

Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", " Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience and is called "Anti-Semitism".

Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "Neutral Journalism".

Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion like Mel Gibson. This is called "Democracy".

Please learn the proper terminology and use it appropriately to maintain your job; this is called "Equal Opportunity Employment".

Israel DID NOT "respond to an unprovoked attack"

this is a very VERY well-written article that takes a few points of view into account and offers a well-founded resolution (also presents an interesting challenge to the Israeli government).

Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary.
George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

Why do you love Lebanon?

A member of A Small World, answered the question the "Why do you love Beirut?" as such, enjoy it!

I love Beirut for its opposites.

I love Beirut because I see a girl in a mini skirt and her sister in a tchador.

I love Beirut because it is neither West nor East it is both.

I love Beirut because one can party till 6 in the morning and not realize that it is tuesday morning.

I love Beirut because Beirutis live as if they are going to die tomorrow and party as if they are going to live forever.

I love Beirut because I can be swimming in the morning and 30 minutes later I'm on the slopes skiing or doing apres ski.

I love Beirut because I have never seen the sun this strong anywhere in the world.

I love Beirut because I can see 6,000 years of history.

I love Beirut because Christians and Muslims are living an understanding and do not need to have Christian Muslim understanding classes.

I love Beirut because every Beiruti has a political opinion and will share it with you even if you could care less about his and you want to share yours with him.

I love Beirut for all the conspiracy theories and how many people actually believe them.

I love Beirut because any night I can find a friend to go out with.

I love Beirut because I do not need to call my friends to go and see them at their houses I just stop by.

I love Beirut because as soon as I arirve at one of my friends houses his mom takes me to the kitchen and becomes the spokesperson of the refrigerator.

I love Beirut because one can smell gardenia , and jasmine.

I love Beirut because strawberries taste like strawberries and fruits taste like fruits.

I love Beirut because the food is so good that one gains pounds even if she tries to lose.

I love Beirut because although the Lebanese women at times look alike as some did their surgeries at the same plastic surgeon they are the most elegant women I have ever seen.

I love Beirut because when I go out at night I don't know at which women to look at as each one is gorgeous in her own way.

I love Beirut because everyone knows me by name.

I love Beirut because I don't have to explain myself.

I love Beirut because of the traffic jams and the people you meet because of them.

I love Beirut because of the noise pollution from cars honking.

I love Beirut for the spirituality of the people whether Muslim or Christian.

I love Beirut because I'm the first to call my Muslim friends on Ramadan and they are the first to call me on Easter.

I love Beirut because on May 1st I see Muslims visiting Harissa (Virgin Mary) just like I see Christians.

I love Beirut because we can differentiate between a Jew and an Israeli.

I love Beirut because on the 22nd of every month I see Muslims going to Mar Charbel (Saint Charbel) and believing that a miracle will happen.

I love Beirut because women look like as if they are out of a Vogue magazine.

I love Beirut because you eat to live and live to eat.

I love Beirut because one leaves one cafe to go to another and one does this all day.

I love Beirut because all the Lebanese living outside want to come back and the Lebanese who are in Lebanon envy the ones who are living abroad not realizing what it means to live away from Beirut.

I love Beirut because my sister , her husband are there and my niece and nephew who are 5 are waiting to see their uncle.

I love Beirut because my niece asks me to bring her a pink skirt and tells me : "I love You".

I love Beirut because a girl or a guy can easily tell you I just had a couple of Lexo or Xanax as if they just had a chewing gum.

I love Beirut because for every Lebanese we have a singer.

I love Beirut because the Lebanese star singers sing in nightclubs.

I love Beirut because women go into the swimming pool with full make up.

I love Beirut because guys go in with their cigars.

I love Beirut because it has been destroyed 7 times in History and has risen.

I love Beirut because since 1975 the Beirutis have withstood the PLO, Syrians , and the Israelis.

I love Beirut because the Beirutis will not accept anyone to occupy them and rule over them.

I love Beirut because we feel that it is better to die on our feet than to live on our knees.

I love Beirut because each street is a two way street even if it is a one way officially.

I love Beirut because one can park anywhere and not get a ticket.

I love Beirut because one can go as fast as his speedometer.

I love Beirut because MEA (Middle East Airlines) lands there.

I love Beirut because on MEA we can clap in unison when we are about to land.

I love Beirut not because it is my city , but because it is the city of every Lebanese.

I love Beirut because it welcomes every exile freethinker , independent mind of the Arab world.

I love Beirut because we have hundreds of newspapers and our press is finally Free.

I love Beirut because most Arabs dreams of coming to Beirut and wishes his capital was more like Beirut.

I love Beirut because when I explain Beirut to my Western friends, my friends see the passion of Beirut in my eyes.

I love Beirut because there is so much misconception about Beirut in the media and in the minds of people who have never visited.

I love Beirut because when I tell my friends that I'm going to Beirut they tell me can you take me with you.

I love Beirut because we argue over who is going to pay the bill at a restaurant as everyone wants to pay it.

I love Beirut because although many whine about not making enough money everyone is living.

I love Beirut because if I do the cross before I start driving the person next to me does not ask me if I fear that I'm going to get into a car accident but instead does his cross as well.

I love Beirut because we accept our differences as we disagree with each other.

I love Beirut because it serves as a beacon of freedom to the rest of the Arab world.

I love Beirut because to praphrase what Gibran said about Lebanon "Had Beirut not been my city I would have chosen it to be."

I love Beirut because there is no city like it.

I love Beirut because even if Beirut is being destroyed you are still beautiful and will remain beautiful no matter how disfigured you are.

I love Beirut because you are always on my mind.

I love Beirut for no reason.

I love Beirut for all the reasons of the world."

**And another one:

I am a beiruti

I love Beirut with all my heart and soul.

I love it's people, it's energy, it's unique beauty, I love so many small things.

I love many small parts of Ashrafieh, Monot, Abdel Wahab, Rue du Liban,Sursock, the trees that arc over the roads bringing shade and shading off rain, I love getting lost in it..

I love the Corniche at dusk and dawn, the magnificent beirut sunset from anywhere, the AUB campus, Bliss street ,hamra street and the smell of falafel, shawarma and sweets,

I love that you can be stuck in traffic at 3am somewhere..

I love how informal our darak are with us drivers sometimes

I love the "everything goes" attitude

I love how I hear three langauges all the time and it's totally normal. e.g."Maitre, El Hseb Please"

I love Zaatar W Zeit after a heavy night of partying..always finding a place to sit in that teeny place

I love sitting at Casper & Gambini overlooking the ancient Roman Ruins,

I love Martyre Square,

I love the churches and mosques scattered around the city

I love how complex being Lebanese is

I love how people ALL around the world keep telling me that someone they know or heard of or their parents has been to Lebanon and talks about its gorgeousness and amazing people

I love the mediterranean, and we will clean it!

I love our amazing cuisine, so proud of our HOMMOS and FALAFEL and MEZA and the world wide reputation of our food (people now refer to Arabic food as Lebanese Food!)

I love the world class rest, bars and night clubs we have. WOW..I love the old B-018...and the new one...and the Classic one too...

I love our new and upcoming Lebanese designers (clothes, shoes, bags,jewelery)... and their gorgeous little shops.

I love Sour, Saida, Jounieh, Tripoli, Baalbak, Chouf..

I love the smell of the city after the rainfall, and the spring smell of gardenia...or the boys who sell you gardenia necklaces at traffic lights..

I love how we get wild flowers growing everywhere in spring, red, white and yellow..

I love the energy of the people, their eternal optimism, faith in their city and country, resilience, passion, love, hospitality..

I love you and will see you soon beirut

The last few days

I've been so caught up with meeting various deadlines that I've had no time to blog ... so this is the longest entry so far.
************************************************************************************

first piece of info: hizballah are going to pay for the rebuilding of people's homes AS WELL AS pay their rent for a year INCLUDING furniture ... this is not an organization that's going to lose popularity any time soon -- if indeed the point of this last month was to destroy hizballah, then those who tried have failed miserably ...... if you think the resistance was popular before, now, it's popularity is off the scale and through the roof!

************************************************************************************

an article from yesterday's haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750384.html

Last update - 16:00 14/08/2006
IDF general: Troops lacking food can steal from Lebanese stores

By Haaretz Service

"If our fighters deep in Lebanese territory are left without food our water, I believe they can break into local Lebanese stores to solve that problem," Brigadier General Avi Mizrahi, the head of the Israel Defense Forces logistics branch, said Monday.

Mizrahi's comments followed complaints by IDF soldiers regarding the lack of food on the front lines. "If what they need to do is take water from the stores, they can take," Mizrahi told Army Radio.

According to Mizrahi, the logistics branch is prepared for the possibility that combat soldiers will have to remain in Lebanon during the winter.

(and so Israel ignores another UN resolution - what a surprise. Following are the resolutions it has ignored so far:

[Note: the United States either voted for or abstained on every one of these resolutions]

252 (1968), 267 (1969), 298 (1971), 476 (1980), 478 (1980) calls on Israel to rescind its annexation of Jerusalem

262 (1968) condemns Israel's attack on Beirut's civilian airport

270 (1969) condemns Israeli air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon

279 (1970), 285 (1970), 313 (1972) demands the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon

280 (1970) deplores Israeli failure to abide by resolutions 262 and 270; condemning Israeli attacks on Lebanon

316 (1972) deplores Israeli attacks on Lebanon and calls for the immediate release of "all Syrian and Lebanese military and security personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces on 21 June 1972 on Lebanese territory"

317 (1972) deplores Israeli abduction of Syrian and Lebanese soldiers in Lebanon and calls for their immediate return

332 (1973) condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon and calls upon Israel to desist

337 (1973) condemns Israel for seizing a Lebanese airliner from Lebanese airspace

347 (1974) condemns Israeli violation of Lebanese sovereignty and calls upon Israel to refrain from such actions

446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980) calls upon Israel to cease its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories

468 (1980), 469 (1980), 484 (1980) calls upon Israel to rescind its deportation of elected Palestinian leaders

497 (1981) calls upon Israel to rescind its annexation of the Golan Heights

515 (1982) demands Israel lift its blockade of Beirut so urgent needs of the civilian population can be met

520 (1982) condemns Israeli incursions into Beirut

592 (1986) deplores Israeli opening fire on defenseless students in occupied territories

605 (1987) deplores Israeli firing on defenseless civilians

607 (1988), 608 (1988), 636 (1989), 641 (1989), 681 (1990), 694 (1991), 726 (1992), 799 (1992) calls on Israel to refrain from and rescind deportations of Palestinian civilians

The text of all these resolutions is available on the UN Information System on Palestine .)
************************************************************************************
this is the article jostein gaarder wrote and later said he was misunderstood ... (bold and italics are mine)

God's Chosen People
by Jostein Gaarder
Aftenposten 05.08.06
From the Norwegian by Sirocco

There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime.Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein's Iraq or theSerbs' ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.

We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosenpeople is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

Limits to tolerance

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance.We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.

We call child murderers 'child murderers' and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!

Unscrupulous art of war

We acknowledge and pay heed to Europe's deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flaunted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.

We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state ofIsrael has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.

Without defense, without skin

May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population. For it is not civilian individuals at whom our doomsaying is directed.

We wish the people of Israel well, nothing but well, but we reserve the right not to eat Jaffa oranges as long as they taste foul and are poisonous. It was endurable to live some years without the blue grapes of apartheid.

They celebrate their triumphs

We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as aninsatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.

For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population ofLebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts.

The retribution of blood vengeance

We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." We do not recognize the principle of one or a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population-wide diets as political weapons. Two thousand years have passed since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

He said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion. Or as Albert Schweitzer expressed it: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose."

Compassion and forgiveness

We do not recognize the old Kingdom of David as a model for the 21st century map of the Middle East. The Jewish rabbi claimed two thousand years ago that the Kingdom of God is not a martial restoration of the Kingdom of David, but that the Kingdom of God is within us and among us. The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness.

Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating.

Israel does not listen

For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, butIsrael does not listen. It was not the Pharisee that helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian. For we are human first of all -- then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Or as the Jewish rabbi said: "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?" We do not accept the abduction of soldiers. But nor do we accept the deportation ofwhole populations or the abduction of legally elected parliamentarians and government ministers.

We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It isthe state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more; more water and more villages. To obtain this, there are those who want, withGod's assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have so many other countries, certain Israeli politicians have argued; we have only one. (what many other countries? i honestly don't know what he's talking about)

The USA or the world?

Or as the highest protector of the state of Israel puts it: "May God continue to bless America." A little child took note of that. She turned to her mother, saying: "Why does the President always end his speeches with 'God bless America'? Why not, 'God bless the world'?"

Then there was a Norwegian poet who let out this childlike sigh of the heart: "Why doth Humanity so slowly progress?" It was he that wrote so beautifully of the Jew and the Jewess. But he rejected the notion of God's chosen people. He personally liked to call himself a Muhammedan.

Calm and

We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May thesurroundings stay calm and show them mercy. It is forever a crime withoutmitigation to lay hand on refugees and stateless people.

Peace and free passage for the evacuating civilian population no longerprotected by a state. Fire not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey! Let not one Israeli child be deprived of life. Far too many children and civilians have already been murdered.

source:http://www.boomantribune.com/

************************************************************************************


Before Attack, Confusion Over Clearance for Convoy
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: August 13, 2006

HASBAYA, Lebanon, Aug. 12 — The cars set off down the narrow mountain road a few hours before sunset. They were trying to leave villages the Israeli Army occupied two days before, moving with what they thought was permission to pass.

But then the missiles came. Shortly after nightfall, Israeli aircraft fired into the convoy, containing more than a thousand Lebanese villagers. The military said in a statement that it had received a request for the convoy to move, but had denied it. It said it had suspected that cars in the area contained Hezbollah guerrillas carrying weapons, and only later discovered that the cars were part of the refugee convoy.

Six people were killed and more than 30 were wounded, according to witnesses and Red Cross officials. Among the dead were a Lebanese soldier, a baker, a Red Cross worker and the wife of a mayor of one of the villages.

What followed was a scene of panic under a large yellow moon. Drivers switched off their headlights, afraid of being shot, and frantically began turning around on the narrow road, which runs between two mountains near the winemaking village of Kefraya. An ambulance worker driving with the convoy was killed trying to get to the wounded, and it was an hour before nearby emergency workers could get in to pick up the bodies.

"We saw the light and the sound of the bomb," said Ronitte Daher, a newspaper reporter from the village of Qlayah, who was traveling in the convoy with her sister. "I got out of the car and heard voices of people crying and shouting.

She did not know what to do, and switched off her lights. Someone shouted to get out of the car and run for cover. Other cars were driving in reverse. She turned her car around.

"When I was turning, I saw a dead body," she said. "I know that man. I saw his children crying and shouting, 'Please help us! Please help us!'"

Israeli planes have been striking Lebanese civilians since the beginning of the war, hitting a truckload of fleeing farmers, a Lebanese photographer and a village during a funeral. Even so, Friday's strike still came as a shock: the convoy was more than 500 cars long and included a town mayor, an entire Lebanese Army unit and its own ambulance.

The Israeli military said it had banned the movement of cars south of the Litani River, though the convoy was hit well north of it.

Crowding may have been part of the problem. The villagers had been waiting in Merj 'Uyun, a few miles south of here, since early Friday. Many had not been out of their houses since the Israelis came late last week, and they were desperate to leave.

Finally, around 4 p.m., they piled behind each other in a long bumper-to-bumper line and began moving out. The road was a mess, torn with large craters, and it took more than two hours to move several miles, according to the mayor of Merj 'Uyun , Fuad Hamra, who was in the convoy.

As soon as the cars were hit, all within about three minutes of one another, drivers farther back began hearing about it on their cellphones and many simply stopped in the dark. Some cars parked in areas that looked safe. Others, like Ms. Daher, drove to Jib Janine, a nearby town.
Shortly after the attack, clumps of cars were idling in two parking lots south of Jib Jenine. People stood outside in the bright moonlight.

Ms. Daher stayed in the home of a family she had never met. They gave her water.

"I saw some people," she said. "I asked it's safe here? They said, yes, come."

Ms. Daher, a reporter for Nahar Newspaper, one of Lebanon's main newspapers, said that she tried to take photographs of the soldiers from the window of her house on Thursday, but that soldiers shot at the house when they saw her.

"They asked people not to look out the windows," she said, speaking by telephone from Beirut, where she finally arrived Saturday afternoon.

She described a frozen town, in which Israeli soldiers and Lebanese civilians were terrified of one another.

"They are afraid of any movement in the houses, so we tried to keep calm," she said. Israelis, according to Mr. Hamra and other residents, had destroyed some houses in the villages they occupied late last week, and residents did not feel safe inside their homes.

Residents were similarly baffled about the convoy. The Israelis have warned several days ago that they would strike anyone driving south of the Litani River, and reiterated that warning the statement they released Saturday about the mistaken strike. But the convoy was hit far north of the river, after the convoy had passed out of active fighting.

"Something went wrong," Mr. Hamra said by telephone from Beirut. "We were promised that we would have the clearance from Israelis and the road would be cleared. Neither happened."

"Probably the clearance wasn't cleared enough." (a sense of humor yet!)************************************************************************************

Rally Near White House Protests Violence in Mideast
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: August 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 — Thousands of people rallied near the White House on Saturday to protest what they described as Israeli aggression in Lebanon and the United States' unwavering support for Israel.

Others rallied Saturday, including a San Francisco face-off over Israel.

The diverse crowd included many Arab-Americans and Muslims, college students and families, as well as veterans of prior demonstrations against the war in Iraq.

"We want to know why our tax money is going to support war crimes,'' said Mounzer Sleiman, vice chairman of the National Council of Arab-Americans, one of more than 15 speakers who addressed the protesters gathered in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, under a cloudless sky.

The crowd erupted periodically in chants, "Israel out of Lebanon now" and "Free, free Palestine.''

Dr. Khalil A. Katato of West Bloomfield, Mich., an oncologist who came to Washington by bus with his wife and five children, said, "We are protesting U.S. support of Israeli aggression on the Palestinian and Lebanese people.''

His wife, Daad Katato, said she made the trip to protest the war in Iraq, and to show sympathy for children killed or injured during Israel's military operations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The criticism of Israel at Saturday's rally contrasted with the sentiment in Congress, where support for Israel is overwhelming and bipartisan. By a vote of 410 to 8, the House last month expressed "strong support'' for Israel and condemned Hezbollah and Hamas for armed attacks on Israeli territory. The Senate approved a similar resolution by voice vote.

President Bush was at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., winding up a 10-day vacation. He was due back at the White House on Sunday.

At the rally on Saturday, the prevailing sentiments were expressed in signs held aloft by marchers: "Occupation is a crime — Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine." "Stop Israeli terrorism." "No justice, no peace.''

Brian Becker, national coordinator of a coalition called Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, a sponsor of the rally, asserted that President Bush had given Israel a green light to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon, then "sent cluster bombs to the Israeli Defense Forces to kill Lebanese children.'' Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of rockets armed with cluster munitions, which could be used to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, and a senior American official said this week that the request was likely to be approved.

Several speakers at the rally criticized Mr. Bush for mentioning the religious background of those arrested this week in a plot to blow up airplanes flying from Britain to the United States. Mr. Bush said the plot showed that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.''

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, said Mr. Bush owed Muslims an apology. "There is no Islamic fascism,'' Mr. Bray said. "There is no doctrine of fascism in Islam.''

Esam Omesh, president of the Muslim American Society, said, "We all stand united against the violence and the killing in the holy land.''

Ramsey Clark, the former attorney general, drew cheers when he said, "We have a solemn obligation to impeach President Bush.'' Mr. Clark, who has served on the defense team for Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, also advocated the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Two students from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. — Ali Khan, 28, a Pakistani-American, and his wife, Afnan Khan, 22, who was born in the United States to Iraqi parents — were less strident. They said they were protesting the death of civilians, especially Lebanese children.

"They are all innocent,'' Mr. Khan said.

************************************************************************************

WATCHING LEBANON
Washington's interests in Israel's war.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-08-21
Posted 2006-08-14

In the days after Hezbollah crossed from Lebanon into Israel, on July 12th, to kidnap two soldiers, triggering an Israeli air attack on Lebanon and a full-scale war, the Bush Administration seemed strangely passive. "It's a moment of clarification," President George W. Bush said at the G-8 summit, in St. Petersburg, on July 16th. "It's now become clear why we don't have peace in the Middle East." He described the relationship between Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria as one of the "root causes of instability," and subsequently said that it was up to those countries to end the crisis. Two days later, despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until "the conditions are conducive." (idiots - THIS is why there is no peace: because there is an illegal, illegitimate state that insists on violating the borders and rights of legitimate nations and their peoples with the support of superpowers' leaders who can't see further than the tip of their nose rather than accepting that it depends on the understanding and cooperation of those very nations to help it be what it is says it is aiming to be: a legal, welcome state that is at peace with its neighbours. and i didn't bold anything else because the whole article turned into one big bold mass.)

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

Israeli military and intelligence experts I spoke to emphasized that the country's immediate security issues were reason enough to confront Hezbollah, regardless of what the Bush Administration wanted. Shabtai Shavit, a national-security adviser to the Knesset who headed the Mossad, Israel's foreign-intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996, told me, "We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends. Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time. We had to address it."

Hezbollah is seen by Israelis as a profound threat—a terrorist organization, operating on their border, with a military arsenal that, with help from Iran and Syria, has grown stronger since the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ended, in 2000. Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said he does not believe that Israel is a "legal state." Israeli intelligence estimated at the outset of the air war that Hezbollah had roughly five hundred medium-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets and a few dozen long-range Zelzal rockets; the Zelzals, with a range of about two hundred kilometres, could reach Tel Aviv. (One rocket hit Haifa the day after the kidnappings.) It also has more than twelve thousand shorter-range rockets. Since the conflict began, more than three thousand of these have been fired at Israel.

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. "It's not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into," he said, "but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it."

The Middle East expert said that the Administration had several reasons for supporting the Israeli bombing campaign. Within the State Department, it was seen as a way to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah. He went on, "The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy."

Administration officials denied that they knew of Israel's plan for the air war. The White House did not respond to a detailed list of questions. In response to a separate request, a National Security Council spokesman said, "Prior to Hezbollah's attack on Israel, the Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack. Even after the July 12th attack, we did not know what the Israeli plans were." A Pentagon spokesman said, "The United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program," and denied the story, as did a State Department spokesman.

The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military coöperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force.

"The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully," the former senior intelligence official said. "Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It's not Congo—it's Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, 'Let's concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.' " The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.

"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House "has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preemptive blow against Hezbollah." He added, "It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it." (As this article went to press, the United Nations Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution, although it was unclear if it would change the situation on the ground.)

According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term—and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah "may be the A team of terrorists"—Israel's campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. "If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can't pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million," Armitage said. "The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers' kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah. "Hezbollah, like clockwork, was instigating something small every month or two," the U.S. government consultant with ties to Israel said. Two weeks earlier, in late June, members of Hamas, the Palestinian group, had tunnelled under the barrier separating southern Gaza from Israel and captured an Israeli soldier. Hamas also had lobbed a series of rockets at Israeli towns near the border with Gaza. In response, Israel had initiated an extensive bombing campaign and reoccupied parts of Gaza.

The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. "They've been sniping at each other," he said. "Either side could have pointed to some incident and said 'We have to go to war with these guys'—because they were already at war."

David Siegel, the spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said that the Israeli Air Force had not been seeking a reason to attack Hezbollah. "We did not plan the campaign. That decision was forced on us." There were ongoing alerts that Hezbollah "was pressing to go on the attack," Siegel said. "Hezbollah attacks every two or three months," but the kidnapping of the soldiers raised the stakes.

In interviews, several Israeli academics, journalists, and retired military and intelligence officers all made one point: they believed that the Israeli leadership, and not Washington, had decided that it would go to war with Hezbollah. Opinion polls showed that a broad spectrum of Israelis supported that choice. "The neocons in Washington may be happy, but Israel did not need to be pushed, because Israel has been wanting to get rid of Hezbollah," Yossi Melman, a journalist for the newspaper Ha'aretz, who has written several books about the Israeli intelligence community, said. "By provoking Israel, Hezbollah provided that opportunity."

"We were facing a dilemma," an Israeli official said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "had to decide whether to go for a local response, which we always do, or for a comprehensive response—to really take on Hezbollah once and for all." Olmert made his decision, the official said, only after a series of Israeli rescue efforts failed.

The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel told me, however, that, from Israel's perspective, the decision to take strong action had become inevitable weeks earlier, after the Israeli Army's signals intelligence group, known as Unit 8200, picked up bellicose intercepts in late spring and early summer, involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader now living in Damascus.

One intercept was of a meeting in late May of the Hamas political and military leadership, with Meshal participating by telephone. "Hamas believed the call from Damascus was scrambled, but Israel had broken the code," the consultant said. For almost a year before its victory in the Palestinian elections in January, Hamas had curtailed its terrorist activities. In the late May intercepted conversation, the consultant told me, the Hamas leadership said that "they got no benefit from it, and were losing standing among the Palestinian population." The conclusion, he said, was " 'Let's go back into the terror business and then try and wrestle concessions from the Israeli government.' " The consultant told me that the U.S. and Israel agreed that if the Hamas leadership did so, and if Nasrallah backed them up, there should be "a full-scale response." In the next several weeks, when Hamas began digging the tunnel into Israel, the consultant said, Unit 8200 "picked up signals intelligence involving Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, saying, in essence, that they wanted Hezbollah to 'warm up' the north." In one intercept, the consultant said, Nasrallah referred to Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz "as seeming to be weak," in comparison with the former Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who had extensive military experience, and said "he thought Israel would respond in a small-scale, local way, as they had in the past."

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear." The consultant added, "Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council." After that, "persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board," the consultant said.

The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon's infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon's large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign. The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week. (David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that Israel had targeted only sites connected to Hezbollah; the bombing of bridges and roads was meant to prevent the transport of weapons.)

The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was "the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran." (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)

Uzi Arad, who served for more than two decades in the Mossad, told me that to the best of his knowledge the contacts between the Israeli and U.S. governments were routine, and that, "in all my meetings and conversations with government officials, never once did I hear anyone refer to prior coördination with the United States." He was troubled by one issue—the speed with which the Olmert government went to war. "For the life of me, I've never seen a decision to go to war taken so speedily," he said. "We usually go through long analyses."

The key military planner was Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the I.D.F. chief of staff, who, during a career in the Israeli Air Force, worked on contingency planning for an air war with Iran. Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, and Peretz, a former labor leader, could not match his experience and expertise.

In the early discussions with American officials, I was told by the Middle East expert and the government consultant, the Israelis repeatedly pointed to the war in Kosovo as an example of what Israel would try to achieve. The NATO forces commanded by U.S. Army General Wesley Clark methodically bombed and strafed not only military targets but tunnels, bridges, and roads, in Kosovo and elsewhere in Serbia, for seventy-eight days before forcing Serbian forces to withdraw from Kosovo. " Israel studied the Kosovo war as its role model," the government consultant said. "The Israelis told Condi Rice, 'You did it in about seventy days, but we need half of that—thirty-five days.' "
There are, of course, vast differences between Lebanon and Kosovo. Clark, who retired from the military in 2000 and unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for the Presidency in 2004, took issue with the analogy: "If it's true that the Israeli campaign is based on the American approach in Kosovo, then it missed the point. Ours was to use force to obtain a diplomatic objective—it was not about killing people." Clark noted in a 2001 book, "Waging Modern War," that it was the threat of a possible ground invasion as well as the bombing that forced the Serbs to end the war. He told me, "In my experience, air campaigns have to be backed, ultimately, by the will and capability to finish the job on the ground."

Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, "Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I'm not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians." (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)

Cheney's office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams, a deputy national-security adviser, according to several former and current officials. (A spokesman for the N.S.C. denied that Abrams had done so.) They believed that Israel should move quickly in its air war against Hezbollah. A former intelligence officer said, "We told Israel, 'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.' "

Cheney's point, the former senior intelligence official said, was "What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it's really successful? It'd be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon."

The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely," he said. "It's an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.'s strictures, and if you complain about it you're out," he said. "Cheney had a strong hand in this."

The long-term Administration goal was to help set up a Sunni Arab coalition—including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. "But the thought behind that plan was that Israel would defeat Hezbollah, not lose to it," the consultant with close ties to Israel said. Some officials in Cheney's office and at the N.S.C. had become convinced, on the basis of private talks, that those nations would moderate their public criticism of Israel and blame Hezbollah for creating the crisis that led to war. Although they did so at first, they shifted their position in the wake of public protests in their countries about the Israeli bombing. The White House was clearly disappointed when, late last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, came to Washington and, at a meeting with Bush, called for the President to intervene immediately to end the war. The Washington Post reported that Washington had hoped to enlist moderate Arab states "in an effort to pressure Syria and Iran to rein in Hezbollah, but the Saudi move . . . seemed to cloud that initiative."

The surprising strength of Hezbollah's resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rockets into northern Israel in the face of the constant Israeli bombing, the Middle East expert told me, "is a massive setback for those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. And those who argue that the bombing will create internal dissent and revolt in Iran are also set back."
Nonetheless, some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the Administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should, the former senior intelligence official said. "There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," he said. "When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran."

In the White House, especially in the Vice-President's office, many officials believe that the military campaign against Hezbollah is working and should be carried forward. At the same time, the government consultant said, some policymakers in the Administration have concluded that the cost of the bombing to Lebanese society is too high. "They are telling Israel that it's time to wind down the attacks on infrastructure."

Similar divisions are emerging in Israel. David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that his country's leadership believed, as of early August, that the air war had been successful, and had destroyed more than seventy per cent of Hezbollah's medium- and long-range-missile launching capacity. "The problem is short-range missiles, without launchers, that can be shot from civilian areas and homes," Siegel told me. "The only way to resolve this is ground operations—which is why Israel would be forced to expand ground operations if the latest round of diplomacy doesn't work." Last week, however, there was evidence that the Israeli government was troubled by the progress of the war. In an unusual move, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, Halutz's deputy, was put in charge of the operation, supplanting Major General Udi Adam. The worry in Israel is that Nasrallah might escalate the crisis by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. "There is a big debate over how much damage Israel should inflict to prevent it," the consultant said. "If Nasrallah hits Tel Aviv, what should Israel do? Its goal is to deter more attacks by telling Nasrallah that it will destroy his country if he doesn't stop, and to remind the Arab world that Israel can set it back twenty years. We're no longer playing by the same rules."

A European intelligence officer told me, "The Israelis have been caught in a psychological trap. In earlier years, they had the belief that they could solve their problems with toughness. But now, with Islamic martyrdom, things have changed, and they need different answers. How do you scare people who love martyrdom?" The problem with trying to eliminate Hezbollah, the intelligence officer said, is the group's ties to the Shiite population in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut's southern suburbs, where it operates schools, hospitals, a radio station, and various charities.

A high-level American military planner told me, "We have a lot of vulnerability in the region, and we've talked about some of the effects of an Iranian or Hezbollah attack on the Saudi regime and on the oil infrastructure." There is special concern inside the Pentagon, he added, about the oil-producing nations north of the Strait of Hormuz. "We have to anticipate the unintended consequences," he told me. "Will we be able to absorb a barrel of oil at one hundred dollars? There is this almost comical thinking that you can do it all from the air, even when you're up against an irregular enemy with a dug-in capability. You're not going to be successful unless you have a ground presence, but the political leadership never considers the worst case. These guys only want to hear the best case."

There is evidence that the Iranians were expecting the war against Hezbollah. Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite Muslims and Iran, who is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and also teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, said, "Every negative American move against Hezbollah was seen by Iran as part of a larger campaign against it. And Iran began to prepare for the showdown by supplying more sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah—anti-ship and anti-tank missiles—and training its fighters in their use. And now Hezbollah is testing Iran's new weapons. Iran sees the Bush Administration as trying to marginalize its regional role, so it fomented trouble."

Nasr, an Iranian-American who recently published a study of the Sunni-Shiite divide, entitled "The Shia Revival," also said that the Iranian leadership believes that Washington's ultimate political goal is to get some international force to act as a buffer—to physically separate Syria and Lebanon in an effort to isolate and disarm Hezbollah, whose main supply route is through Syria. "Military action cannot bring about the desired political result," Nasr said. The popularity of Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a virulent critic of Israel, is greatest in his own country. If the U.S. were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Nasr said, "you may end up turning Ahmadinejad into another Nasrallah—the rock star of the Arab street."

Donald Rumsfeld, who is one of the Bush Administration's most outspoken, and powerful, officials, has said very little publicly about the crisis in Lebanon. His relative quiet, compared to his aggressive visibility in the run-up to the Iraq war, has prompted a debate in Washington about where he stands on the issue.

Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said that "there was a feeling that Rumsfeld was jaded in his approach to the Israeli war." He added, "Air power and the use of a few Special Forces had worked in Afghanistan, and he tried to do it again in Iraq. It was the same idea, but it didn't work. He thought that Hezbollah was too dug in and the Israeli attack plan would not work, and the last thing he wanted was another war on his shift that would put the American forces in Iraq in greater jeopardy."

A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. "He is angry and worried about his troops" in Iraq, the diplomat said. Rumsfeld served in the White House during the last year of the war in Vietnam, from which American troops withdrew in 1975, "and he did not want to see something like this having an impact in Iraq ." Rumsfeld's concern, the diplomat added, was that an expansion of the war into Iran could put the American troops in Iraq at greater risk of attacks by pro-Iranian Shiite militias.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war's implications for the American troops in Iraq. Asked whether the Administration was mindful of the war's impact on Iraq, he testified that, in his meetings with Bush and Condoleezza Rice, "there is a sensitivity to the desire to not have our country or our interests or our forces put at greater risk as a result of what's taking place between Israel and Hezbollah. . . . There are a variety of risks that we face in that region, and it's a difficult and delicate situation."

The Pentagon consultant dismissed talk of a split at the top of the Administration, however, and said simply, "Rummy is on the team. He'd love to see Hezbollah degraded, but he also is a voice for less bombing and more innovative Israeli ground operations." The former senior intelligence official similarly depicted Rumsfeld as being "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse."
There are also questions about the status of Condoleezza Rice. Her initial support for the Israeli air war against Hezbollah has reportedly been tempered by dismay at the effects of the attacks on Lebanon. The Pentagon consultant said that in early August she began privately "agitating" inside the Administration for permission to begin direct diplomatic talks with Syria—so far, without much success. Last week, the Times reported that Rice had directed an Embassy official in Damascus to meet with the Syrian foreign minister, though the meeting apparently yielded no results. The Times also reported that Rice viewed herself as "trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties" within the Administration. The article pointed to a divide between career diplomats in the State Department and "conservatives in the government," including Cheney and Abrams, "who were pushing for strong American support for Israel."

The Western diplomat told me his embassy believes that Abrams has emerged as a key policymaker on Iran, and on the current Hezbollah-Israeli crisis, and that Rice's role has been relatively diminished. Rice did not want to make her most recent diplomatic trip to the Middle East, the diplomat said. "She only wanted to go if she thought there was a real chance to get a ceasefire."

Bush's strongest supporter in Europe continues to be British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but many in Blair's own Foreign Office, as a former diplomat said, believe that he has "gone out on a particular limb on this"—especially by accepting Bush's refusal to seek an immediate and total ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. "Blair stands alone on this," the former diplomat said. "He knows he's a lame duck who's on the way out, but he buys it"—the Bush policy. "He drinks the White House Kool-Aid as much as anybody in Washington." The crisis will really start at the end of August, the diplomat added, "when the Iranians"—under a United Nations deadline to stop uranium enrichment—"will say no."Even those who continue to support Israel's war against Hezbollah agree that it is failing to achieve one of its main goals—to rally the Lebanese against Hezbollah. "Strategic bombing has been a failed military concept for ninety years, and yet air forces all over the world keep on doing it," John Arquilla, a defense analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me. Arquilla has been campaigning for more than a decade, with growing success, to change the way America fights terrorism. "The warfare of today is not mass on mass," he said. "You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network. Israel focussed on bombing against Hezbollah, and, when that did not work, it became more aggressive on the ground. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result."