Articles about Lebanon

EXCELLENT REPORT- 31 July- Hizballah: A Primer

2006-07-31T09:31:00.000-07:00

Hizballah: A Primer
Lara Deeb
July 31, 2006

(Lara Deeb, a cultural anthropologist, is assistant professor of women’s studies at the University of California-Irvine. She is author of An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi‘i Lebanon.)

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html

Hizballah, the Lebanese Shi‘i movement whose militia is fighting the Israeli army in south Lebanon, has been cast misleadingly in much media coverage of the ongoing war. Much more than a militia, the movement is also a political party that is a powerful actor in Lebanese politics and a provider of important social services. Not a creature of Iranian and Syrian sponsorship, Hizballah arose to battle Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon from 1982-2000 and, more broadly, to advocate for Lebanon’s historically disenfranchised Shi‘i Muslim community. While it has many political opponents in Lebanon, Hizballah is very much of Lebanon -- a fact that Israel’s military campaign is highlighting.

THE LEBANESE SHI‘A AND THE LEBANESE STATE

In Lebanon, the state-society relationship is “confessional” and government power and positions are allocated on the basis of religious background. There are 18 officially recognized ethno-confessional communities in the country today. The original allocations, determined in 1943 in an unwritten National Pact between Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims at the end of the French mandate, gave the most power to a Maronite Christian president and a Sunni Muslim prime minister, with the relatively powerless position of speaker of Parliament going to a Shi‘i Muslim. Other government positions and seats in Parliament were divided up using a 6:5 ratio of Christians to Muslims. These arrangements purportedly followed the population ratios in the 1932 census, the last census ever undertaken in the country.

This confessional system was stagnant, failing to take into consideration demographic changes. As the Shi‘i population grew at a rapid pace in comparison to other groups, the inflexibility of the system exacerbated Shi‘i under-representation in government. Meanwhile, sect became a means of gaining access to state resources, as the government shelled out money to establish sect-based welfare networks and institutions like schools and hospitals. Because the Shi‘a were under-represented in government, they could channel fewer resources to their community, contributing to disproportionate poverty among Shi‘i Lebanese. This effect was aggravated by the fact that Shi‘i seats in Parliament were usually filled by feudal landowners and other insulated elites.

Until the 1960s, most of the Shi‘i population in Lebanon lived in rural areas, mainly in the south and in the Bekaa Valley, where living conditions did not approach the standards of the rest of the nation. Following a modernization program that established road networks and introduced cash-crop policies in the countryside, many Shi‘i Muslims migrated to Beirut, settling in a ring of impoverished suburbs around the capital. The rapid urbanization that came with incorporation into the capitalist world economy further widened economic disparities within Lebanon.

ORIGINS

Initially, this growing urban population of mostly Shi‘i poor in Lebanon was not mobilized along sectarian lines. In the 1960s and early 1970s, they made up much of the rank and file of the Lebanese Communist Party and the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party. Later, in the 1970s, Sayyid Musa al-Sadr, a charismatic cleric who had studied in the Iraqi shrine city of Najaf, began to challenge the leftist parties for the loyalty of Shi‘i youth. Al-Sadr offered instead the “Movement of the Deprived,” dedicated to attaining political rights for the dispossessed within the Lebanese polity. A militia branch of this movement, Amal, was founded at the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975. Alongside al-Sadr, there were also other activist Lebanese Shi‘i religious leaders, most of whom had also studied in Najaf, who worked to establish grassroots social and religious networks in the Shi‘i neighborhoods of Beirut. Among them were Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, today one of the most respected “sources of emulation” among Shi‘i Muslims in Lebanon and beyond, and Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah. A “source of emulation” (marja‘ al-taqlid) is a religious scholar of such widely recognized erudition that individual Shi‘i Muslims seek and follow his advice on religious matters. Among the Shi‘a, the title of sayyid denotes a claim of descent from Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.

Between 1978 and 1982 a number of events propelled the nascent Shi‘i mobilization forward and further divorced it from the leftist parties: two Israeli invasions of Lebanon, the unexplained disappearance of Musa al-Sadr and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In 1978, while on a visit to Libya, al-Sadr mysteriously vanished, and his popularity surged thereafter. That same year, to push back PLO fighters then based in Lebanon, Israel invaded the south, displacing 250,000 people. The initial consequence of these two events was Amal’s revitalization, as Amal militiamen fought PLO guerrillas in south Lebanon. There were increasing Shi‘i perceptions that the Lebanese left had failed, both in securing greater rights for the poor and in protecting the south from the fighting between the PLO and Israel. The following year, the Islamic Revolution in Iran set a new sort of example for Shi‘i Muslims around the world, and provided an alternative worldview to Western liberal capitalism different from that espoused by the left.

The final, and doubtless the most important, ingredient in this cauldron of events was the second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. This time Israeli troops, aiming to expel the PLO from Lebanon entirely, marched north and laid siege to West Beirut. Tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed and injured during the invasion, and another 450,000 people were displaced. Between September 16-18, 1982, under the protection and direction of the Israeli military and then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, a Lebanese Phalangist militia unit entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, and raped, killed and maimed thousands of civilian refugees. Approximately one quarter of those refugees were Shi‘i Lebanese who had fled the violence in the south. The importance of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the formation of Hizballah cannot be underestimated.

Following the events of 1982, many prominent members of Amal left the party, which had become increasingly involved in patronage politics and detached from the larger struggles against poverty and Israeli occupation. In these years, a number of small, armed groups of young men organized under the banner of Islam emerged in the south, the Bekaa Valley and the suburbs of Beirut. These groups were dedicated to fighting the Israeli occupation troops, and also participated in the Lebanese civil war, which by this time had engaged over 15 militias and armies. Initial military training and equipment for the Shi‘i militias was provided by Iran. Over time, these groups coalesced into Hizballah, though the formal existence of the “Party of God” and its armed wing, the Islamic Resistance, were not announced until February 16, 1985, in an “Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World.”

STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP

Since 1985, Hizballah has developed a complex internal structure. In the 1980s, a religious council of prominent leaders called the majlis al-shura was formed. This seven-member council included branches for various aspects of the group’s functioning, including financial, judicial, social, political and military committees. There were also local regional councils in Beirut, the Bekaa and the south. Toward the end of the Lebanese civil war, as Hizballah began to enter Lebanese state politics, two other decision-making bodies were established, an executive council and a politburo.

Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah is often described as “the spiritual leader” of Hizballah. Both Fadlallah and the party have always denied that relationship, however, and in fact, for a time there was a rift between them over the nature of the Shi‘i Islamic institution of the marja‘iyya. The marja‘iyya refers to the practice and institution of following or emulating a marja‘ al-taqlid. Fadlallah believes that religious scholars should work through multiple institutions, and should not affiliate with a single political party or be involved in affairs of worldly government. In these beliefs, he is close to traditional Shi‘i jurisprudence, and distant from the concept of velayat-e faqih (rule of the clerics) promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran.

Hizballah and its majlis al-shura officially follow Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the successor to Khomeini as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but individual supporters or party members are free to choose which marja‘ to follow, and many emulate Fadlallah instead. The point is that political allegiance and religious emulation are two separate issues that may or may not overlap for any single person.

Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah is the current political leader of Hizballah. While he is also a religious scholar, and also studied at Najaf, he does not rank highly enough to be a marja‘ al-taqlid and instead is a religious follower of Khamenei. Nasrallah became Hizballah’s Secretary-General in 1992, after Israel assassinated his predecessor, Sayyid ‘Abbas al-Musawi, along with his wife and 5 year-old son. Nasrallah is widely viewed in Lebanon as a leader who “tells it like it is” -- even by those who disagree with the party’s ideology and actions. It was under his leadership that Hizballah committed itself to working within the state and began participating in elections, a decision that alienated some of the more revolution-oriented clerics in the leadership.

HIZBALLAH AND THE UNITED STATES

In the United States, Hizballah is generally associated with the 1983 bombings of the US embassy, the Marine barracks and the French-led multinational force headquarters in Beirut. The second bombing led directly to the US military’s departure from Lebanon. The movement is also cited by the State Department in connection with the kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon and the hostage crisis that led to the Iran-contra affair, the 1985 hijacking of a TWA flight and bombings of the Israeli embassy and cultural center in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s. These associations are the stated reasons for the presence of Hizballah’s name on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. In 2002, then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage famously described Hizballah as the “A-Team of terrorists,” possessing a “global reach,” and suggested that “maybe al-Qaeda is actually the B-Team.” Hizballah’s involvement in these attacks remains a matter of contention, however. Even if their involvement is accepted, it is both inaccurate and unwise to dismiss Hizballah as “terrorists.”

There are several major reasons for this. First, Hizballah’s military activity has generally been committed to the goal of ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Since the May 2000 Israeli withdrawal, they have largely operated within tacit, but mutually understood “rules of the game” for ongoing, low-level border skirmishes with Israel that avoid civilian casualties. In addition, Hizballah has grown and changed significantly since its inception, and has developed into both a legitimate Lebanese political party and an umbrella organization for myriad social welfare institutions.

Another aspect of the US listing of Hizballah on the terrorist list is related to the group’s reputation as undertaking numerous “suicide attacks” or “martyrdom operations.” In fact, of the hundreds of military operations undertaken by the group during the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon, only 12 involved the intentional death of a Hizballah fighter. At least half of the “suicide attacks” against Israeli occupying forces in Lebanon were carried out by members of secular and leftist parties.

A third element in the US insistence on labeling Hizballah a terrorist group is related to the notion that Hizballah’s raison d’etre is the destruction of Israel, or “occupied Palestine,” as per the party’s rhetoric. This perspective is supported by the 1985 Open Letter, which includes statements such as, “Israel’s final departure from Lebanon is a prelude to its final obliteration from existence and the liberation of venerable Jerusalem from the talons of occupation.” One might question the feasibility of such a project, particularly given the great asymmetry in military might and destructive power that is now on display. The Hizballah rocket attacks of July 2006, which commenced after Israeli bombardment of Lebanon had begun, have thus far killed 19 civilians and damaged numerous buildings -- nothing like the devastation and death wrought by Israeli aircraft in Lebanon. There is also reason to question Hizballah’s intent, despite frequent repetition of the Open Letter rhetoric. Prior to May 2000, almost all of Hizballah’s military activity was focused on freeing Lebanese territory of Israeli occupation. The cross-border attacks from May 2000 to July 2006 were small operations with tactical aims (Israel did not even respond militarily to all of them).

Hizballah’s founding document also says: “We recognize no treaty with [Israel], no ceasefire and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.” This language was drafted at the time when the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had just given rise to the Hizballah militia. Augustus R. Norton, author of several books and articles on Hizballah, notes that, “While Hizballah’s enmity for Israel is not to be dismissed, the simple fact is that it has been tacitly negotiating with Israel for years.” Hizballah’s indirect talks with Israel in 1996 and 2004 and their stated willingness to arrange a prisoner exchange today all indicate realism on the part of party leadership.

RESISTANCE, POLITICS AND RULES OF THE GAME

In 1985, Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon, but continued to occupy the southern zone of the country, controlling approximately ten percent of Lebanon using both Israeli soldiers and a proxy Lebanese militia, the Southern Lebanese Army (SLA). Hizballah’s Islamic Resistance took the lead, though there were other contingents, in fighting that occupation. The party also worked to represent the interests of the Shi‘a in Lebanese politics.
The Lebanese civil war came to an end in 1990, after the signing of the Ta’if Agreement in 1989. The Ta’if Agreement reasserted a variation of the National Pact, allotting greater power to the prime minister and increasing the number of Muslim seats in government. Yet while the actual numerical strength of confessional groups in Lebanon is sharply contested, conservative estimates note that by the end of the civil war, Shi‘i Muslims made up at least one third of the population, making them the largest confessional community. Other estimates are much higher.

When the first post-war elections were held in Lebanon in 1992, many of the various militia groups (which had often grown out of political parties) reverted to their political party status and participated. Hizballah also chose to participate, declaring its intention to work within the existing Lebanese political system, while keeping its weapons to continue its guerrilla campaign against the Israeli occupation in the south, as allowed by the Ta’if accord. In that first election, the party won eight seats, giving them the largest single bloc in the 128-member parliament, and its allies won an additional four seats. From that point on, Hizballah developed a reputation -- even among those who disagree vehemently with their ideologies -- for being a “clean” and capable political party on both the national and local levels. This reputation is especially important in Lebanon, where government corruption is assumed, clientelism is the norm and political positions are often inherited. As a group, Lebanese parliamentarians are the wealthiest legislature in the world.

While the party’s parliamentary politics were generally respected, levels of national support for the activities of the Islamic Resistance in the south fluctuated over the years. Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians and infrastructure -- including the destruction of power plants in Beirut in 1996, 1999 and 2000 -- generally contributed to increases in national support for the Resistance. This was especially true after Israel bombed a UN bunker where civilians had taken refuge in Qana on April 18, 1996, killing 106 people.

The occupation of south Lebanon was costly for Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made withdrawal a campaign promise in 1999, and later announced that it would take place by July 2000. A month and a half before this deadline, after SLA desertions and the collapse of potential talks with Syria, Barak ordered a chaotic withdrawal from Lebanon, taking many by surprise. At 3 am on May 24, 2000, the last Israeli soldier stepped off Lebanese soil and locked the gate at the Fatima border crossing behind him. Many predicted that lawlessness, sectarian violence and chaos would fill the void left by the Israeli occupation forces and the SLA, which rapidly collapsed in Israel’s wake. Those predictions proved false as Hizballah maintained order in the border region.

Despite withdrawal, a territorial dispute continues over a 15-square mile border region called the Shebaa Farms that remains under Israeli occupation. Lebanon and Syria assert that the mountainside is Lebanese land, while Israel and the UN have declared it part of the Golan Heights and, therefore, Syrian territory (though occupied by Israel). Since 2000, Lebanon has also been awaiting the delivery from Israel of the map for the locations of over 300,000 landmines the Israeli army planted in south Lebanon. Unstated “rules of the game,” building on an agreement not to target civilians written after the Qana attack in 1996, have governed the Israeli-Lebanese border dispute since 2000. Hizballah attacks on Israeli army posts in the occupied Shebaa Farms, for example, would be answered by limited Israeli shelling of Hizballah outposts and sonic booms over Lebanon.

Both sides, on occasion, have broken the “rules of the game,” though UN observer reports of the numbers of border violations find that Israel has violated the Blue Line between the countries ten times more frequently than Hizballah has. Israeli forces have kidnapped Lebanese shepherds and fishermen. Hizballah abducted an Israeli businessman in Lebanon in October 2000, claiming that he was a spy. In January 2004, through German mediators, Hizballah and Israel concluded a deal whereby Israel released hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. At the last minute, Israeli officials defied the Supreme Court’s ruling and refused to hand over the last three Lebanese prisoners, including the longest-held detainee, Samir al-Qantar, who has been in jail for 27 years for killing three Israelis after infiltrating the border. At that time, Hizballah vowed to open new negotiations at some point in the future.

HIZBALLAH’S NATIONALISM

As noted, Hizballah officially follows Khamenei as the party’s marja‘, and has maintained a warm relationship with Iran dating to the 1980s, when Iran helped to train and arm the militia. Hizballah consults with Iranian leaders, and receives an indeterminate amount of economic aid. Iran has also continued military aid to the Islamic Resistance, including some of the rockets in the militia’s arsenal. This relationship does not, however, mean that Iran dictates Hizballah’s policies or decision-making, or can necessarily control the actions of the party. Meanwhile, Iranian efforts to infuse the Lebanese Shi‘a with a pan-Shi‘i identity centered on Iran have run up against the Arab identity and increasing Lebanese nationalism of Hizballah itself.

A similar conclusion can be reached about Syria, often viewed as so close to Hizballah that the party’s militia is dubbed Syria’s “Lebanese card” in its efforts to regain the Golan Heights from Israel. While the party keeps good relations with the Syrian government, Syria does not control or dictate Hizballah decisions or actions. Party decisions are made independently, in accordance with Hizballah’s view of Lebanon’s interests and the party’s own interests within Lebanese politics. After the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in February 2005, and the subsequent Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, Hizballah’s position was often inaccurately described as “pro-Syrian.” In fact, the party’s rhetoric was carefully chosen not to oppose Syrian withdrawal, but to recast it as a withdrawal that would not sever all ties with Lebanon, and that would take place under an umbrella of “gratitude.”

There is no doubt that Hizballah is a nationalist party. Its view of nationalism differs from that of many Lebanese, especially from the Phoenician-origins nationalism espoused by the Maronite Christian right, and from the neo-liberal, US-backed nationalism of Hariri’s party. Hizballah offers a nationalism that views Lebanon as an Arab state that cannot distance itself from causes like the Palestine question. Its political ideology maintains an Islamic outlook. The 1985 Open Letter notes the party’s desire to establish an Islamic state, but only through the will of the people. “We don’t want Islam to reign in Lebanon by force,” the letter reads. The party’s decision to participate in elections in 1992 underscored its commitment to working through the existing structure of the Lebanese state, and also shifted the party’s focus from a pan-Islamic resistance to Israel toward internal Lebanese politics. Furthermore, since 1992, Hizballah leaders have frequently acknowledged the contingencies of Lebanon’s multi-confessional society and the importance of sectarian coexistence and pluralism within the country. It should also be noted that many of Hizballah’s constituents do not want to live in an Islamic state; rather, they want the party to represent their interests within a pluralist Lebanon.

The nationalist outlook of the party has grown throughout Hizballah’s transition from resistance militia to political party and more. After the Syrian withdrawal, it became evident that the party would play a larger role in the Lebanese government. Indeed, in the 2005 elections, Hizballah increased their parliamentary seats to 14, in a voting bloc with other parties that took 35. Also in 2005, for the first time, the party chose to participate in the cabinet, and currently holds the Ministry of Energy.

Hizballah does not regard its participation in government as contradicting its maintenance of a non-state militia. In fact, the first item on Hizballah’s 2005 electoral platform pledged to “safeguard Lebanon’s independence and protect it from the Israeli menace by safeguarding the Resistance, Hizballah’s military wing and its weapons, in order to achieve total liberation of Lebanese occupied land.” This stance places the party at odds with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which called for the “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” in September 2004, and with those political forces in Lebanon that seek to implement the resolution. Prior to the July events, Nasrallah and other party leaders attended a series of “national dialogue” meetings aimed at setting the terms for Hizballah’s disarmament. The dialogue had not come to any conclusions by the beginning of the current violence, in part because of Hizballah’s insistence that its arms were still needed to defend Lebanon.
But the party has a social platform as well, and views itself as representing not only Shi‘i Lebanese, but also the poor more generally. The Amal militia formed by Sayyid Musa al-Sadr developed into a political party as well, and has been Hizballah’s main political rival among Shi‘i Lebanese, though they are now working in tandem. The longtime speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, Amal’s leader, is the intermediary between Hizballah and diplomats inquiring about ceasefire terms and a prisoner exchange. The party also plays the usual political game in Lebanon, where candidates run on multi-confessional district slates rather than as individuals, and it allies (however temporarily) with politicians who do not back its program. In the 2005 parliamentary contests, the Sunni on Hizballah’s slate in Sidon was Bahiyya al-Hariri, sister of the assassinated ex-premier. Since the elections, the strongest ally of the Shi‘i movement has been the former general, Michel Aoun, the quintessentially “anti-Syrian” figure in Lebanese politics. Aoun’s movement, along with Hizballah, was an important component of enormous demonstrations on May 10 in Beirut against the government’s privatization plans, which would cost jobs in Lebanon’s public sector.

SOCIAL WELFARE

Among the consequences of the Lebanese civil war were economic stagnation, government corruption and a widening gap between the ever shrinking middle class and the ever expanding ranks of the poor. Shi‘i areas of Beirut also had to cope with massive displacement from the south and the Bekaa. In this economic climate, sectarian clientelism became a necessary survival tool.

A Shi‘i Muslim social welfare network developed in the 1970s and 1980s, with key actors including al-Sadr, Fadlallah and Hizballah. Today, Hizballah functions as an umbrella organization under which many social welfare institutions are run. Some of these institutions provide monthly support and supplemental nutritional, educational, housing and health assistance for the poor; others focus on supporting orphans; still others are devoted to reconstruction of war-damaged areas. There are also Hizballah-affiliated schools, clinics and low-cost hospitals, including a school for children with Down’s syndrome.

These social welfare institutions are located around Lebanon and serve the local people regardless of sect, though they are concentrated in the mainly Shi‘i Muslim areas of the country. They are run almost entirely through volunteer labor, mostly that of women, and much of their funding stems from individual donations, orphan sponsorships and religious taxes. Shi‘i Muslims pay an annual tithe called the khums, one fifth of the income they do not need for their own family’s upkeep. Half of this tithe is given to the care of the marja‘ they recognize. Since 1995, when Khamenei appointed Nasrallah and another Hizballah leader as his religious deputies in Lebanon, the khums revenues of Lebanese Shi‘a who follow Khamenei have gone directly into Hizballah’s coffers. These Shi‘a also give their zakat, the alms required of all Muslims able to pay, to Hizballah’s vast network of social welfare institutions. Much of this financial support comes from Lebanese Shi‘a living abroad.

WHO SUPPORTS HIZBALLAH?

As one of Israel’s stated goals in the current war is the “removal” of Hizballah from the south, it is critical to note that the party has a broad base of support throughout the south and the country -- a base of support that is not necessarily dependent on sect. Being born to a Shi‘i Muslim family, or even being a practicing and pious Shi‘i Muslim, does not determine one’s political affiliation.

Nor does one’s socio-economic status. It is sometimes assumed that Hizballah is using its social organizations to bribe supporters, or that these organizations exist solely to prop up “terrorist activities.” These views both betray a simplistic view of the party. A more accurate reading would suggest that the party’s popularity is based in part on its dedication to the poor, but also on its political platforms and record in Lebanon, its Islamist ideologies, and its resistance to Israeli occupation and violations of Lebanese sovereignty.

Hizballah’s popularity is based on a combination of ideology, resistance and an approach to political-economic development. For some, Hizballah’s ideologies are viewed as providing a viable alternative to a US-supported government and its neo-liberal economic project in Lebanon and as an active opposition to the role of the US in the Middle East. Its constituents are not only the poor, but increasingly come from the middle classes and include many upwardly mobile, highly educated Lebanese. Many of its supporters are Shi‘i Muslim, but there are also many Lebanese of other religious backgrounds who support the party and/or the Islamic Resistance.

“Hizballah supporter” is itself a vague phrase. There are official members of the party and/or the Islamic Resistance; there are volunteers in party-affiliated social welfare organizations; there are those who voted for the party in the last election; there are those who support the Resistance in the current conflict, whether or not they agree with its ideology. To claim ridding south Lebanon of Hizballah as a goal risks aiming for the complete depopulation of the south, tantamount to ethnic cleansing of the area.

In terms of the current conflict, while Lebanese public opinion seems to be divided as to whether blame should be placed on Hizballah or Israel for the devastation befalling the country, this division does not necessarily fall along sectarian lines. More importantly, there are many Lebanese who disagree with Hizballah’s Islamist ideologies or political platforms, and who believe that their July 12 operation was a mistake, but who are supportive of the Islamic Resistance and view Israel as their enemy. These are not mutually exclusive positions. One of the effects of the Israeli attacks on selected areas of Beirut has been to widen the class divides in the Lebanon, which may serve to further increase Hizballah’s popularity among those who already felt alienated from Hariri-style reconstruction and development.

THE CURRENT VIOLENCE

On July 12, 2006, Hizballah fighters attacked an Israeli army convoy and captured two soldiers. The party stated that they had captured these soldiers for use as bargaining chips in indirect negotiations for the release of the three Lebanese detained without due process and in defiance of the Supreme Court in Israel. As noted, there is precedent for such negotiations. The raid had been planned for months, and the party made at least one earlier attempt to capture soldiers. Nasrallah had stated earlier that 2006 would be the year when negotiations would take place for the release of the three remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. In a July 20 interview on al-Jazeera, he also stated that other leaders in Lebanon were aware of his intention to order a capture attempt, though not of the details of this particular operation.

After the capture of the soldiers, Israel unleashed an aerial assault on Lebanon’s cities and infrastructure on a scale unseen since the 1982 invasion. This attack was accompanied by a naval blockade, and more recently, a ground invasion. The ground invasion is being strongly opposed by Hizballah fighters along with fighters from other parties. Both the Lebanese Communist Party and Amal have announced the deaths of fighters in battle. At least 516 Lebanese have been killed, mostly civilians; the Lebanese government’s tally of the dead stands at 750 or more. A UN count says one third of the dead are children. In several cases, villagers who were warned by Israeli leaflets or automated telephone messages to leave their homes were killed when their vehicles were targeted shortly thereafter. On July 30, Israeli planes bombed a three-story house being used as a shelter in Qana, killing at least 57 civilians and reawakening memories of the 1996 Qana massacre. The Lebanese government estimates that 2,000 people have been wounded since July 12, while as many as 750,000 people have been displaced from their homes. Hizballah has responded, since early on in the Israeli bombing campaign, by firing hundreds of rockets into Israel, killing 19 civilians thus far. An additional 33 Israeli soldiers have been killed in combat.

In Lebanon, entire villages in the south have been flattened, as have whole neighborhoods in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Runways and fuel tanks at Beirut International Airport, roads, ports, power plants, bridges, gas stations, TV transmitters, cell phone towers, a dairy and other factories, and wheat silos have been targeted and destroyed, as well as trucks carrying medical supplies, ambulances, and minivans full of civilians. The UN is warning of a humanitarian crisis, and has indicated that war crimes investigations are in order for the targeting of civilians in both Lebanon and Israel. Human Rights Watch has documented Israel’s use of artillery-fired cluster munitions, which it believes “may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law” because the “bomblets” spread widely and often fail to explode on impact, in effect becoming land mines. Eyewitnesses in Beirut report that the pattern of destruction in hard-hit neighborhoods resembles that caused by thermobaric weapons, or “vacuum bombs,” whose blast effects are innately indiscriminate. Lebanese doctors receiving dead and wounded have alleged that Israeli bombs contain white phosphorus, a substance that, if used in offensive operations, is considered an illegal chemical weapon.

Israel’s initially stated goal of securing the release of the two captured soldiers has faded from Israeli discourse and given way to two additional stated goals: the disarmament or at least “degrading” of Hizballah’s militia, as well as its removal from south Lebanon. According to an article in the July 21 San Francisco Chronicle, “a senior Israeli army officer” had presented plans for an offensive with these goals to US and other diplomats over a year before Hizballah’s capture of the two soldiers. Though Israel is not in compliance with several UN resolutions, the Israeli army appears to be attempting singlehandedly -- though with US approval -- to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

It is unclear how the aerial bombardment of infrastructure and the killing of Lebanese civilians can lead to any of these goals, especially as support for Hizballah and the Islamic Resistance appears to be increasing. Outrage at Israel’s actions trumps ideological disagreement with Hizballah for many Lebanese at this point, and as such, it is likely that support for the party will continue to grow.

30 July- Ha'aretz- Days of Darkness

2006-07-31T06:34:00.000-07:00

Days of Darkness
By Gideon Levy
Ha’aretz
30 July 2006

In war as in war: Israel is sinking into a strident, nationalistic atmosphere and darkness is beginning to cover everything. The brakes we still had are eroding, the insensitivity and blindness that characterized Israeli society in recent years is intensifying. The home front is cut in half: the north suffers and the center is serene. But both have been taken over by tones of jingoism, ruthlessness and vengeance, and the voices of extremism that previously characterized the camp's margins are now expressing its heart. The left has once again lost its way, wrapped in silence or "admitting mistakes." Israel is exposing a unified, nationalistic face. The devastation we are sowing in Lebanon doesn't touch anyone here and most of it is not even shown to Israelis. Those who want to know what Tyre looks like now have to turn to foreign channels - the BBC reporter brings chilling images from there, the likes of which won't be seen here. How can one not be shocked by the suffering of the other, at our hands, even when our north suffers? The death we are sowing at the same time, right now in Gaza, with close to 120 dead since the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, 27 last Wednesday alone, touches us even less. The hospitals in Gaza are full of burned children, but who cares? The darkness of the war in the north covers them, too. Since we've grown accustomed to thinking collective punishment a legitimate weapon, it is no wonder no debate has sparked here over the cruel punishment of Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. If it was okay in Nablus, why not Beirut? The only criticism being heard about this war is over tactics. Everyone is a general now and they are mostly pushing the IDF to deepen its activities. Commentators, ex-generals and politicians compete at raising the stakes with extreme proposals.

Haim Ramon "doesn't understand" why there is still electricity in Baalbek; Eli Yishai proposes turning south Lebanon into a "sandbox"; Yoav Limor, a Channel 1 military correspondent, proposes an exhibition of Hezbollah corpses and the next day to conduct a parade of prisoners in their underwear, "to strengthen the home front's morale." It's not difficult to guess what we would think about an Arab TV station whose commentators would say something like that, but another few casualties or failures by the IDF, and Limor's proposal will be implemented. Is there any better sign of how we have lost our senses and our humanity? Chauvinism and an appetite for vengeance are raising their heads. If two weeks ago only lunatics such as Safed Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu spoke about "wiping out every village where a Katyusha is fired," now a senior officer in the IDF speaks that way in Yedioth Aharonoth's main headlines. Lebanese villages may not have been wiped out yet, but we have long since wiped out our own red lines.
A bereaved father, Haim Avraham, whose son was kidnapped and killed by Hezbollah in October 2000, fires an artillery shell into Lebanon for the reporters. It's vengeance for his son. His image, embracing the decorated artillery shell is one of the most disgraceful images of this war. And it's only the first. A group of young girls also have their picture taken decorating IDF shells with slogans. Maariv, which has turned into the Fox News of Israel, fills its pages with chauvinist slogans reminiscent of particularly inferior propaganda machines, such as "Israel is strong" - which is indicative of weakness, actually - while a TV commentator calls for the bombing of a TV station. Lebanon, which has never fought Israel and has 40 daily newspapers, 42 colleges and universities and hundreds of different banks, is being destroyed by our planes and cannon and nobody is taking into account the amount of hatred we are sowing. In international public opinion, Israel has been turned into a monster, and that still hasn't been calculated into the debit column of this war. Israel is badly stained, a moral stain that can't be easily and quickly removed. And only we don't want to see it. The people want victory, and nobody knows what that is and what its price will be. The Zionist left has also been made irrelevant. As in every difficult test in the past - the two intifadas for example - this time too the left has failed just when its voice was so necessary as a counterweight to the stridency of the beating tom-toms of war. Why have a left if at every real test it joins the national chorus? Peace Now stands silently, so does Meretz, except for brave Zehava Gal-On. A few days of a war of choice and already Yehoshua Sobol is admitting he was wrong all along. Peace Now is suddenly an "infantile slogan" for him. His colleagues are silent and their silence is no less resounding. Only the extreme left makes its voice heard, but it is a voice nobody listens to. Long before this war is decided, it can already be stated that its spiraling cost will include the moral blackout that is surrounding and covering us all, threatening our existence and image no less than Hezbollah's Katyushas.

31 July- The Guardian- They found them huddled together- More than 60 people, including 34 children, killed by Israeli attack on home

2006-07-31T05:27:00.000-07:00

'They found them huddled together' More than 60 people, including 34 children, killed by Israeli attack on home where families were sheltering

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, Jonathan Steele and Clancy Chassay in Qana; Rory McCarthy at the Israel-Lebanon border; Wendell Steavenson in Beirut and Julian Borger in Washington
Monday July 31, 2006

It was an unremarkable three-storey building on the edge of town. But for two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, it was a last refuge. They could not afford the extortionate taxi fares to Tyre and hoped that if they all crouched together on the ground floor they would be safe.
They were wrong. At about one in the morning, as some of the men were making late night tea, an Israeli bomb smashed into the house. Witnesses describe two explosions a few minutes apart, with survivors desperately moving from one side of the building to the other before being hit by the second blast. By last night, more than 60 bodies had been pulled from the rubble, said Lebanese authorities, 34 of them children. There were eight known survivors.
As yet another body was removed from the wreckage yesterday morning, Naim Raqa, the head of the civil defence team searching the ruins, hung his head in grief: "When they found them, they were all huddled together at the back of the room ... Poor things, they thought the walls would protect them."
The bombing, the bloodiest incident in Israel's 18-day campaign against Hizbullah, drew condemnation from around the world. Late last night Israel announced a suspension of aerial activities in southern Lebanon for 48 hours and said it would coordinate with the UN to allow a 24-hour window for residents in southern Lebanon to leave the area if they wished.
The bombing sparked furious protests outside the UN headquarters in Beirut. Lebanon's prime minister, Fouad Siniora, accused Israel of committing "war crimes" and called off a planned meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Israel apologised for the loss of life but said it had been responding to rockets fired from the village.
Muhammad Qassim Shalhoub, a slim 38-year-old construction worker, emerged with a broken hand and minor injuries, but lost his wife, five children and 45 members of his extended family. "Around one o'clock we heard a big explosion," he said. "I don't remember anything after that, but when I opened my eyes I was lying on the floor and my head had hit the wall. There was silence. I didn't hear anything for a while, but then heard screams."
"I said: 'Allahu Akbar [God is most great]. Don't be scared. I will come.' There was blood on my face. I wiped it and looked for my son but couldn't find him. I took three children out - my four-year-old nephew, a girl and her sister. I went outside and screamed for help and three men came and went back inside. There was shelling everywhere. We heard the planes. I was so exhausted I could not go back inside again."
Ibrahim Shalhoub described how he and his cousin had set out to get help after the bombs hit. "It was dark and there was so much smoke. Nobody could do anything till dawn," he said, his eyes still darting around nervously. "I couldn't stop crying, we couldn't help them."
Said Rabab Yousif had her son on her knee when the bomb fell. "I couldn't see anything for 10 minutes and then I saw my son sitting in my lap and covered with rubble," she recalled. "I removed the dirt and the stones I freed him and handed him to the people who were inside rescuing us.
"I then started freeing myself, my hands were free, and then went with two men to rescue my husband. We pulled him from the rubble. I tried to find Zainab, my little daughter, but it was too dark and she was covered deep in rubble I was too scared that they might bomb us again so I just left her and ran outside." She was in hospital with her son and husband, who was paralysed and in a coma. There was no news of her daughter.
Rescue workers were pulling bodies from the rubble all morning. They came across the smallest corpses last, many intact but with lungs crushed by the blast wave of the bombing.
"God is great," a policeman muttered as the body of a young boy no older than 10 was carried away on a stretcher. The boy lay on his side, as if asleep, but for the fine dust that coated his body and the blood around his nose and ears.
The house stood at the top of a hillside on the very edge of Qana and its disembowelled remains had spilled down the slope. Bodies were lined up on the ground - a baby, two young girls and two women. The rigid corpse of a young man lay nearby, his arm rising vertically from beneath a blanket, his index finger pointing up to the sky.
"Where are the stretchers, where are the stretchers?" a rescue worker cried as Israeli warplanes roared overhead. Sami Yazbuk, the head of the Red Cross in Tyre said they got the call at 7am, but had to take a detour to Qana because of shelling on the road.
In a nearby ambulance the smallest victims were stacked one on top of the other to make space for the many to come. A boy and girl, both no more than four years old had been placed head to toe. They were still wearing pyjamas.
Family photos - one showing two young children - were scattered in the debris. Mohsen Hachem stared at the images. "They had to have known there were children in that house," he said. "The drones are always overhead, and those children - there were more than 30 - would play outside all day."
Anger at the attack erupted in Beirut, where windows in the UN building were smashed and its lobby invaded by demonstrators furious at the rising Lebanese death toll. After extensive coverage on Lebanese TV of corpses being taken from the remains of the building, thousands turned out in the city's main open square to vent their fury. Likewise, in Gaza crowds clashed with Palestinian police after smashing into a Unesco building.
Over the border, Israeli leaders expressed sorrow for the civilian deaths, but the military said that Qana had been targeted because Hizbullah had been using it as a base from which to launch rockets. "There was firing coming from there before the air strike. We didn't know there were civilians in the basement of that building," one Israeli defence force spokesman said. He added that rockets had been fired from Qana "in the last few hours" before the air strike.
The strike that destroyed the building was a precision-guided bomb dropped from the air, the same kind of bomb that destroyed a UN position in Khiyam last week, killing four UN observers. Writing on an olive green fragment of the munition which appeared to have caused the explosion read: GUIDED BOMB BSU 37/B.
"We don't know what the people were doing in the basement. It is possible they were being used as shields or being used cynically to further Hizbullah's propaganda purposes," the spokesman said. "We apologise. We couldn't be more sorry about the loss of civilian life."
More than 750 Lebanese, most of them civilians have been killed since Israel began its strikes in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers. A total of 51 Israelis, 18 of them civilians, have been killed.
For Qana, history has repeated itself. Ten years ago, more than a hundred civilians taking refuge in a UN compound there were killed by Israeli shelling.
At the site of the latest tragedy, a man broke down as another small body was brought out, followed quickly by another. The civil defence workers cradled the corpses before placing them delicately on the bright orange stretchers.
"He was the son of Abu Hachem," said a young man in the crowd outside the house. "They're Ali and Mohammed - they're brothers," a neighbour shouted.
At Tyre hospital, Dr Salman Zaynadeen said the casualties were the worst thing he and colleagues had ever faced. Twenty-two bodies were in a refrigerated lorry serving as the hospital's morgue, 12 of them children. "At least 20 more are expected. They range in age up to 75. They were crushed," he said.
Five dead boys lay in the yard outside. Army staff photographed them for identification purposes.
The youngest, Abbas Mahmoud Hashem, lay on his back with his head turned and his right leg drawn up. A dummy hung on a blue plastic chain round his neck; concrete dust covered his face and hair. He looked about 18 months old.
On a hospital bed, a 13-year-old survivor, Nour Hashem, lay fiddling with her bed sheet, her eyes welling with tears. She had been in the house where so many of her family had been killed but had miraculously escaped with only slight injuries.
"We were all sleeping in the same room, my friend, my sister and my cousin," she said, her voice still shuddering.
"I pulled the rubble off my mother and she took me to another house, then she went looking for my brothers and sisters. But my brothers and sisters didn't come and my mother didn't return."
Backstory
The small village of Qana, south-east of Tyre, was a symbol of Lebanon's tragedy before yesterday's air strike. Ten years ago, in remarkably similar circumstances, Israeli artillery shelled a UN compound there, killing more than 100 civilians . The bombardment was part of the Israeli operation codenamed Grapes of Wrath, aimed (then, as now) at punishing Hizbullah for cross-border attacks and dislodging it from the border.
Israel apologised and said it had been an accident caused by old maps and poor calculations. Backed by the US, Israel blamed mainly Hizbullah for using civilians as human shields. But a UN report noted many inconsistencies in the Israeli account and said it was "unlikely" the deaths were the result of technical errors.

31 July- New York Times- A Night of Death and Terror for Lebanese Villagers

2006-07-31T05:00:00.000-07:00

A Night of Death and Terror for Lebanese Villagers

By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: July 31, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31scene.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=ea7a24f06a208bd2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — The dead lay in strange shapes. Several had open mouths filled with dirt. Faces were puffy. A man’s arm was extended straight out from his body, his fingers spread. Two tiny children, a girl and boy, lay feet to head in the back of an ambulance, their skin like wax.
In the all-day scramble to retrieve the bodies from the remains of this one house — backhoes dug for hours at the site after an early-morning airstrike — tallies of the dead varied, from as many as 60 to 27, many of them children.
This was the single most lethal episode in the course of this sudden war. The survivors will remember it as the day their children died. For the village, it is a fresh pain in a wound cut more than 10 years ago, when an Israeli attack here killed more than 100 civilians. Many of them were children, too.
The Israeli government apologized for that airstrike, as it did for the one here on Sunday. It said that residents had been warned to leave and should have already been gone.
But leaving southern Lebanon now is dangerous. The two extended families staying in the house that the Israeli missile struck — the Shalhoubs and the Hashims — had discussed leaving several times over the past two weeks. But they were poor — most worked in tobacco or construction — and the families were big and many of their members weak, with a 95-year-old, two relatives in wheelchairs and dozens of children. A taxi north, around $1,000, was unaffordable.
And then there was the risk of the road itself.
Dozens, including 21 refugees in the back of a pickup truck on July 15, have been killed by Israeli strikes while trying to evacuate. Missiles hit two Red Cross ambulances last weekend, wounding six people and punching a circle in the center of the cross on one’s roof. A rocket hit the ambulance convoy that responded in Qana on Sunday.
“We heard on the news they were bombing the Red Cross,” said Zaineb Shalhoub, a 22-year-old who survived the bombing. She was lying quietly in a hospital bed in Tyre.
“What can we do with all of our kids?” she asked. “There was just no way to go.”
They had moved to the house on the edge of a high ridge, which was dug into the earth. They thought it would be safer. The position helped muffle the sound of the bombs.
But its most valuable asset was water. The town, mostly abandoned, had not had power or running water in many days. A neighbor rigged a pumping system, and the Shalhoubs and Hashims ran a pipe from that house to theirs.
Life had taken on a strange, stunted quality. In a crawl-space basement area near the crushed house, five mattresses were on the floor. A Koran was open to a prayer. A school notebook was on a pillow. Each morning, the women made breakfast for the children. Ms. Shalhoub gave lessons. And they all hoped for rescue.
The first missile struck around 1 a.m., throwing Mohamed Shalhoub, one of the relatives who uses a wheelchair, into an open doorway. His five children, ages 12 to 2, were still inside the house, as was his wife, his mother and a 10-year-old nephew. He tried to get to them, but minutes later another missile hit. By morning, when the rescue workers arrived, all eight of his relatives were dead.
“I felt like I was turning around, and the earth was going up and I was going into the earth,” said Mr. Shalhoub, 38, staring blankly ahead in a hospital bed in Tyre.
Israeli military officials said the building did not collapse until the early morning, and that “munitions” stored in the house might have brought it down. But the house appeared to have been hit from above, and residents said the walls and ceiling came down around them immediately after the first bomb.
“My mouth was full of sand,” Ms. Shalhoub said. She said doctors had told her family that those who died had been suffocated and crushed to death.
“They died because of the sand and the bricks, that’s what they told us,” she said.
At least eight people in the house survived, and told of a long, terrifying night. Some remained buried until morning. Others crawled free. Ms. Shalhoub sat under a tree with Mohamed Shalhoub, without his wheelchair, and three others, listening to the planes flying overhead in the dark.
“You couldn’t see your finger in front of your face,” said Ghazi Aidibi, a neighbor.
Ms. Shalhoub said she tried to help a woman who was sobbing from under the wreckage, asking for her baby, but she could not find the child. A neighbor, Haidar Tafleh, said he heard screaming when he approached the debris, but that bombing kept him away.
“We tried to take them out, but the bombs wouldn’t let us,” Mr. Tafleh said.
The area took several more hits. A house very close to the Shalhoubs’ was crushed. A giant crater was gouged next to it. Residents said as many as eight buildings had been destroyed over two weeks.
Collapsed buildings have been a serious problem in southern Lebanon. Dozens of bodies are still stuck under the rubble. The mayor of Tyre, Abed al-Husseini, estimated that about 75 bodies were still buried under rubble in Slifa, a village on the border.
A grocer, Hassan Faraj, stood outside his shop, near a monument to those killed in the 1996 attack. He said that Hezbollah fighters had not come to Qana, but that residents supported them strongly. There was little evidence of fighters on Sunday, but Hezbollah flags and posters of Shiite leaders trimmed the streets. “They like the resistance here,” he said.
He cautioned people not to stand in the street in front of his shop, because that was where the ambulance convoy was hit in the morning.
At the Hakoumi Hospital in Tyre, Mr. Shalhoub sat in bed. His face was slack, stunned. His relatives poured him spicy coffee, and the room filled with its scent. The survivors spoke of their faith as a salve. The children, Mr. Shalhoub said, were in paradise now.
But 24-year-old Hala Shalhoub, whose two daughters, ages 1 and 5, were killed, was moaning and rocking slightly in her hospital bed.
“I want to see them,” she said slowly. “I want to hold them.”
A relative said, “Let her cry.”
Zaineb Shalhoub, in the next bed, rested quietly.
“There’s nobody left in our village,” she said. “Not a human or a stone.”

31 July- Ha'aretz- UN Security Council rejects Annan's call for immediate cease-fire

2006-07-31T04:55:00.000-07:00

UN Security Council rejects Annan's call for immediate cease-fire
By Haaretz Staff and Agencies
31 July 2006

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744360.html

UNITED NATIONS - The UN Security Council late on Sunday unanimously adopted a statement deploring Israel's deadly attack on the southern Lebanese village of Qana but rejected UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call for an immediate truce. The policy statement, read at a public meeting, expressed "extreme shock and distress" at the air strike by the Israel Air Force that killed at least 60 people and asked Annan to report within a week "on the circumstances of this tragic incident." It stressed "the urgency of securing a lasting, permanent and sustainable cease-fire" and affirmed the council's determination to work "without any further delay" to adopt a resolution "for a lasting settlement of the crisis."

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said he opposed calling for a truce, as requested by Annan in an impassioned plea to an emergency council meeting he called after the strike on Qana, the deadliest single attack of Israel's 19-day-old war against Hezbollah militants. "We don't think that simply returning to business as usual is a way to bring about a lasting solution," Bolton said. "Rather than jump to conclusions about ceases-fires and other matters, we felt it was important to let that play out and to do what was important today, which was address the tragic loss of civilian life," Bolton told reporters. Council statements need the consent of all 15 members. The council did not mention a U.S. announcement that Israel would stop aerial bombing for 48 hours, presumably because Israel had not confirmed it. Lebanon's Foreign Ministry official, Nouhad Mahmoud: told reporters, "We were looking for stronger action, stronger language, but we believe that the statement contained language which commits the council for further action." Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said even though the text could have been stronger "the end result is quite satisfactory." Earlier Annan, at a public meeting, urged the Security Council to condemn the attack and call for an immediate end to the violence. Without his intervention, the council probably would not have met on a Sunday. "I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded," Annan said. "I repeat this call once again from this chamber and I appeal to the council to do likewise." Annan said he wanted a cessation of hostilities - a limited truce to save lives while a cease-fire with detailed conditions is worked out. Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman said Qana was "a hub for Hezbollah" and said his country had "beseeched" residents to leave prior to Sunday's attack. "I am beseeching you not to play into their (Hezbollah's) hands, not to provide them with what they are seeking while sacrificing their own people as human shields and as victims," Gillerman said.

31 July- Daily Star- Global condemnation for latest Qana massacre- Nothing can justify deaths of innocents

2006-07-31T04:52:00.000-07:00

Global condemnation for latest Qana massacre 'Nothing can justify' deaths of innocents
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74369Compiled

by Daily Star staff Monday, July 31, 2006

An Israeli air strike on the Lebanese village of Qana that killed 60 people Sunday, including 37 children, drew a barrage of fierce condemnation from around the world. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa issued a stern statement to "strongly condemn Israel's ongoing barbaric attacks on Lebanon, the latest of which is the attack on the village of Qana."
Moussa called for "an international investigation into this massacre and other Israeli war crimes committed in Lebanon."
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the attack "irresponsible" and reiterated his call for an immediate cease-fire.
"Egypt is highly disturbed and condemns the irresponsible Israeli attack on the Lebanese village of Qana which led to the loss of innocent victims, most of whom were women and children," he said.
Egypt summoned Israel's ambassador to express its outrage, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Gheit, following his return from a brief trip to Damascus, summoned the Israeli ambassador to Cairo, Shalom Cohen, to inform him of Egypt's severe anger and complete condemnation of the Israeli strike on civilians in Lebanon," the statement said.
Jordan also condemned the raid, Israel's deadliest since it launched its offensive in Lebanon following the capture of two soldiers on July 12.
"This criminal aggression is a flagrant violation of international laws," said Jordan's King Abdullah II in a statement. "This is a horrible crime committed by the Israeli forces."
Iran blamed the bloody attack on the visit of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
"The result of Rice's trip is the Qana massacre," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Zionist regime officials, as well as some US statesmen, should be put on trial for the crimes they commit."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also condemned the attack and asked the United Nations to oversee an immediate cease-fire, top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told AFP.
"Abu Mazen [Abbas] has called the Lebanese president and prime minister and offered his deepest condolences [for] the victims of the crime that was committed by Israel ... which he condemned in the strongest possible terms," he said.
The United Arab Emirates joined the chorus of condemnations of the "ugly massacre."
"This crime ... provides new proof of Israel's systematic policy of using its destructive weapons to kill in an indiscriminate way and without consideration for international laws and conventions that protect civilians," said Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
European leaders reacted with equal disgust and horror.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called the Israeli strike "quite appaling" and a "tragedy" for the cease-fire negotiations.
"We have repeatedly urged Israel to act proportionately," she added, when asked if Britain saw the Qana attack or the bombing campaign as a "disproportionate" response.
EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner called for an "immediate cessation of violence."
"Israel's attack on the city of Qana means an escalation of violence that is unjustifiable at a time when the international community is jointly working to find a solution to the conflict," she said in a statement. "The killings of innocent people, particularly of children, must stop now."
The United States reiterated its support for Israel but urged the Jewish state to use restraint.
White House spokesman Blaine Rethmeier, asked by AFP for a response to the Israeli attack Sunday, said there was no change in position.
The United States "continues to urge Israel to use restraint," Rethmeier said in a telephone interview.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's representative, Geir Pedersen, said he was "deeply shocked and saddened by the killing of tens of Lebanese civilians, including many children in Qana, South Lebanon, and calls for immediate cease-fire and investigation," a statement said.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was dismayed by a deadly Israeli raid on the Southern Lebanese village, saying Sunday that "nothing can justify" the deaths of innocent civilians.
Pope Benedict XVI also appealed for an immediate end to the hostilities.
"In the name of God, I appeal to all those responsible for this spiral of violence, so that they immediately put down their arms on all sides," he told faithful at his summer residence on the outskirts of Rome. Pausing, slightly he stressed the word "immediately."
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steimneier expressed horror at the death of dozens of people in the Israeli strike, and urged both sides not to block diplomatic efforts.
Steimneier said he had repeatedly underlined to Israel "that every use of military force, also in the framework of self-defense, must be proportionate - in particular, victims among the civilian population absolutely must be avoided."
Swedish Foreign Minister and former UN General Assembly president Jan Eliasson condemned the "madness."
"There is strong reason to condemn the attack against the housing complex in Qana leading to the deaths of civilians including children," he told AFP. "It is time to end this madness. The UN Security Council must accept its responsibility and immediately adopt a resolution to bring an end to hostilities."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez accused Israel of "terrorism and pure fascism," while also blaming the US for endangering humanity. - Agencies

31 July- AFP- Residents flee as south Lebanon spared Israeli strikes

2006-07-31T04:44:00.000-07:00

Residents flee as south Lebanon spared Israeli strikes
31/07/2006 10h12
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060731092402.y00knfwp.html

TYRE, Lebanon (AFP) - Israel has spared the battered region of south Lebanon from air attacks for the first time in three weeks as exhausted residents streamed north after being trapped by the bombardments.

Israel agreed to suspend air raids for 48 hours following global outrage over the killing of 52 civilians in strikes on the village of Qana, giving civilians the chance to flee to safer havens and to get in urgently needed aid.

The region around southern port of Tyre, the target of blistering Israeli strikes over the 20 days of its offensive, was calm with no sign of strikes from the navy, artillery or the air.

An AFP correspondent travelling on the road out of Tyre saw three dozen villagers coming in towards the city in battered pick-ups, having finally escaped their besieged homes in the southern village of Jibbain.

"We were trapped for 20 days with no food and no water. We finally escaped as the Israelis let us go," said a delighted Hassan Mahmoud Akid, 65.

A huge convoy of 33 cars, covered in white drapes, was also seen on the road north towards Tyre crammed with exhausted inhabitants of Tair-Harfa in south Lebanon.

A statement for the UN force in Lebanon said that no incident from rocket firing or aerial bombardment had been reported in its area of operations in south Lebanon since 4:00 am (0100 GMT) Monday.

The temporary halt in air attacks was announced by an aide to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who left the Middle East on Monday saying she hoped for a ceasefire this week.

"Israel has agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity in south Lebanon" pending an investigation into the attack, spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters after late-night talks between Rice and top Israeli officials.

An Israeli army spokeswoman confirmed the announcement Monday.

"All air operations have been suspended across all of Lebanon, mainly to allow the population of the south to evacuate the region," she told AFP, adding however that Israel reserved the right to strike Hezbollah commandos preparing attacks.

Israeli artillery earlier bombarded villages in south Lebanon, including Jebbin and Kafra south of Tyre, as well as the regions of Arkoub and Rashaya Al-Fakhar in southeast Lebanon.
Police said there were also violent clashes between Hezbollah militants and Israeli fighters in the border region of Aadissiyeh in south Lebanon for control of a hill.

It was not clear if the clashes were part of the new incursion Israel staged on Sunday, when the army Israeli forces made a fresh push into southern Lebanon on, sparking intense firefights with Hezbollah around the village of of Taibe in the same region.

A civilian was killed Sunday evening in an Israeli air raid on the village of Deir Harfa, just before the 48 hour halt to the air strikes came into force.

And in an indication of Israeli determination to prevent Hezbollah being resupplied, Israeli air strikes also targeted areas near Lebanon's Masnaa border crossing with Syria for the second time in as many days, police said.

Israeli air raids targeted the same area overnight Saturday, closing off the main road to Damascus and wounding at least one person.

Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon warned that the temporary halt to air strikes in no way meant that Jewish state was ending its war against Hezbollah.

"The suspension of our aerial activities does not signify in any way the end to the war. On the contrary, this decision will allow us to win this war and lessen international pressure," Ramon told army radio.

28 July- The Independent- PM urged: Stand up to Bush and call for a ceasefire

2006-07-31T04:40:00.000-07:00

PM urged: Stand up to Bush and call for ceasefire

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
The Independent - UK
Published: 28 July 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1201307.ece

Israel's Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, added to the pressure yesterday, when he interpreted that indecision as a green light to continue the bloody assault on Lebanon.

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," he told reporters.

The Prime Minister's visit takes place as 42 leading figures in politics, diplomacy, academia and the media put their names to a declaration urging Mr Blair to tell the President that Britain "can no longer support the American position on the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle-East". Their declaration, printed on the front page of today's Independent, calls on the Prime Minister to "make urgent representations to Israel to end its disproportionate and counter-productive response to Hizbollah's aggression".

After his stop-over in Washington, Mr Blair will fly on to California tonight to attend a conference with the media magnate Rupert Murdoch. An ally of Mr Murdoch, Irwin Stelzer, insisted Mr Blair was not Mr Bush's "poodle", but his "guide dog", particularly over the Middle East.

Downing Street officials said Mr Blair intended to respond to world criticism by showing urgency in seeking an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah. The Prime Minister and the President are planning to commit their governments to a lasting ceasefire by restoring the authority of the elected government against the unilateral action by Hizbollah.

Their joint appearance at the White House is likely to be met with scepticism. The Bush administration said this week it was seeking a "new Middle East", raising fears that the crisis in Lebanon was a proxy war between the US and Iran, Hizbollah's backers.
Senior officials in Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported the US strategy on the Middle East, which was agreed at the Sea Island G8 summit in 2004. Mr Blair is credited with persuading the President to pursue a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Mr Blair and Mr Bush will emphasise they are working behind the scenes to push for an urgent end to the violence on both sides in the Lebanon.

"Don't in any way underestimate the intensive nature of the diplomacy," said one senior aide to the Prime Minister. "There is a lot going on behind the scenes. We want to show that we are stepping up the search for a process that allows both sides to end the hostilities and there is urgency about that."

Mr Blair's influence on the US President, as part of the "special relationship" with America, was ridiculed after Mr Bush was heard saying "Yo, Blair" to him at the G8 summit in St Petersburg. In the recorded conversation, Mr Bush refused to allow Mr Blair to mount a diplomatic mission to the Middle East, preferring instead to send his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
Both leaders know that their time in office is running out, and officials said they saw eye to eye on four out of five of the key items on the agenda at today's meeting - the "war against terror", the need to spread democracy in the Middle East, restoring stability to Iraq, and the need to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran. They are far apart on the collapse of the world trade talks, which is also on the agenda, but other tricky issues such as the controversy over the use of British airports for US arms shipments to Israel will be put to one side. "That is matter for Mrs Beckett [the Foreign Secretary]," said one No 10 source.

Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair has privately used influence on the Bush administration over the war in Lebanon, rather than calling publicly for a ceasefire that could not be enforced. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair decided to "roll his sleeves up" and work behind the scenes, rather than act as a commentator on the sidelines.
Sir Stephen Wall, one of the Prime Minister's most trusted former advisers, said Mr Blair's approach was wrong. "There have been times on trade issues when the PM should have told Bush to get his tanks off our lawn," Sir Stephen wrote in the New Statesman. "There are still times when, as well as working quietly with Congress on climate change, we should speak up about the irresponsibility of the White House.

"There are times, such as the past two weeks, when a British prime minister should have been thinking less about private influence and more about public advocacy."

Day 16
* 600 may have died in Lebanon, says its Health Minister. Israeli planes attack trucks carrying medical and food supplies.
* Israel calls up 30,000 reservists, but cabinet decides not to expand its incursion into Lebanon.
* Hizbollah fires 48 rockets into northern Israel, wounding four people.
* Hamas rejects comment from Palestinian President that release of Israeli hostage is "imminent".
* Iran's President says Israel has pushed a self-destruct button.
* Security Council expresses shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a UN post but no condemnation.
* Al-Qa'ida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri calls on Muslims to repel attacks on their countries.

27 July- Zaman- Belgian Jewish Leader: Israel Committing War Crimes

2006-07-31T04:39:00.001-07:00

Belgian Jewish Leader: Israel Committing War Crimes
By Selcuk Gultasli Thursday, July 27, 2006 zaman.com

Jewish associations have begun to react against the Israeli offensive into Lebanon. Head of the Union of Belgian Jewish Progressives (UPJB) Dr. Jacques Ravedovitch stated that Israel is committing war crimes in Lebanon.
In an interview with Zaman in Brussels, Ravedovitch said that while former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon committed indirect war crimes, current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is unquestionably a war criminal.
Dr. Ravedovitch said it is a shame that Jews who were once exposed to the holocaust are doing the same evil things against another nation today.
According to Ravedovitch, anti-Semitism is from time to time misused by Israeli statesman, and the recently intensified Israeli offensive into Lebanon has increased hatred for Israel.
The UPJB demands that both the EU and Belgium bring the Israeli attacks to an end.
UPJB, an active Jewish Association in Belgium, accuses Israel of committing war crimes despite the statements issued by the EU and US.
Some Jews still have dreams of a “Great Israel,” Ravedovitch noted, adding that the Israeli government is absolutely against negotiations and is acting aggressively to impose its own interests as a solution.
Seen as a traitor to the Diaspora cause, Ravdeovitch said: “Peace will not be secured without the return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders. Israel should stop destroying Lebanon. It should leave Eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians and accept that Jerusalem is the common capital; they should sit at the negotiation table for talks.”
Calling the Israeli attacks shameful, Ravedovitch said: “Resistance in Palestine and Lebanon is justified. Israel is an invader. I do not approve of Hamas killing innocent people, but I defend that if there are invaders there will be resistance at the same time. What Israel is doing in Lebanon is terror.”
Accusing the West, and particularly Europe, of fearing to criticize Israel, Ravedovitch said: “The EU keeps saying that they treat Israel and Palestine equally, but how can we behave equally towards both the invader and the invadee? We asked the EU to suspend the Partnership Agreement with Israel, but they didn’t answer.”
Ravedovitch said the EU’s attitude indicates Europe still feels guilty about the holocaust, but that Israel is exploiting anti-Semitism.
He pointed out that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different concepts.
“Anti-Zionism is a political stance. For instance, when a person criticizes Britain, he shouldn’t be called racist or anti- British. Similarly, when people criticize Israel, they do not become anti-Semites.”
The last point Ravedovitch compared the situation to the US’s failure in Vietnam, and suggested that it’s impossible for Israel to attain its objectives in Lebanon as the latest attacks into Lebanon only increased the hatred against Israel tenfold.

27 July- Zaman- Belgian Jewish Leader: Israel Committing War Crimes

2006-07-31T04:39:00.000-07:00

26 July- Newsweek- Let It Bleed- Leaders at the Rome summit on the Mideast are ignoring the real bottom line: Hizbullah is winning

2006-07-31T04:35:00.000-07:00

Let It Bleed
Leaders at the Rome summit on the Mideast are ignoring the real bottom line: Hizbullah is winning.

By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Updated: 3:57 p.m. ET July 26, 2006

July 26, 2006 - Worthy-sounding meetings of ministers, like the International Conference for Lebanon held in Rome today, rarely get very much done. The participants here were high-powered, to be sure: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the prime minister of the country in question, Fouad Siniora, plus a slew of Europeans and Arabs (but no Israelis or Hizbullahis). Instigated by Washington, it was all for show.

The assembled dignitaries expressed their “determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a ceasefire” in the war that started two weeks ago today when the Hizbullah militia crossed the border to capture two Israeli soldiers, and Israel responded with a massive counterattack the length and breadth of Lebanon.

But, at American insistence, the ceasefire would have to be one that’s “lasting, permanent and sustainable.” Which means the flames searing Lebanon, threatening Israel and endangering the most volatile region in the world will go on for weeks, if not months, to come. The consolation prize: a promise of “immediate humanitarian aid.”

Imagine, if you will, that arsonists have set your apartment block on fire. You call 911 and plead for help. The dispatcher tells you of her “determination to work immediately with the utmost urgency” to douse the flames, but only if plans can be agreed on for the new building to be erected when the decrepit old one has gone up in smoke. She’s stalling, hoping the arsonists will be eliminated by the conflagration. And she’s got a great vision for the way that block should look some day. That’s what counts. Not your furniture, or for that matter, your family inside …

No wonder Siniora looked distraught as the conference closed.

24 July- BBC News- Lebanon economy reels as attacks continue

2006-07-31T04:29:00.000-07:00

Lebanon economy reels as attacks continue
By Jorn Madslien
Business reporter, BBC News
24 July 2006

In just two weeks of sustained Israeli attacks, the Lebanese economy has been knocked so far back it may never fully recover.

Almost all the war-torn country's bridges and 80% of its major roads have been crushed. Airports and ports, telecoms sites and TV towers, schools and hospitals have been bombed.

"The effect on the economy is going to be very, very drastic," says BLC Bank's chairman, Shadi Karam.

The damage to the country's infrastructure so far amounts to more than $1bn (£540m), economists estimate.

Yet the total cost could be much larger.

Much of the $50bn that has been injected into the country during the last decade to rebuild it after the 1975-1989 civil war may have been wasted if the onslaught also brings about the collapse of Lebanon's still fragile democracy, along with any faith in the nation's new beginning.

Despair

Rebuilding the infrastructure will prove a huge task. Restoring the confidence of the international community could prove an even greater challenge.

Traders at the Beirut stock exchange, which has been closed for two weeks, are still talking tough, insisting that the market will pick up once the bombs stop falling.
Yet, hard on the heels of the thousands of fleeing tourists and expatriates, investors were among the first to depart.

Eye witnesses tell stories of how construction sites that until recently were abuzz with builders have gone quiet, their foreign backers loath to pay for the construction of office blocks or shopping centres that could soon go up in smoke.

Nobody now dares hope for a quick return to the early 1970s, when Lebanon was still a Middle Eastern banking and trading hub.

The tourism industry has also been paralysed.

Hoteliers' and tour operators' high hopes for the arrival of more than 1.6 million tourists this year have turned to despair.

A ceasefire overseen by UN peace keepers would not suffice to bring the tourists back; few would want to lie on beaches patrolled by blue berets.

No reforms

Economic growth of 6%, as seen recently, is no longer possible.

Optimists talk of 2%, perhaps 3% growth, though even such modest targets could be further downgraded if the current conflict continues.
With foreigners and investors fleeing and growth stalling, the government is set to lose out on $600m in earnings and the economy will suffer a $2bn hit, according to Lebanese economist Marwan Iskander.

This is not small fry, given that the country's gross domestic product in 2005 amounted to just less than $24bn.

"We are talking fairly enormous losses here," says Mr Iskander.
Consequently, Lebanon will find it increasingly hard to service its $35bn debts, and the government will probably have to shelve its plans for economic reform, which were supposed to include the privatisation of its power and telecoms sectors, tax rises and tighter government purse strings.

"Forget reforms for the moment," says Mr Karam of BLC Bank. "We will not be in the mood for a while, possibly not for a long time to come."

Donations needed

Until that day, anybody but the most gung-ho investors will look elsewhere in the world for returns.

Indeed, even the Lebanese government will find it harder to borrow money on the international financial markets, where renowned credit rating agencies have downgraded its outlook for Lebanon's ability to repay debts.

Giant cash injections from the international community remains Lebanon's only real hope of a relatively swift recovery.

"We will definitely need $3bn in assistance in the very short term in the nature of donations rather than loans," says Mr Iskander.

"Much depends on the speed with which reconstruction can proceed, which depends on the speed and size of assistance."

In the past, donor countries have actively used their contributions as levers to ensure economic reform is carried out, though such conditionality may not be practical now.

"I hope the mood in the donor countries, which was not to give Lebanon a penny unless it reforms, will tone down," says Mr Karam.

As is often the case in the world of economics, self-interest rather than altruistic arguments are most likely to win over the donors.

Growth in the global economy could slow dramatically as a direct consequence of the spike in oil prices, that has itself partly been caused by the regional crisis.

Last week, US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "the increase in energy prices is clearly making the economy worse off both in terms of real activity and in terms of inflation".

For the international community, bailing out Lebanon as part of efforts to calm the situation in the Middle East, could prove a more tempting option than allowing the situation to escalate and thus cause a lengthy, global economic downturn.

28 July- The Independent- PM urged: Stand up to Bush and call for ceasefire

2006-07-31T01:27:00.000-07:00

PM urged: Stand up to Bush and call for ceasefire
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
The Independent - UK
Published: 28 July 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1201307.ece

Tony Blair will face fresh pressure over the Middle East crisis today when he arrives in Washington to meet President George Bush. Senior Downing Street aides said the two leaders intended to show the world they were seeking an urgent end to the hostilities in Lebanon, despite the failure of the much vaunted Rome summit on Wednesday to deliver a unified call for a truce.
Israel's Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, added to the pressure yesterday, when he interpreted that indecision as a green light to continue the bloody assault on Lebanon.
"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," he told reporters.
The Prime Minister's visit takes place as 42 leading figures in politics, diplomacy, academia and the media put their names to a declaration urging Mr Blair to tell the President that Britain "can no longer support the American position on the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle-East". Their declaration, printed on the front page of today's Independent, calls on the Prime Minister to "make urgent representations to Israel to end its disproportionate and counter-productive response to Hizbollah's aggression".
After his stop-over in Washington, Mr Blair will fly on to California tonight to attend a conference with the media magnate Rupert Murdoch. An ally of Mr Murdoch, Irwin Stelzer, insisted Mr Blair was not Mr Bush's "poodle", but his "guide dog", particularly over the Middle East.
Downing Street officials said Mr Blair intended to respond to world criticism by showing urgency in seeking an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah. The Prime Minister and the President are planning to commit their governments to a lasting ceasefire by restoring the authority of the elected government against the unilateral action by Hizbollah.
Their joint appearance at the White House is likely to be met with scepticism. The Bush administration said this week it was seeking a "new Middle East", raising fears that the crisis in Lebanon was a proxy war between the US and Iran, Hizbollah's backers.
Senior officials in Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported the US strategy on the Middle East, which was agreed at the Sea Island G8 summit in 2004. Mr Blair is credited with persuading the President to pursue a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Mr Blair and Mr Bush will emphasise they are working behind the scenes to push for an urgent end to the violence on both sides in the Lebanon.
"Don't in any way underestimate the intensive nature of the diplomacy," said one senior aide to the Prime Minister. "There is a lot going on behind the scenes. We want to show that we are stepping up the search for a process that allows both sides to end the hostilities and there is urgency about that."
Mr Blair's influence on the US President, as part of the "special relationship" with America, was ridiculed after Mr Bush was heard saying "Yo, Blair" to him at the G8 summit in St Petersburg. In the recorded conversation, Mr Bush refused to allow Mr Blair to mount a diplomatic mission to the Middle East, preferring instead to send his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
Both leaders know that their time in office is running out, and officials said they saw eye to eye on four out of five of the key items on the agenda at today's meeting - the "war against terror", the need to spread democracy in the Middle East, restoring stability to Iraq, and the need to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran. They are far apart on the collapse of the world trade talks, which is also on the agenda, but other tricky issues such as the controversy over the use of British airports for US arms shipments to Israel will be put to one side. "That is matter for Mrs Beckett [the Foreign Secretary]," said one No 10 source.
Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair has privately used influence on the Bush administration over the war in Lebanon, rather than calling publicly for a ceasefire that could not be enforced. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair decided to "roll his sleeves up" and work behind the scenes, rather than act as a commentator on the sidelines.
Sir Stephen Wall, one of the Prime Minister's most trusted former advisers, said Mr Blair's approach was wrong. "There have been times on trade issues when the PM should have told Bush to get his tanks off our lawn," Sir Stephen wrote in the New Statesman. "There are still times when, as well as working quietly with Congress on climate change, we should speak up about the irresponsibility of the White House.
"There are times, such as the past two weeks, when a British prime minister should have been thinking less about private influence and more about public advocacy."
Day 16
* 600 may have died in Lebanon, says its Health Minister. Israeli planes attack trucks carrying medical and food supplies.
* Israel calls up 30,000 reservists, but cabinet decides not to expand its incursion into Lebanon.
* Hizbollah fires 48 rockets into northern Israel, wounding four people.
* Hamas rejects comment from Palestinian President that release of Israeli hostage is "imminent".
* Iran's President says Israel has pushed a self-destruct button.
* Security Council expresses shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a UN post but no condemnation.
* Al-Qa'ida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri calls on Muslims to repel attacks on their countries.
Tony Blair will face fresh pressure over the Middle East crisis today when he arrives in Washington to meet President George Bush. Senior Downing Street aides said the two leaders intended to show the world they were seeking an urgent end to the hostilities in Lebanon, despite the failure of the much vaunted Rome summit on Wednesday to deliver a unified call for a truce.
Israel's Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, added to the pressure yesterday, when he interpreted that indecision as a green light to continue the bloody assault on Lebanon.
"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," he told reporters.
The Prime Minister's visit takes place as 42 leading figures in politics, diplomacy, academia and the media put their names to a declaration urging Mr Blair to tell the President that Britain "can no longer support the American position on the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle-East". Their declaration, printed on the front page of today's Independent, calls on the Prime Minister to "make urgent representations to Israel to end its disproportionate and counter-productive response to Hizbollah's aggression".
After his stop-over in Washington, Mr Blair will fly on to California tonight to attend a conference with the media magnate Rupert Murdoch. An ally of Mr Murdoch, Irwin Stelzer, insisted Mr Blair was not Mr Bush's "poodle", but his "guide dog", particularly over the Middle East.
Downing Street officials said Mr Blair intended to respond to world criticism by showing urgency in seeking an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah. The Prime Minister and the President are planning to commit their governments to a lasting ceasefire by restoring the authority of the elected government against the unilateral action by Hizbollah.
Their joint appearance at the White House is likely to be met with scepticism. The Bush administration said this week it was seeking a "new Middle East", raising fears that the crisis in Lebanon was a proxy war between the US and Iran, Hizbollah's backers.
Senior officials in Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported the US strategy on the Middle East, which was agreed at the Sea Island G8 summit in 2004. Mr Blair is credited with persuading the President to pursue a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Mr Blair and Mr Bush will emphasise they are working behind the scenes to push for an urgent end to the violence on both sides in the Lebanon.
"Don't in any way underestimate the intensive nature of the diplomacy," said one senior aide to the Prime Minister. "There is a lot going on behind the scenes. We want to show that we are stepping up the search for a process that allows both sides to end the hostilities and there is urgency about that."
Mr Blair's influence on the US President, as part of the "special relationship" with America, was ridiculed after Mr Bush was heard saying "Yo, Blair" to him at the G8 summit in St Petersburg. In the recorded conversation, Mr Bush refused to allow Mr Blair to mount a diplomatic mission to the Middle East, preferring instead to send his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
Both leaders know that their time in office is running out, and officials said they saw eye to eye on four out of five of the key items on the agenda at today's meeting - the "war against terror", the need to spread democracy in the Middle East, restoring stability to Iraq, and the need to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran. They are far apart on the collapse of the world trade talks, which is also on the agenda, but other tricky issues such as the controversy over the use of British airports for US arms shipments to Israel will be put to one side. "That is matter for Mrs Beckett [the Foreign Secretary]," said one No 10 source.
Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair has privately used influence on the Bush administration over the war in Lebanon, rather than calling publicly for a ceasefire that could not be enforced. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair decided to "roll his sleeves up" and work behind the scenes, rather than act as a commentator on the sidelines.
Sir Stephen Wall, one of the Prime Minister's most trusted former advisers, said Mr Blair's approach was wrong. "There have been times on trade issues when the PM should have told Bush to get his tanks off our lawn," Sir Stephen wrote in the New Statesman. "There are still times when, as well as working quietly with Congress on climate change, we should speak up about the irresponsibility of the White House.
"There are times, such as the past two weeks, when a British prime minister should have been thinking less about private influence and more about public advocacy."
Day 16
* 600 may have died in Lebanon, says its Health Minister. Israeli planes attack trucks carrying medical and food supplies.
* Israel calls up 30,000 reservists, but cabinet decides not to expand its incursion into Lebanon.
* Hizbollah fires 48 rockets into northern Israel, wounding four people.
* Hamas rejects comment from Palestinian President that release of Israeli hostage is "imminent".
* Iran's President says Israel has pushed a self-destruct button.
* Security Council expresses shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a UN post but no condemnation.
* Al-Qa'ida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri calls on Muslims to repel attacks on their countries.

28 July- Reuters- Lebanese wounded turn cold shoulder on Jordan aid

2006-07-31T00:46:00.000-07:00

Lebanese wounded turn cold shoulder on Jordan aid

By Laila Bassam

Fri Jul 28, 11:57 AM ET

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-28T163736Z_01_L28658460_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-JORDAN.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-worldNews-13

Tent after green tent stands just off one of Beirut's fashionable shopping areas, part of a field hospital sent by Jordan to treat Lebanese wounded.

Jordanian soldiers sit idly in the shade nearby and a peek into one tent reveals the beds are empty.

Lebanese casualties are rejecting aid from Jordan in protest at what they view as its failure to press for an end to Israeli air strikes in the 17-day-old war against Hizbollah.

"They've been here three days and we have seen no casualties treated here," said a parking attendant near the field hospital in the Verdun area.

"They cannot give the green light for this strike against us and then show up to treat us. We don't want their sweetness or their bitterness."

Beirut airport opened for the first time since July 13 to allow in three Jordanian planes bringing the field hospital and meant to take out Lebanese wounded.

The planes returned empty, as have two other flights carrying humanitarian aid from the kingdom.

"I asked casualties to travel to Jordan for treatment but they refused either because they feel everything is available here or because they don't want to leave their country," Lebanese Health Minister Mohammed Khalife said.

"They said ... if the Arab countries want to do something, they should use their influence to stop the aggression against us.

"This was shocking to us -- even those who had lost their legs refused."

Up to 600 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon. At least 51 Israelis have also been killed by Hizbollah attacks since the war was sparked on July 12 when the guerrilla group captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

IMMEDIATE END
Arab countries have called for an immediate end to the hostilities and Jordan and Egypt, which both have peace treaties with Israel, have condemned the Israeli air raids.

But U.S.-allied Arab countries partially blame Hizbollah for the crisis and privately worry that Shi'ite Muslim Iran is fuelling the conflict with its support of the guerrilla group.

The humanitarian crisis is biting in southern Lebanon where many casualties still lie buried under the rubble.

The Jordanian field hospital cannot reach those areas without guarantees of safe passage through roads that have been severed by Israeli air raids and remain under fire.

Even if Jordanian aid did reach the south, it is not clear that the Lebanese there would accept it.

Some Lebanese say Arab condemnations of Israel have been half-hearted and naimed mostly at allaying domestic anger.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who heads the Shi'ite Muslim Amal movement nallied with Hizbollah, told Al-Jazeera Television of one of the wounded who declined a seat on a plane to Jordan.

"One woman with an amputated hand was invited to go to Jordan to fit a prosthetic limb and she said: 'My house is gone, my son and husband are gone, what do I need my hand for?'.

"The plane returned without a single casualty."

But U.S.-allied Arab countries partially blame Hizbollah for the crisis and privately worry that Shi'ite Muslim Iran is fuelling the conflict with its support of the guerrilla group.

The humanitarian crisis is biting in southern Lebanon where many casualties still lie buried under the rubble.

The Jordanian field hospital cannot reach those areas without guarantees of safe passage through roads that have been severed by Israeli air raids and remain under fire.

Even if Jordanian aid did reach the south, it is not clear that the Lebanese there would accept it.
Some Lebanese say Arab condemnations of Israel have been half-hearted and aimed mostly at allaying domestic anger.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who heads the Shi'ite Muslim Amal movement allied with Hizbollah, told Al-Jazeera Television of one of the wounded who declined a seat on a plane to Jordan.

"One woman with an amputated hand was invited to go to Jordan to fit a prosthetic limb and she said: 'My house is gone, my son and husband are gone, what do I need my hand for?'.
"The plane returned without a single casualty."

28 July- New York Times- Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah

2006-07-31T00:39:00.000-07:00

Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

07/28/06 "New York Times" -- -- DAMASCUS, Syria, July 27

— At the onset of the Lebanese crisis, Arab governments, starting with Saudi Arabia, slammed Hezbollah for recklessly provoking a war, providing what the United States and Israel took as a wink and a nod to continue the fight.

Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for 15 days, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements.

The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah’s main sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington.

An outpouring of newspaper columns, cartoons, blogs and public poetry readings have showered praise on Hezbollah while attacking the United States and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for trumpeting American plans for a “new Middle East” that they say has led only to violence and repression.

Even Al Qaeda, run by violent Sunni Muslim extremists normally hostile to all Shiites, has gotten into the act, with its deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, releasing a taped message saying that through its fighting in Iraq, his organization was also trying to liberate Palestine.

Mouin Rabbani, a senior Middle East analyst in Amman, Jordan, with the International Crisis Group, said, “The Arab-Israeli conflict remains the most potent issue in this part of the world.”

Distinctive changes in tone are audible throughout the Sunni world. This week, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt emphasized his attempts to arrange a cease-fire to protect all sects in Lebanon, while the Jordanian king announced that his country was dispatching medical teams “for the victims of Israeli aggression.” Both countries have peace treaties with Israel.

The Saudi royal court has issued a dire warning that its 2002 peace plan — offering Israel full recognition by all Arab states in exchange for returning to the borders that predated the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — could well perish.

“If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance,” it said, “then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire.”

The Saudis were putting the West on notice that they would not exert pressure on anyone in the Arab world until Washington did something to halt the destruction of Lebanon, Saudi commentators said.

American officials say that while the Arab leaders need to take a harder line publicly for domestic political reasons, what matters more is what they tell the United States in private, which the Americans still see as a wink and a nod.

There are evident concerns among Arab governments that a victory for Hezbollah — and it has already achieved something of a victory by holding out this long — would further nourish the Islamist tide engulfing the region and challenge their authority. Hence their first priority is to cool simmering public opinion.

But perhaps not since President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made his emotional outpourings about Arab unity in the 1960’s, before the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, has the public been so electrified by a confrontation with Israel, played out repeatedly on satellite television stations with horrific images from Lebanon of wounded children and distraught women fleeing their homes.

Egypt’s opposition press has had a field day comparing Sheik Nasrallah to Nasser, while demonstrators waved pictures of both.

An editorial in the weekly Al Dustur by Ibrahim Issa, who faces a lengthy jail sentence for his previous criticism of President Mubarak, compared current Arab leaders to the medieval princes who let the Crusaders chip away at Muslim lands until they controlled them all.

After attending an intellectual rally in Cairo for Lebanon, the Egyptian poet Ahmed Fouad Negm wrote a column describing how he had watched a companion buy 20 posters of Sheik Nasrallah.

“People are praying for him as they walk in the street, because we were made to feel oppressed, weak and handicapped,” Mr. Negm said in an interview. “I asked the man who sweeps the street under my building what he thought, and he said: ‘Uncle Ahmed, he has awakened the dead man inside me! May God make him triumphant!’ ”

In Lebanon, Rasha Salti, a freelance writer, summarized the sense that Sheik Nasrallah differed from other Arab leaders.

“Since the war broke out, Hassan Nasrallah has displayed a persona, and public behavior also, to the exact opposite of Arab heads of states,” she wrote in an e-mail message posted on many blogs.

In comparison, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s brief visit to the region sparked widespread criticism of her cold demeanor and her choice of words, particularly a statement that the bloodshed represented the birth pangs of a “new Middle East.” That catchphrase was much used by Shimon Peres, the veteran Israeli leader who was a principal negotiator of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which ultimately failed to lead to the Palestinian state they envisaged.

A cartoon by Emad Hajjaj in Jordan labeled “The New Middle East” showed an Israeli tank sitting on a broken apartment house in the shape of the Arab world.

Fawaz al-Trabalsi, a columnist in the Lebanese daily As Safir, suggested that the real new thing in the Middle East was the ability of one group to challenge Israeli militarily.

Perhaps nothing underscored Hezbollah’s rising stock more than the sudden appearance of a tape from the Qaeda leadership attempting to grab some of the limelight.

Al Jazeera satellite television broadcast a tape from Mr. Zawahri (za-WAH-ri). Large panels behind him showed a picture of the exploding World Trade Center as well as portraits of two Egyptian Qaeda members, Muhammad Atef, a Qaeda commander who was killed by an American airstrike in Afghanistan, and Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. He described the two as fighters for the Palestinians.

Mr. Zawahri tried to argue that the fight against American forces in Iraq paralleled what Hezbollah was doing, though he did not mention the organization by name.

“It is an advantage that Iraq is near Palestine,” he said. “Muslims should support its holy warriors until an Islamic emirate dedicated to jihad is established there, which could then transfer the jihad to the borders of Palestine.”

Mr. Zawahri also adopted some of the language of Hezbollah and Shiite Muslims in general. That was rather ironic, since previously in Iraq, Al Qaeda has labeled Shiites Muslim as infidels and claimed responsibility for some of the bloodier assaults on Shiite neighborhoods there.

But by taking on Israel, Hezbollah had instantly eclipsed Al Qaeda, analysts said. “Everyone will be asking, ‘Where is Al Qaeda now?’ ” said Adel al-Toraifi, a Saudi columnist and expert on Sunni extremists.

Mr. Rabbani of the International Crisis Group said Hezbollah’s ability to withstand the Israeli assault and to continue to lob missiles well into Israel exposed the weaknesses of Arab governments with far greater resources than Hezbollah.

“Public opinion says that if they are getting more on the battlefield than you are at the negotiating table, and you have so many more means at your disposal, then what the hell are you doing?” Mr. Rabbani said. “In comparison with the small embattled guerrilla movement, the Arab states seem to be standing idly by twiddling their thumbs.”

Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo for this article, and Suha Maayeh from Amman, Jordan.

EXCELLENT ARTICLE: Morality is not on our side- Ha'aretz

2006-07-31T00:35:00.000-07:00

Morality is not on our side
By Ze'ev Maoz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742257.html

There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.

This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.

Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.

In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.

On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.

So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.

Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.

There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.The writer is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university.

28 July- The Independent- On a Red Cross mission of mercy when Israeli air force came calling

2006-07-31T00:28:00.000-07:00

On a Red Cross mission of mercy when Israeli air force came calling
By Robert Fisk
07/28/06 "The Independent"

-- -- It was supposed to be a routine trip across the Lebanese killing fields for the brave men and women of the International Red Cross. Sylvie Thoral was the "team leader" of our two vehicles, a 38-year-old Frenchwoman with dark brown hair and eyes like steel. The Israelis had been informed and had given what the ICRC likes to call its "green light" to the route. And, of course, we almost died.

Trusting the Israeli army and air force, which are breaking the Geneva Conventions almost every day, is a dodgy business.

Their planes have already attacked - against all the conventions - the civil defence headquarters in Tyre, killing 20 refugees. They have twice attacked truckloads of refugees whom they themselves had ordered from their villages.

They have already attacked two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances in Qana, killing two of the three wounded patients inside and injuring all the crew - a clear and apparently deliberate breach of Chapter IV, Article 24 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

But the ICRC must put its trust in the Israeli military and so off we sped from southern Lebanon for Jezzine to the sound of gunfire, under the crumbling battlements of the crusader castle at Beaufort, through the ghostly, shattered streets of Nabatiyeh, bomb craters and crushed buildings on each side of us.

To cross the Litani river, we had to drive through the water, listening for the howl of airplane engines, one eye on the road, one on the sky. Sylvie and her comrades - Christophe Grange from France, Claire Gasser from Switzerland, Saidi Hachemi from Algeria and two Lebanese colleagues, Beshara Hanna and Edmund Khoury - drove in silence.

There were fresh bomb craters on the highway north of Nabatiyeh - the attacks had come only a few hours earlier, a fact we should have thought more about. Pieces of ordnance littered the roads, shards of wicked shrapnel, huge chunks of concrete. But we had had that all-important "green light" from Tel Aviv.

The ICRC teams may be the only saviours on the highways of southern Lebanon - their reticence in criticising anyone, including the Israelis and Hizbollah is a silence worthy of angels - although their work can attack their emotions as surely as an air strike. Only a day earlier, they had driven to the village of Aiteroun scarcely a mile from the Israeli army's disastrous assault on Bint Jbeil. In each "abandoned" village on the way, a woman would appear, then a child and then more women and the elderly, all desperate to leave.

There were perhaps 3,000 of them and, last night, Sylvie Thoral was trying to arrange permission for an evacuation convoy. The Israelis are promising the Lebanese much worse than the punishment they have already received - well over 400 Lebanese civilians dead - for Hizbollah's killing of three Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. But still the Israelis have suggested no "green light" for Aiteroun.

"They were begging us to take them with us and we had no ability to do that," Saidi says with deep emotion. "Their eyes were filled with tears."

ICRC workers in Lebanon travel without flak jackets or helmets - their un-militarised status is something they are proud of - and driving with them in the same condition was an oddly moving experience.

They live - unlike the Israelis and their Hizbollah antagonists - by the Geneva Conventions. They believe in them when all others break the rules. But yesterday, when we reached the town of Jarjooaa, the ICRC in Beirut told us to turn back. The Israelis were bombing the road to the north and so we gingerly reversed our cars and started back down the hills to Arab Selim. The highway was empty and we had almost reached the bottom of a small valley.

I was reflecting on a conversation I had just had on my mobile phone with Patrick Cockburn, The Independent's correspondent who has just left Baghdad. Our guardian angels were working so hard, he said, that he was fearful they would form a trade union and go on strike.

That's when five vast, brown, dead fingers of smoke shot into the sky in front of us, an Israeli air-dropped bomb that exploded on the road scarcely 80 metres away with the kind of "c-crack" that comic books express so accurately, followed by the scream of a jet. If we had driven just 25 seconds faster down that road, we would all be dead.

So we retreated once more to Jarjooaa and parked under the balcony of a house where two women and three children were watching us, waving and smiling.

Sylvie was silent but I could see the rage on her face. The Israelis, it seemed, had made an "error". They had misread the route - or the number - of our little convoy. "How can we work like this? How on earth can we do our work?" Sylvie asked with a mixture of anger and frustration. On all the roads yesterday, I saw only three men whom I suspect were Hizbollah - no respecters of the Geneva Conventions they - driving at high speed in a battered Volvo. They can cross the rivers of Lebanon at will - just as we did - by circling the bomb craters and crossing the rivers. So what was the point in blowing up 46 of Lebanon's road bridges?

An old man approached us carrying a silver tray of glasses and a pot of scalding tea. Generous to the end, under constant air attack, these fearful Lebanese were offering us their traditional hospitality even now, as the jets wheeled in the sky above us. They asked us in to the house they had refused to leave and I realised then that these kind Lebanese people - unarmed, unconnected to Hizbollah - were the real resistance here. The men and women who will ultimately save Lebanon.

But before we abandoned our journey and before Sylvie and her team and I set off back to their base in the far and dangerous south of Lebanon, a man carrying a bag of vegetables walked up to Beshara Hanna. "Please move your cars away from my home," he said. "You make it dangerous for us all."

And the shame of this shook me at once. The Israeli attack on the Qana ambulances - their missiles plunging through the red crosses on the roofs - had contaminated even our own vehicles. He was just one man. But for him, the Israelis had turned the Red Cross - the symbol of hope on our roofs and the sides of our vehicles - into a symbol of danger and fear.

The laws of war

The laws of war, as the Geneva Conventions are sometimes known, often may seem like a lesson in absurdity. But for centuries countries have adhered to central principles of combat.

At the start of this conflict, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said: "Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians."

The rules of war state:
* Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (and should not include unnecessary destruction).
* Wars should be ended as quickly as possible.
* People and property should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.

The laws are meant to :
* Protect both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering.* Safeguard human rights of those who fall into the hands of the enemy: prisoners of war, the wounded, the sick and civilians.
* Prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians. But no war crime is committed if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
* Combatants that use civilians or property as shields are guilty of violations of laws of war.

28 July- “Bull’s-eye”: 4 U.N. Peacekeepers killed in Israel’s Targeted Assassination

2006-07-31T00:25:00.000-07:00

“Bull’s-eye”: 4 U.N. Peacekeepers killed in Israel’s Targeted Assassination

By Mike Whitney

People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don’t forget; they also strike back." Harold Pinter, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech 2005

07/28/06 -- -- On the 17th day of Israel’s military offensive, Prime Minister Olmert is no closer to achieving any of his objectives than he was on Day 1. Olmert originally promised that he would "disarm Hezbollah" and create a buffer-zone from Israel’s northern border to the Litani River. He has accomplished neither. His violent reaction to the capturing of 2 Israeli soldiers was applauded by the Bush administration, Israeli public, and the America media. At the time, we questioned Olmert’s ability to "disarm" Hezbollah or his foolish belief that the invasion would be a "cakewalk". Now Israeli forces are bogged down in Southern Lebanon fighting a tough-minded, well-disciplined guerilla organization with no end in sight. This has forced the panicky Olmert to call up 3 more divisions and appeal to Bush for more "precision-guided missiles".

Additionally, Olmert has begun to back-away from his promise to "disarm" Hezbollah and now only talks only about "weakening" them. The Israeli PM has decided to step down from his earlier rhetoric and "move the goalposts" to suit the realities on the ground. Olmert will not disarm Hezbollah and he knows it.Israeli intelligence seriously misjudged Hezbollah’s military capabilities and the dedication of its fighters to execute complex and daring operations. Yesterday’s attack on an Israeli patrol killed 9 IDF soldiers spreading a palpable sense of unease among the Israeli public. They remember the Vietnam-like quagmire which Sharon drew them into which lasted 18 years, ending only 6 years ago in 2000. The deaths of the soldiers have triggered a fierce debate among politicians, pundits and retired officers about the questionable objectives of the operation and the competence of the leadership. Olmert has shown himself to be a vain and stupid man whose ignorance of military matters has clouded his sense of judgment. He is surrounded by the "untested" Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who excels at killing unarmed women and children in the occupied territories, but cannot seem to adjust to the exigencies of real combat. The final member of the "trinity of bunglers", is Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz, an incompetent braggart whose penchant for destruction has flattened the better part of Lebanon’s critical infrastructure, but hasn’t produced any tangible rewards. For the most part, Olmert’s War has been little more than a massive display of gratuitous violence which has failed to achieve any recognizable strategic goal. (BBC has provided a fairy comprehensive account of Israel’s calculated destruction of Lebanese infrastructure. It includes 3 major airports, 3 major ports, 5,000 civilian homes, 62 bridges, 22 fuel stations, 72 overpasses, 3 Dams, 4 TV and communication facilities, 3 main power-stations, 150 private businesses including a tissue paper factory and a bottle factory)

Israel is now planning to step up its bombing campaign in the vain hope that it will root-out and destroy the resistance. This explains why the United Nations outpost was "deliberately" leveled by an Israeli missile yesterday. Clearly, Israel wants to conceal its orgy of carnage from the watchful eyes of international community. We should expect that more banned weaponry; cluster-bombs, napalm, lasers, bunker busters and chemical weapons will be used in the next major assault on Hezbollah strongholds. Like all desperate men, Olmert believes that he can extract himself from his present dilemma by increasing the level of violence. The upcoming week or two should be extremely perilous for Hezbollah.

The Bush administration has blindly supported Olmert without assessing whether his military objectives are attainable and without considering the damage that the conflict is doing to America’s long-term interests. There’s no chance that the United States will ever be seen as an "honest broker" in the region again. Bush has cast his lot with Israel and is betting that the neoconservative strategy to reconfigure the Middle East will move ahead according to plan. From the very onset, Washington has enthusiastically embraced the war by giving Olmert the "go-ahead" to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure and by providing Israel with additional ordinance to prosecute the air-war.The Bush team has repeatedly headed-off efforts at the United Nations for a "cease-fire" and created the sense that Israel’s rampage bears the stamp of international legitimacy. The US State Dept no longer functions as diplomatic agency working out details for political solutions, but as a franchise of the Defense Dept.; skillfully blocking negotiations, subverting treaties, and obstructing any dialogue which may lead to peace. Condoleezza Rice’s performance in Rome only underscores this point.

Neither public opinion, nor the United Nations, nor the Arab League, nor Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, nor even Hezbollah can stop the ongoing conflict if Bush and Olmert want a war; and they clearly want a war. Secretary of State Rice summarized their views when she said to the world press on Wednesday:"Its time for a 'New Middle East’. Its time to say to those who do not want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not."

Perhaps; but the growing resistance in Iraq and Lebanon may have a thing-or-two to say about Ms. Rice’s plan.

26 July- Reuters- Israeli strike hits truck carrying aid from UAE

2006-07-31T00:23:00.000-07:00

Israeli strike hits truck carrying aid from UAE

26 Jul 2006 17:24:09 GMT
Source: Reuters

BEIRUT, July 26 (Reuters) - An Israeli air strike on Wednesday hit a truck carrying medical and food supplies donated to Lebanon by the United Arab Emirates, killing its Syrian driver and wounding two others, security sources said.

The truck was destroyed just a few kilometres from Lebanon's eastern border with Syria in the town of Anjar. Israel has been hitting targets in southern Lebanon, Beirut and other parts of the country in a war with Hizbollah.

EXCELLENT STORY: Jonathan Cook- Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes

2006-07-31T00:20:00.000-07:00

Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes

by Jonathan Cook

This week I had the pleasure to appear on American radio, on the Laura Ingraham show, pitted against David Horowitz, who most recently made his name under the banner of Campus Watch, leading McCarthyite witch-hunts against American professors who have the impertinence to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Arabs have minds and feelings like the rest of us.

It was a revealing experience, at least for a British journalist rarely exposed to the depths of ignorance and prejudice in the United States on Middle East matters – well, apart from the regular whackos who fill my e-mail in-tray. But five minutes of listening to Horowitz speak, and the sympathy with which his arguments were greeted by Laura ("The Professors – your book's a great read, David"), left me a lot more frightened about the world's future.

Horowitz's response to every question, every development in the Middle East, whether it concerns Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, or Iran, is the same: "They want to drive the Jews into the sea." It's as simple as that. Not even a superficial attempt at analysis; just the message that the Arab world is trying to finish off the genocide started by Europe. And if Laura is any yardstick, a lot of Americans buy that stuff.

Horowitz is keen to bang the square peg of the Lebanon story into the round hole of his claims that the Jews are facing an imminent genocide in the Middle East. And to help him, he and the massed ranks of U.S. apologists for Israel – regulars, I suspect, of shows like Laura's – are promoting at least four myths regarding Hezbollah's current rockets strikes on Israel. Unless they are challenged at every turn, the danger is that they will win the ground war against common sense in the U.S.

The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began "raining down" rockets on the Galilee. Anyone with a short memory can probably recall this was not the first justification we were offered: that had to do with the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah on a border post on July 12.

But presumably Horowitz and his friends realized that 400 Lebanese dead and counting in little more than a week was hard to sell as a "proportionate" response. In any case, Hezbollah kept telling the world how keen it was to return the soldiers in a prisoner swap.
Hundreds of dead in Lebanon, at least 1,000 severely injured, and more than half a million refugees – all because Israel is not ready to sit down at the negotiating table. Even Horowitz could not "advocate for Israel" on that one.

So the chronology of war has been reorganized: now we are being told that Israel was forced to attack Lebanon to defend itself from the barrage of Hezbollah rockets falling on Israeli civilians. The international community is buying the argument hook, line, and sinker. "Israel has the right to defend itself," says every politician who can find a microphone to talk into.
But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the "Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping those early events (and I won't document the long history of Lebanese suffering at Israel's hands that preceded it) before they become entirely shrouded in the mythology being peddled by Horowitz and others.

Early on July 12, Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, the Shi'ite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a land mine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day. Given Israel's worldview that it alone has a right to project power and fear, that might have been expected.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know from reports in the U.S. media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year.

In contrast to the image of Hezbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. For the first day and a half, he limited his strikes to the northern borders areas, which have faced Hezbollah attacks in the past and are well protected.

He waited till late on July 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel's third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.
It was another three days – days of constant Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians – before Nasrallah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.

No one should have been surprised. Nasrallah was doing exactly what he had threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of war instead. Although the international media quoted his ominous televised message that "Haifa is just the beginning," Nasrallah in fact made his threat conditional on Israel's continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: "As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines." Well, Israel did, and so now has Nasrallah.

The second myth is that Hezbollah's stockpile of 12,000 rockets – the Israeli army's estimate – poses an existential threat to Israel. According to Horowitz and others, Hezbollah collected its armory with the sole intent of destroying the Jewish state.
If this really was Hezbollah's intention in amassing the weapons, it has a very deluded view of what is required to wipe Israel off the map. More likely, it collected the armory in the hope that it might prove a deterrence – even if a very inadequate one, as Lebanon is now discovering – against a repeat of Israel's invasions of 1978 and 1982, and the occupation that lasted nearly two decades afterwards.

In fact, according to other figures supplied by the Israeli army, at least 2,000 Hezbollah rockets have already been fired into Israel while the army's bombardments have so far destroyed a further 2,000 rockets. In other words, northern Israel has already received a fifth of Hezbollah's arsenal. As someone living in the north, and within range of the rockets, I have to say Israel does not look close to being expunged. The Galilee may be emptier, as up to a third of Israeli Jews seek temporary refuge in the south, but Israel's existence is in no doubt at all.
The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

It is amazing that this myth even needs exploding, but after the efforts of Horowitz and co. it most certainly does. As the civilian death toll in Lebanon has rocketed, international criticism of Israel has remained at the mealy-mouthed level of diplomatic requests for "restraint" and "proportionate responses."

One need only cast a quick eye over the casualty figures from this conflict to see that if Israel is targeting only Hezbollah fighters it has been making disastrous miscalculations. So far some 400 Lebanese civilians are reported dead – unfortunately for Horowitz's story, at least a third of them are children. From the images coming out of Lebanon's hospitals, many more children have survived but with terrible burns or disabling injuries.
The best estimates, though no one knows for sure, are that Hezbollah deaths are not yet close to the three-figures range.

In the latest emerging news from Lebanon, human rights groups are accusing Israel of violating international law and using cluster grenades, which kill indiscriminately. There are reports too, so far unconfirmed, that Israel has been firing illegal incendiary bombs.
Conversely, the breakdown of the smaller number of deaths of Israelis at the hands of Hezbollah – 42 at the time of writing – show that more soldiers have been killed than civilians.
In fact, although no one is making the point, Hezbollah's rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns, and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm's way. Unlike Horowitz, I won't presume to read Nasrallah's mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.

But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country's economy.
Because of Israel's press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel's military installations. But Hezbollah's rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army's sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.

It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.

Hezbollah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel – each wants the balance of terror in its favor – but it is nonsense to suggest that Hezbollah's goals are any more ignoble than Israel's. It is trying to dent the economy of northern Israel in retaliation for Israel's total destruction of the Lebanese economy. Equally, it is trying to show Israel that it knows where its military installations are to be found. Both strategies appear to be having an impact, even if a minor one, on weakening Israeli resolve.

The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among noncombatants.

We have seen this kind of dissembling by Israel and Horowitz before, though not repeated so enthusiastically by Western officials. The UN head of humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, who is in the region, accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among the civilian population, and a similar accusation was leveled by the British Foreign Minister Kim Howells when he arrived in Israel.

In 2002, Israel made the same charge: that Palestinians resisting its army's rampage through the refugee camps of the West Bank were hiding among civilians. The claim grew louder as more Palestinian civilians showed the irritating habit of getting in the way of Israeli strikes against population centers. The complaints reached a crescendo when at least two dozen civilians were killed in Jenin as Israel razed the camp with Apache helicopters and Caterpillar bulldozers.
The implication of Egeland's cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah's reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.

Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hezbollah's fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shi'ite community, nearly half the country's population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends, and neighbors living alongside them in the country's south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hezbollah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel's regular onslaughts.

Given the indigenous nature of Hezbollah's resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shi'ite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.

If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and air force. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, cars, ambulances, and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.

And finally, there is a fifth myth I almost forgot to mention. That people like David Horowitz only want to tell us the truth…

25 July 2006- Kidnapped in Israel or Captured in Lebanon? Official justification for Israel's invasion on thin ice- Joshua Frank

2006-07-31T00:17:00.000-07:00

Kidnapped in Israel or Captured in Lebanon? Official justification for Israel's invasion on thin ice

by Joshua Frank

July 25, 2006

As Lebanon continues to be pounded by Israeli bombs and munitions, the justification for Israel's invasion is treading on very thin ice. It has become general knowledge that it was Hezbollah guerillas that first kidnapped two IDF soldiers inside Israel on July 12, prompting an immediate and violent response from the Israeli government, which insists it is acting in the interest of national defense. Israeli forces have gone on to kill over 370 innocent Lebanese civilians (compared to 34 killed on Israel's side) while displacing hundreds of thousands more. But numerous reports from international and independent media, as well as the Associated Press, raise questions about Israel's official version of the events that sparked the conflict two weeks ago.

The original story, as most media tell it, goes something like this: Hezbollah attacked an Israeli border patrol station, killing six and taking two soldiers hostage. The incident happened on the Lebanese/Israel border in Israeli territory. The alternate version, as explained by several news outlets, tells a bit of a different tale: These sources contend that Israel sent a commando force into southern Lebanon and was subsequently attacked by Hezbollah near the village of Aitaa al-Chaab, well inside Lebanon's southern territory. It was at this point that an Israel tank was struck by Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the death of six.

As the AFP reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning." And the French news site http://www.voltairenet.org/article142056.html reiterated the same account on June 18, "In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, taking two prisoners."

The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."

And the Hindustan Times on July 12 conveyed a similar account:
"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. 'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."

Whether factual or not, these alternative accounts should at the very least raise serious questions as to Israel's motives and rationale for bombarding Lebanon.
MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary.

A report from The National Council of Arab Americans, based in Lebanon, also raised suspicion that Israel's official story did not hold water and noted that Israel had yet to recover the tank that was demolished during the initial attack in question.

"The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aitaa al-Chaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hezbollah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside 'Israel' thus an aggression first started by Hezbollah)."Before independent observers could organize an investigation of the incident, Israel had already mounted a grisly offensive against Lebanese infrastructure and civilians, bombing Beirut's international airport, along with numerous highways and communication portals. Israel didn't need the truth of the matter to play out before it invaded Lebanon. As with the United States' illegitimate invasion of Iraq, Israel just needed the proper media cover to wage a war with no genuine moral impetus

24 July- Reuters- Lebanon president says Israel uses phosphorous arms

2006-07-31T00:09:00.000-07:00

Lebanon president says Israel uses phosphorous arms

24 Jul 2006 14:16:57 GMT
Source: Reuters

PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) - Lebanon's president accused Israel on Monday of using phosphorous bombs in its 13-day offensive and urged the United Nations to demand an immediate ceasefire.

"According to the Geneva Convention, when they use phosphorous bombs and laser bombs, is that allowed against civilians and children?" President Emile Lahoud asked on France's RFI radio.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said arms used in Lebanon did not contravene international norms.

"Everything the Israeli Defence Forces are using is legitimate," the spokeswoman said.

Lahoud gave no details but said the United Nations had to take concrete action to force Israel to stop its assault.

"The massacre must be stopped as soon as possible. Afterwards we can talk about everything," he said. "A decision has to be taken so that there is an immediate ceasefire."

Lahoud's comments came as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Beirut to seek a "sustainable" ceasefire in Lebanon.

The conflict, triggered when Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers, has killed at least 373 in Lebanon as well as 37 Israelis and displaced half a million people in Lebanon.

24 July- The Guardian- Blasted by a missile on the road to safety

2006-07-30T23:49:00.000-07:00

Blasted by a missile on the road to safety; Family ordered to flee were targeted because they were driving minivan

Suzanne Goldenberg in Kafra, Lebanon

The Guardian

24 July 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1827422,00.html

The ambulanceman gave Ali the job of keeping his mother alive. The 12-year-old did what he could. "Mama, mama, don't go to sleep," he sobbed, gently patting her face beneath her chin. Behind her black veil, her eyelids were slowly sinking. "I'm going to die," she sighed. "Don't say that, mama," Ali begged, and then slid to the ground in tears.

On the pavement around mother and son were the other members of the Sha'ita family, their faces spattered with each other's blood. All were in varying shades of shock and injury. A tourniquet was tied on Ali's mother's arm. A few metres away, his aunt lay motionless, the whiteT-shirt beneath her abaya stained red. Two sisters hugged each other and wept, oblivious to the medics tending their wounds. "Let them take me, let them take me," ones creamed.

Their mother was placed on a stretcher, and lifted into the ambulance. "God is with you, mama," Ali said. Shereached up with her good arm to caress his face.

The Sha'itas had thought they were on the road to safety when they set out yesterday, leaving behind a village which because of an accident of geography - it is five miles from the Israeli border - had seemed to make their home a killing ground. They had been ordered to evacuate by the Israelis.

But they were a little too slow and became separated from the other vehicles fleeing the Israeli air offensive in south Lebanon. Minutes before the Guardian's car arrived, trailing a Red Cross ambulance on its way to other civilian wounded in another town, an Israeli missile pierced the roof of the Sha'itas' white van. Three passengers sitting in the third row were killed instantly, including Ali's grandmother. Sixteen other passengers were wounded. In recent days, families like the Sha'itas are bearing the brunt of Israel's air campaign and its efforts to rid the area of civilians before ground operations. A day after Israel's deadline for people to leave their homes and flee north of the Litani river, roads which in ordinary times wind lazily through tobacco fields and banana groves have been turned into highways of death.

Plumes of smoke rise in the distance, and the road infront of us offers up signs of closer peril: car wrecks, still smoking after Israeli strikes, and abandoned vehicles with shattered rear windows. Some were direct hits by Israeli aircraft. Others were drivers who had lost control. Overhead is the menacing roar of Israeli warplanes and the buzz of drones tracking every movement.

With bridges on the main coastal roads severed by Israeli air strikes, and secondary mountain routes scarred by craters, the means of escape for Lebanese trying to follow Israel's orders are limited. "All the smaller roads leading to the coastal roads are destroyed," said aspokesman for the UN in the border town of Naqoura. "In some areas you have people pushing cars by hand through obstacles made by a rocket or a bomb." By yesterday afternoon, for many villagers, there was truly no way out.

Death came crashing into the Sha'ita family soon after 10am, in the form of an Israeli anti-tank missile, seemingly fired from an Israeli helicopter high overhead, in Kafra, about nine miles from their home. Thosepassengers who were not killed or injured by shards ofburning metal were hurt when the van plunged into the sideof a hill.

In their village of et-Tiri, the Sha'itas were an extended clan of 54 people. Between them they had three cars. When the Israeli evacuation order came, in leaflets shot out ofaircraft, the family planned at first to stay. "We were at home living our lives," said Musbah Sha'ita, Ali's uncle.

By 7pm on Saturday night, the deadline set by Israel forpeople in about a dozen villages in south Lebanon toleave, the Sha'itas were close to panic. "Whoever could run was running," said Mr Sha'ita. "I pushed them to go."

One of their fleeing neighbours said he would send transport for them, and the next morning all 54 of the Sha'itas set out in a convoy of three white minivans. That choice of transport proved a fatal mistake.

In their leaflet campaign, the Israelis have warnedrepeatedly they would consider minivans, trucks andmotorcyles as targets. "The minivans are a target forIsrael because they can take Katyusha rockets forHizbullah, so they do not contemplate too long," the UNofficial said. "They just shoot it."

Dozens of others have met a similar fate as Israeli F-16 jet fighters and attack helicopters intensify a campaignmeant to cut off the supply of Hizbullah rockets, and themovement of its fighters.

But Israel's offensive is being felt across a much wider swath of south Lebanon. The Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre said 10 cars carrying civilians and three or four motorcycles had been hit by Israeli missiles yesterday. Red Cross ambulances were no safer; a spokesman said an ambulance had narrowly escaped a missile near the villageof el-Qlaile, south of the city. A number of the dead, including the three members of the Sha'ita family, remained trapped in their cars because it was too dangerous to retrieve their bodies.

In Tyre, south Lebanon's main town and a stopping point on the flight to the north, the hospital received a steady flow of injured. By late afternoon there were three dead and 41 injured, two critically." They are bombing them all in their cars," said Ahmed Mrowe, the director of Jabal al-Amal hospital.

Those who choose not to flee - the UN estimates that 35%-40% of villagers are too poor or too frail to make the journey - are being left stranded.

That was the predicament facing the Sha'itas when Musbah Sha'ita urged them to flee. In a car on the way to the hospital, his ear was welded to his phone, trying to findout where his wounded relatives were, and he could notstop blaming himself.

"We put a white flag. We were doing what Israel told us todo," he says. "What more do they want of us?"

24 July- Dow Jones Newswires- Gauging Econ Cost of Lebanon's Crisis

2006-07-30T23:44:00.000-07:00

Gauging Econ Cost of Lebanon's Crisis
Monday, Jul 24, 2006
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--

As Israel stepped up its bombing campaign in Lebanon last week, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora offered a view from the ground:

The devastating Israeli attacks, he said, threatened to "turn Lebanon back 50 years."

Siniora wasn't simply alluding to the economic and human cost of the bombing, but also to the set-back to the 2005 "Cedar Revolution" that brought his government to power and ushered in a new, democratic political order in Lebanon.

While the damage to infrastructure and the Lebanese economy is going to be costly, the best case scenario would see Lebanon quickly recovering from this latest conflict in its long history of turmoil.

But worst case scenarios abound. Major concerns are the survival of the Cedar Revolution and the ability of the Lebanese government to broaden its authority and disarm Hezbollah without
provoking sectarian conflict. That remains an open question with a very open-ended economic impact.

Lebanon "felt it had pulled itself out of the brink, and has now been plunged back," says Nicholas Pelham, an Israel-based analyst with the International Crisis Group. "The damage to its image and self-confidence will be far greater than the material damage."

With the conflict showing no sign of stopping and Israel sending troops across the border over the weekend, the extent of the material damage, let alone the economic fallout, is hard to assess, but analysts agree it is very high.

The Israeli bombing campaign has hit a wide swath of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, telecommunication towers, and according to local press reports, hospitals and schools. Israeli officials say the bombardment is designed to degrade Hezbollah's military capability and to cut off crucial aid from Syria and Iran.

While there has been no damage assessment, Siniora and other Lebanese officials have put the cost of the destruction at $2 billion to $4 billion, an estimate that's bound to grow in the days ahead as the fighting continues. A top U.N. official over the weekend said the cost could run into the billions.

"The damage up to now is already very severe but if Israel sends its ground forces into Lebanon, it could get a lot worse," says Nader Habibi, a Middle East analyst at Global Insight in Philadelphia. The economic impact of repairing the damage is going to be heavy.

"Along with a downturn in tourist, trade, and other business activity, Lebanon will be burdened with the cost of repairing damaged infrastructure," Habibi wrote in a recent research note.

Deep In The Red Lebanon, already burdened with more than $24 billion in sovereign debt, almost double its gross domestic product, will sink even deeper into the red as it is forced to borrow to finance costly reconstruction, Habibi predicts.

The conflict comes at the height of the tourism season, which was expected to see a strong year. According to Global Insight, the number of tourists visiting Lebanon was up more than 50% during the first five months of the year, and according to another estimate, Lebanon was expected to receive more than 1.5 million visitors from the Persian Gulf and Europe this year. Tourism is a major source of hard currency for Lebanon.

All of which bodes ill for economic growth. The Bank of Lebanon reported gross domestic product growth of more than 6% during the first two months of the year and some analysts were looking for GDP growth of 4% to 6% for all of 2006. All those forecasts have been revised, with some analysts now seeing the prospect of an economic recession this year.

Amid the gloomy outlook and increased political risk, credit ratings agencies have cut their outlook on Lebanon, with Standard & Poor's putting Lebanese long term sovereign debt on CreditWatch, with negative implications. "Expectations for further improvements have now fallen by the wayside," Habibi says.

To be sure, Lebanon has a proven history of bouncing back from deep turmoil.
In the 1990s, the government of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, borrowing heavily from foreign creditors, spent more than $5 billion on reconstruction, repairing damage from 15 years of civil war and modernizing the country's infrastructure, including the Beirut Airport repeatedly bombed in recent days.

Then last year, Hariri's assassination plunged the country into turmoil before a quick recovery followed elections and the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Economic growth, which plunged to 1% from 4%, rebounded by the second half of the year, with forecasts for solid growth this year. Fears of a lasting damage to the tourism industry proved unfounded, as Persian Gulf visitors began pouring back within months of the assassination.

Big Blow To Credibility

This time, the Lebanese economy could see a repeat performance. What worries experts more is the damage the conflict has done to the credibility of the Lebanese government as it has embarked on economic reform and sought to consolidate its authority.
"It is a setback, no question," said Richard Murphy, a former Assistant Secretary of State who served as a diplomat in Lebanon and Syria. "The Cedar Revolution was supposed to bring back normalcy. Economic planning is going to be thrown off. The government can't deliver and protect its own people."

More ominously for Lebanese political stability, the economic fallout will undermine the government's ability to confront Hezbollah and deploy troops to southern Lebanon, which Israel has demanded as a condition of ceasing its military campaign.

Regardless of when and how the conflict stops, the future place of Hezbollah in Lebanese society will be key to stability in Lebanon and the broader region.

The big question is whether Hezbollah is going to fully integrate into mainstream politics or remain militarized.

By all accounts, the Israeli bombing campaign has increased Lebanese sympathy for the militia group. Much will depend on whether, once the dust settles, there is a popular backlash against
Hezbollah for provoking the costly war.

No one knows the answer, says Murphy. As for long term stability, Habibi of Global Insighsays, "the Lebanese political system is very fragile and there is a high risk of instability as a result of what has happened."

-By Masood Farivar, Dow Jones Newswires

24 July- Daily Star- A new Middle East, or Rice's fantasy ride?

2006-07-30T09:05:00.000-07:00

A new Middle East, or Rice's fantasy ride?

By Rami G. Khouri

The Daily Star

24 July 2006

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=74184#

American officials are very good at vernacular descriptions, but lousy at history and political reality in the Middle East. As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sets off Sunday on her short trip to a Middle East that is increasingly engulfed in violent confrontations and political turmoil, she has described the massive destruction, dislocation and human suffering in Lebanon asan inevitable part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East."

From my perspective here in Beirut, watching American-supplied Israeli jets smash this country to smithereens, what she describes as "birth pangs" look much more like a wicked hangover from a decades-old American orgy of diplomatic intoxication with the enticements of pro-Israeli politics.

We shall find out in the coming years if indeed a new Middle Easy is being born, or - as I suspect - we are witnessing the initial dying gasps of the Western-made political order that has defined this region and focused primarily on Israeli national dictates for most of the past half-century. The way to a truly new and stable Middle East is to apply policies that deliver equal rights to all concerned, not to favor Israel as having greater rights than Arabs.

Rice declared that Israel should ignore calls for a cease-fire, saying: "This is a different Middle East. It's a new Middle East. It's hard, We're going through a very violent time."

Behind the American position to support Israel's massive attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure andHizbullah positions is a sense - widely reported from Washington in recent days - that the Bush-Rice team wants to use this conflict to achieve short-term tactical aims and long-term strategic goals that serve the interests of America, Israel and their few allies in the region.

Short-term, the US would like Israel to wipe out Hizbullah, allow the Lebanese government to send its troops to the South of the country, ensure the safety of northern Israel, cut Syria's influence down to size, and apply greater pressure on Hizbullah supporter Iran. The US opposes a cease-fire, therefore, because, "a cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo," Rice said.

This diplomatic position to support Israel's attacks onLebanon, coupled with rushing sophisticated precision-guided bombs to Israel from the US arsenal, indicates that Washington seriously aims to fundamentally redraw the political and ideological map of the MiddleEast in the longer term. If this means yet another Arab land goes up in flames and war, so be it, Washington seems to be saying. So we now have three Arab countries where American policies and arms have played a major role in promoting chaos, disintegration and mass death and suffering: Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. You can watch them burn, live on your television sets.

Ironically, these were the three countries that Bush-Rice& Co. have held up as models and pioneers of the American policy to promote freedom and democracy as antidotes to Arab despotism and terrorism.

Washington's desire to change the face of the Arab world requires removing the last vestiges of anti-American defiance and anti-Israel resistance. The problem forBush-Rice is that such sentiments probably comprise a majority of Arab people. Most of them flock to Islamist parties and resistance groups like Hamas, Hizbullah, theMuslim Brotherhood and assorted Shiite groups in the Iraqi government.

Syria and Iran are the most problematic governments for Washington in this respect. So there is further irony and much in coherence in the latest American official desire for Arab governments to pressure Syria to reduce its support for Hizbullah and other groups who defy the US and Israel. The numbing fact that Bush-Rice fail to acknowledge - perhaps understandably, given the alcoholic's tendency to evade reality - is that Washington now can only speak to a few Arab governments (in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere) who are in almost no position to impact on anyone other than their immediate families and many guards.

Washington is engaged almost exclusively with Arab governments whose influence with Syria is virtually nonexistent, whose credibility with Arab public opinion is zero, whose own legitimacy at home is increasingly challenged, and whose pro-US policies tend to promote the growth of those militant Islamist movements that now lead the battle against American and Israeli policies. Is Rice traveling to a new Middle East, or to a diplomatic Disneyland of her own imagination?

If Rice pursues contacts in the coming five days that increase Washington's bias toward Israel, tighten its links with isolated, increasingly impotent Arab governments, and further alienate the masses of Arab public opinion, she will exacerbate the very problem she claims she wants to fix: the spread of violence and terror, practiced simultaneously by the armies of states like the US and Israel, by police-state governments in the Middle East who live by violence as a rule, and bynon-state actors like Hizbullah and others like it.

On her long flight from Washington to Palestine-IsraelSunday night, someone should give Condoleezza Rice a modern history book of the Middle East, so that she can cut through the haze of her long political drunken stupor, and finally see more clearly from where the problems of this region emanate, where the solutions come from, and how her country can become a constructive rather than a destructive force.

Rami G. Khouri writes are regular commentary for The DailyStar.

24 July- AP- Israel Using Chemical Weapons & Targetting Ambulances in Lebanon

2006-07-30T09:01:00.000-07:00

AP: Israel Using Chemical Weapons & Targetting Ambulances in Lebanon

Por AP /YouTube / Various

Monday, Jul. 24, 2006 at 10:40 PM

Plus: Lebanese Doctor Says 'Phosphorus Weapons' Cause Suffering - CNN Int'l - Video

AP: Israel Using Chemical Weapons & Targetting Ambulances July 24, 2006

"Jawad Najem, a surgeon at the hospital, said patients admitted Sunday had burns from phosphorous incendiary weapons used by Israel. The Geneva Conventions ban using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas; Israel said its weapons comply with international law.

"Mahmoud Sarour, 14, was admitted to the hospital yesterday and treated for phosphorous burns to his face," Najem said. Mahmoud's 8-month-old sister, Maryam, suffered similar burns on her neck and hands when an Israeli rocket hit the family car."

"The Sarours had to go to the port by taxi because the Lebanese Red Cross suspended operations outside Tyre after Israeli jets blasted two ambulances with rockets, said Ali Deebe, a Red Cross spokesman in Tyre.

In the incident Sunday, one Red Cross ambulance went south of Tyre to meet an ambulance and transfer the wounded to the hospital.

"When we have wounded outside the city, we always used two ambulances," Deebe said.

The rocket attack on the two vehicles wounded six ambulance workers and three civilians - an 11-year-old boy, an elderly woman and a man, Deebe said. "One of the rockets hit right in the middle of the big red cross that was painted on top of the ambulance," he said. "This is a clear violation of humanitarian law, of international law. We are neutral and we should not be targeted."

Amateur video provided by an ambulance worker confirmed Deebe's account of damage to the vehicles, showing one large hole and several smaller ones in the roof of one ambulance and a large hole in the roof of the second. Both were destroyed.

Continued: http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10578042.html Lebanese Doctor Says

'Phosphorus Weapons' Cause Suffering -CNN Int'l - Video http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10576126.html

23 July- BBC News- UN appalled by Beirut devastation

2006-07-30T08:53:00.000-07:00

UN appalled by Beirut devastation

BBC News

23 July 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm

The UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation causedby Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violationof humanitarian law.

Mr Egeland, the UN's emergency relief chief, described the destruction as "horrific" as he toured the city.

He arrived hours after another Israeli strike on Beirut. Israel also hit Sidon, a port city in the south crammed with refugees, for the first time.

In Haifa, two people were killed amid a volley of rocketson the Israeli city.

Fifteen people are reported injured by the rockets, launched by Hezbollah militants over the border with Lebanon. The BBC News website's Raffi Berg visited the scene of one of the rocket attacks in northern Haifa.

He says the rocket exploded next to a carriageway, raking passing cars with shrapnel and ball bearings and killing a man in a nearby vehicle.

'Block after block'

Mr Egeland arrived in southern Beirut on Sunday just hours after Israeli strikes on the Hezbollah stronghold.

A visibly moved Mr Egeland expressed shock that "blockafter block" of buildings had been levelled.

He said the "disproportionate response" by Israel was a"violation of international humanitarian law".

He appealed for both sides to halt attacks and said UNsupplies of humanitarian aid would begin to arrive in the next few days."

But we need safe access," he said. "So far Israel is not giving us access." Israel has said it will lift its blockade on Beirut's port to allow aid through, but with roads, bridges and trucks among Israel's targets, transporting it around the country is difficult.

UK Foreign Minister Kim Howells is due to meet IsraeliForeign Minister Tzipi Livni. A day after accusing Israel of targeting "the entire Lebanese nation", he said theBritish government understood Israel's need to defend itself and criticised Hezbollah for hiding weapons in civilian areas.

The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to leave for the Middle East later on Sunday.

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz said Israel supports the idea of an international peacekeeping force in south Lebanon, and suggested it should be led by Nato.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel had"pushed the button for its own destruction".

Syria's information minister said his country would enter the conflict if a major Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon threatened the security of Damascus.

An unarmed UN observer was seriously wounded by small armsfire - thought to be from Hezbollah - at a UN position inthe village of Maroun al-Ras, which Israeli said it had taken control of on Saturday. Sidon targeted

Israel's bombing campaign continued, with strikes onBeirut and on southern and eastern Lebanon in the earlyhours of Sunday. The Associated Press news agency reported at least eight deaths on Sunday - an eight-year-old boy, a Lebanese photographer, three civilians fleeing in a minibus, and three Hezbollah fighters. One target was the southern port of Sidon, a city not previously targeted by Israel, where 42,000 refugees from the surrounding area have flooded in the hope of safety.

The BBC's Roger Hearing in the city reports that a mosque was destroyed in one strike, which hit less than 500m (550yards) from a hospital. At least four people were injured.

While Israel said the mosque was a meeting place forHezbollah militants, local doctors insisted it was just "a place for prayers".

Bombing intensifies

The BBC's Jim Muir in the southern city of Tyre says there has also been intense bombardment there, striking at least nine civilian vehicles. Some were hit within sight of hospitals where they were trying to take injured people, he says.

Further east, engineers trying to mend impassable roads to allow a UN-escorted aid convoy also came under fire, our correspondent reports. He says that bombing has intensified in the region since Israel dropped warning leaflets on Friday, and the Israelis are now shooting at almost anything on moving on the roads.

More than 350 Lebanese have been killed in the 11 days of violence, many of them civilians, and angry protests condemning Israeli attacks have been held in cities aroundthe world. At least 36 Israelis have been killed, including 17 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel.

22 July- New York Times- U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis, New York Times

2006-07-30T08:39:00.000-07:00

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER

The New York Times

July 22, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.htmlWASHINGTON,

WASHINGTON, July 21 -- The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because ofthe appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran's efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel's request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she would head to Israel on Sunday at the beginning of a round of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The original plan was to include a stop to Cairo in her travels, but she did not announce any stops in Arab capitals.

Instead, the meeting of Arab and European envoys planned for Cairo will take place in Italy, Western diplomats said. While Arab governments initially criticized Hezbollah for starting the fight with Israel in Lebanon, discontent is rising in Arab countries over the number ofcivilian casualties in Lebanon, and the governments have become wary of playing host to Ms. Rice until a cease-firepackage is put together.

To hold the meetings in an Arab capital before a diplomatic solution is reached, said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, "would have identified the Arabs as the primary partner of the United States in this project at a time where Hezbollah is accusing the Arab leaders of providing cover for the continuation of Israel's military operation."

The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacythat previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East. "I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante," Ms. Rice said Friday. "I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do."

Before Ms. Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, she will join President Bush at the White House for discussions on theMiddle East crisis with two Saudi envoys, Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the secretary general of the National Security Council.

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration's decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of abroad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an "emergency resupply" of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy inWashington, said: "We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel's defense acquisitions."

Israel's need for precision munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon, which includes destroying hardened underground bunkers where Hezbollah leaders are said to have taken refuge, as well as missile sites and other targets that would be hard to hit without laser and satellite-guided bombs.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe indetail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But an arms-sale package approved last year provides authority for Israel to purchase from the United States as many as100 GBU-28's, which are 5,000-pound laser-guided bombsintended to destroy concrete bunkers. The package also provides for selling satellite-guided munitions. An announcement in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the "bunker buster" weapons described the GBU-28 as "a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground." The document added, "The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28's ontheir F-15 aircraft."

American officials said that once a weapons purchase is approved, it is up to the buyer nation to set up a timetable. But one American official said normal procedures usually do not include rushing deliveries within days of a request. That was done because Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said.

Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale. Israel said its air force had dropped 23 tons of explosives Wednesday night alone in Beirut, in an effort to penetrate what was believed to be a bunker used bysenior Hezbollah officials.

A senior Israeli official said Friday that the attacks todate had degraded Hezbollah's military strength by roughly half, but that the campaign could go on for two more weeks or longer. "We will stay heavily with the air campaign,"he said. "There's no time limit. We will end when we achieve our goals."

The Bush administration announced Thursday a military equipment sale to Saudi Arabia, worth more than $6 billion, a move that may in part have been aimed at deflecting inevitable Arab government anger at the decision to supply Israel with munitions in the event that effort became public.

On Friday, Bush administration officials laid out their plans for the diplomatic strategy that Ms. Rice will pursue. In Rome, the United States will try to hammer out a diplomatic package that will offer Lebanon incentives under the condition that a United Nations resolution, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, is implemented.

Diplomats will also try to figure out the details around an eventual international peacekeeping force, and which countries will contribute to it. Germany and Russia haveboth indicated that they would be willing to contribute forces; Ms. Rice said the United States was unlikely to.

Implicit in the eventual diplomatic package is a cease-fire. But a senior American official said it remained unclear whether, under such a plan, Hezbollah would be asked to retreat from southern Lebanon and commit to a cease-fire, or whether American diplomats might depend on Israel's continued bombardment to make Hezbollah's acquiescence irrelevant.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to Washington, said that Israel would not rule out an international force to police the borders of Lebanon and Syria and to patrol southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has had a stronghold. But he said that Israel was first determined to take out Hezbollah's command and control centers and weapons stockpiles.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.

21 July- SF Chronicle- Israel set war plan more than a year ago

2006-07-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began gaining military strength in Lebanon

By Matthew Kalman
San Francisco Chronicle
21 July 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/21/MNG2QK396D1.DTL(07-21)

04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- Israel's military responseby air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according toa plan finalized more than a year ago.

In the six years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, inthe last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board. "

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified. In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanonon a long-term basis.

Israeli officials say their pinpoint commando raids should not be confused with a ground invasion. Nor, they say, dothey herald another occupation of southern Lebanon, which Israel maintained from 1982 to 2000 -- in order, it said, to thwart Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Planners anticipated the likelihood of civilian deaths on both sides. Israel says Hezbollah intentionally bases some of its operations in residential areas. And Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has bragged publicly that the group's arsenal included rockets capable of bombing Haifa, as occurred last week.

Like all plans, the one now unfolding also has been shaped by changing circumstances, said Eran Lerman, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence who is now director of the Jerusalem office of the American Jewish Committee.

"There are two radical views of how to deal with this challenge, a serious professional debate within the military community over which way to go," said Lerman." One is the air power school of thought, the other is the land-borne option. They create different dynamics and different timetables. The crucial factor is that the airforce concept is very methodical and almost by definitionis slower to get results. A ground invasion that sweeps Hezbollah in front of you is quicker, but at a much higher cost in human life and requiring the creation of a presence on the ground.

"The advance scenario is now in its second week, and its success or failure is still unfolding. Whether Israel's aerial strikes will be enough to achieve the three fold aim of the campaign -- to remove the Hezbollah military threat; to evict Hezbollah from the border area, allowing the deployment of Lebanese government troops; and to ensure the safe return of the two Israeli soldiers abducted last week -- remains an open question. Israelis are opposed to the thought of reoccupying Lebanon.

"I have the feeling that the end is not clear here. I haveno idea how this movie is going to end," said Daniel Ben-Simon, a military analyst for the daily Haaretz newspaper.

Thursday's clashes in southern Lebanon occurred near an outpost abandoned more than six years ago by the retreating Israeli army. The place was identified using satellite photographs of a Hezbollah bunker, but only from the ground was Israel able to discover that it served as the entrance to a previously unknown underground network of caves and bunkers stuffed with missiles aimed at northern Israel, said Israeli army spokesman Miri Regev.

"We knew about the network, but it was fully revealed (Wednesday) by the ground operation of our forces," saidRegev. "This is one of the purposes of the pinpoint ground operations -- to locate and try to destroy the terrorist infrastructure from where they can fire at Israeli citizens."

Israeli military officials say as much as 50 percent ofHezbollah's missile capability has been destroyed, mainly by aerial attacks on targets identified from intelligence reports. But missiles continue to be fired at towns and cities across northern Israel.

"We were not surprised that the firing has continued,"said Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Hezbollah separated its leadership command-and-control system from its field organization. It created a network of tiny cells in eachvillage that had no operational mission except to wait forthe moment when they should activate the Katyusha rocketlaunchers hidden in local houses, using coordinatesprogrammed long ago to hit Nahariya or Kiryat Shemona, or the kibbutzim and villages."

"From the start of this operation, we have also beenactive on the ground across the width of Lebanon," saidBrig. Gen. Ron Friedman, head of Northern Commandheadquarters. "These missions are designed to support ourcurrent actions. Unfortunately, one of the many missionswhich we have carried out in recent days met with slightlyfiercer resistance."

Israel didn't need sophisticated intelligence to discoverthe huge buildup of Iranian weapons supplies to Hezbollahby way of Syria, because Hezbollah's patrons boasted aboutit openly in the pages of the Arabic press. As recently asJune 16, less than four weeks before the Hezbollah borderraid that sparked the current crisis, the Syrian defenseminister publicly announced the extension of existing agreements allowing the passage of trucks shipping Iranian weapons into Lebanon.

But to destroy them, Israel needed to map the location of each missile.

"We need a lot of patience," said Hanegbi. "The (Israeli Defense Forces) action at the moment is incapable offinding the very last Katyusha, or the last rocket launcher primed for use hidden inside a house in some village."

Moshe Marzuk, a former head of the Lebanon desk forIsraeli Military Intelligence who now is a researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, saidIsrael had learned from past conflicts in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza -- as well as the recent U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq -- that a traditional military campaign would be counter-effective."

A big invasion is not suitable here," said Marzuk. "We are not fighting an army, but guerrillas. It would be a mistake to enter and expose ourselves to fighters who will hide, fire off a missile and run away. If we are to be on the ground at all, we need to use commandos and special forces."

21 July- MERIP editorial- Letting Lebanon Burn

2006-07-30T03:47:00.000-07:00

Letting Lebanon Burn Editorial, MERIP 21 July 2006

Israel is raining destruction upon Lebanon in a purely defensive operation, according to the White House and most of Congress. Even some CNN anchors, habituated to mechanical reporting of "Middle East violence," sound slightly incredulous. With over 300 Lebanese dead andeasily 500,000 displaced, with the Beirut airport, bridges and power plants disabled, the enormous assault is more than a "disproportionate response" to Hizballah's July 12 seizure of two soldiers and killing of three others onIsraeli soil. It is more than the "excessive use of force"that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan decries. The aerial assault dwarfs the damage done by Hizballah's rocket attacks on Israeli towns. Entire villages in south Lebanonlie in ruins, unknown numbers of their inhabitants buried in the rubble and tens of others incinerated in their vehicles by Israeli missiles as they attempted to escape northward. As it awaits the promised "humanitarian corridor," Lebanon remains almost entirely cut off fromthe outside world by air, sea and land. As of July 20, thousands of Israeli troops have moved across theUN-demarcated Blue Line. Yet virtually the entire American political class actively resists international calls foran immediate ceasefire, preferring to wait for an Israelivictory. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert set the tone immediately after Hizballah struck, branding the cross-border raid as "an act of war" whose consequences would be "very, very, very painful."

Moreover, Israel would hold the Lebanese government and the Lebanese nationas a whole responsible. Israel's determination to inflict pain upon Lebanon was fanned on the fourth day of Israeli bombardment when Hizballah Secretary-General Sheikh HasanNasrallah likewise declared "open warfare," and the Shiite movement's militia stepped up rocket fire that has taken15 Israeli civilian lives. Though the Katyushas and larger projectiles are much deadlier than the Qassams of Hamas, Israel faces no existential threat from the rockets on either front. It is in Lebanon, to paraphrase Israeli army chief of staff Gen. Dan Halutz, where the clock has been turned back 20 years. The American broadcast media nevertheless labor to fashion symmetry where there is none. There is balanced treatment of the casualties on both sides. The Israelis forced into bomb shelters are juxtaposed with the Lebanese politely warned to flee their homes. For competing renditions ofthe day's bloodletting, CNN's avuncular Larry King turns first to nonchalantly windblown Israeli spokeswoman Miri Eisen and then to a program director from Hizballah'sal-Manar satellite channel, Ibrahim al-Musawi, who always seems to have one eye on the sky. The rock-star reporters who parachuted in to cover the story dispense dollops of confusion. CNN's Anderson Cooper in Cyprus explained that, since Hamas members are Sunni and Hizballah members Shi'i, they are "historic rivals." MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, sans bowtie to convey the seriousness of the occasion, wondered if Hizballah had rocketed Nazareth because its residents are all Christian, ignoring the images on the screen behind him from the attack victims' funeral at a mosque. The likes of Carlson can perhaps be forgiven for graspingat clash-of-civilizations straws. The White House's immediate fingering of Iran and Syria as the masterminds of Hizballah's self-described "adventure" substituted phantoms and bogeymen for real political causes. Israel was similarly quick to espy an "axis of Islamic terror"stretching to Damascus and Tehran. Former Speaker of theHouse and would-be presidential candidate Newt Gingrichwent officialdom one better, declaring on NBC's Meet the Press that the US and its allies are in "World War III." A steady stream of Congressmen goes before the cameras toaver that Tehran and Damascus are pulling the strings. No evidence, beyond leaked Israeli intelligence of secret meetings between Nasrallah and his alleged Syrian andIranian puppeteers, has been presented for the thesis ofbroader conspiracy, let alone for the core propositionthat Hizballah snatched the Israeli soldiers on ordersfrom Bashar al-Asad and/or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Who else sees the hand of Iran, by the way? Saddam Hussein, admonishing Syria from his Baghdad jail cell not to"deepen its coalition with Iran, because Iranians have badintentions toward all Arabs and they hope to do away withthem.") The fact that Hizballah's arsenal includes missiles of Iranian and Syrian provenance is also adduced as proof. By this same logic, of course, Washington mustbe ordering every sortie of Israeli F-16s over Beirut andevery demolition of Palestinian homes by Caterpillar bulldozers. Hizballah is not shy about acknowledging its external patrons, who presumably assented to its operation. But thetiming of the militia's cross-border raid, as Israel waspunishing all of Gaza for the capture of one soldier, suggests another motivation rooted in regional politics --namely, that Hizballah aimed to impress the Arab public ascapable champions of the Palestinians, in contrast to theimpotent grumbling of the US-allied Arab regimes. Surely,as well, Saudi and Egyptian criticisms of Hizballah stemmore from the popularity of Nasrallah among their own (allor mostly Sunni) populations than from a genuine fear of a"Shiite crescent."The scholars who know Hizballah best say the movement ismore Lebanese and nationalist now than any time in itshistory. Even before the departure of Syrian troops in thespring of 2005, Hizballah was increasingly speaking with nationalist rhetoric. While their political opponents staged what they call the Independence Uprising, Hizballah-mobilized demonstrators "thanked" the Syrians for their services, rather than demanding that they stay,and waved Lebanese flags alongside the party's yellow banners. Hizballah has been pressing the issue of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, along with Lebanon's claim tothe Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms along the Syrian-Lebanese border, for some time. The Lebanese government backs both of these causes. But it is odd, to say the least, to hold the Lebanese government responsible for Hizballah's initial cross-border operation. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that the Islamist party acted unilaterally, despite having representatives in the cabinet and in Parliament. This circumstance suggests that the raid should be interpreted as Hizballah muscle flexing on thedomestic stage to ward off pressure to relinquish its arms to the Lebanese army, as per the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Perhaps, having exchanged prisoners with Israel as recently as 2004, the movement miscalculated how Israel would react, and now they are getting more than they bargained for. Certainly, Lebanon is. Whichever combination of these factors accounts forHizballah's action, the real question is what Israel hopes to accomplish by bombing the whole of Lebanon in reprisal. The strategy behind the assault, apart from blind retribution, is difficult to fathom. Even though Israeli jets buzzed Asad's presidential palace after Hamascaptured an Israeli soldier, and even though evidence ofSyrian influence over Hamas is far wispier than its tiesto Hizballah, Israel seems disinclined to draw Damascus into the fighting. "We're not a gang that shoots in every direction," an Israeli officer told Ha'aretz. Nor, despite bellicose talk of "root causes" and rumors of Iranian Revolutionary Guards firing from Hizballah launching pads,does Israel or the US appear prepared to do more than trade insults with Tehran. There is a risk of catastrophic escalation, but it is reasonable to hope it is not planned. Rather, the stated objective (beyond the recovery of the captive soldiers) is the implementation of a UN resolution, an instrument of international diplomacy for which Israeli spokespeople have developed a touching new fondness. If the Lebanese government will not disarm Hizballah, then Israel will. If the Lebanese will not"exercise their sovereignty," as Eisen demanded on CNN, then Israel will appropriate that sovereignty and exercise it in Lebanon's stead. Perhaps because the US has its own history of invading Middle Eastern countries to "enforce UN resolutions," the American media seem to regard Israel's case as entirely sensible. One wonders how the media would have treated similar external intervention toimpose UN Security Council Resolution 425, which called for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 1978, and, ofcourse, was not honored until 2000, under the pesky fireof Hizballah. But that is what-if history. Back in the present, says the tough-talking Israeli ambassador in Washington, David Ayalon: "We'll have to go for the kill -- Hizballah neutralization." Thus far, independent assessments of"operational success" are bleak. On July 20, the Times of London quoted "a senior British official" as saying: "Our concern is that Israeli military action is not having the desired effect ... . We are concerned that continued military operations by Israel will cause further damage to infrastructure and loss of civilian life which the damage to Hizballah will not justify." The well-connected military affairs columnist for Ha'aretz, Ze'ev Schiff, penned a similarly pessimistic appraisal. Hence the large-scale Israeli ground incursion that commenced on July 20. While Halutz told the troops thatthe incursion could last for "an extended period of time,"Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz has stressed that it will not lead to permanent reoccupation of south Lebanon. Indeed, from the Israeli government's perspective, one benefit of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, like its pullout from Gaza in August 2005, is the latitude to deploy the full force of bombs and tanks unavailable as long as Israel was the occupying power. The architect ofGaza disengagement, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, came to appreciate this logic despite having vehemently denounced the peril to Israel's "deterrence capability"when the Labor government brought troops home fromLebanon. Whether the ground incursion will "degrade"Hizballah's fighting effectiveness or strengthen their argument that Lebanon needs their independent militia forits own national defense remains to be seen. It seems thatIsraeli strategists are making up the military objectives as they go along, with one eye on the degree of"operational success" and another eye on what Washington will let its tank commanders and bombardiers get away with. Asked how long Israel's campaign could continue, a high-ranking US official told the Washington Post: "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When themilitary starts, it may be that it has to run its course." Many European chanceries, like Annan, evoking rules-of-wardistress at Israel's "excessive use of force," are callingfor an immediate ceasefire. These calls were faint indeed amidst a week of air raids and the Group of Eight'stoothless tut-tutting about "extremist forces." From Washington came the bright green go-ahead to keep on bombing. Asked how long Israel's campaign could continue, a high-ranking US official told the Washington Post: "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When themilitary starts, it may be that it has to run its course." So we arrive at the Bush administration's breathtakingly cavalier stance and, again, the human cost of its decision to use Lebanon's agony to tilt at Iranian and Syrian windmills. On July 15, by several accounts, US Ambassadorto the UN John Bolton blocked Security Council discussionof the ceasefire resolution for which Lebanese PrimeMinister Fuad Siniora has pleaded in every available forum. Since then, despite blatant violations of principles of proportionality and growing international alarm about the internally displaced Lebanese, Secretaryof State Condoleezza Rice pledges only to work for a ceasefire "as soon as possible when conditions are conducive to do so." The conditions, of course, grow less"conducive" the longer Washington's green light glares. Such signals to Israel are not unprecedented, of course, but in this case they are completely and rather shockingly public. The secretary of state has disagreed with the Egyptian foreign minister about the urgency of a ceasefire while standing before the same bank of microphones in Foggy Bottom. Making the Sunday talk show rounds on July16, Rice again shopped an applause line from her June 2005 American University in Cairo address: "For the last 60years, American administrations of both stripes --Democratic, Republican -- traded what they thought was security and stability and turned a blind eye to the absence of democratic forces, to the absence of pluralism in the region." This policy, she still claims, has been reversed. In reality, with its unabashed approval ofIsrael's pounding of Lebanon, the Bush administration has reversed 60 years of basing US policy toward theArab-Israeli conflict on the premise -- however fictional in practice -- that the US seeks peace between the parties. Meanwhile, as Rice dithers over setting a date certain for a Middle East diplomatic mission, the US greenlight may actually exacerbate the carnage in Lebanon, since Israeli military commanders know that they will have limited time to accomplish their goals. On July 19, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow if Bush's insistence that Rice not undertake shuttle diplomacy until Israel "defangs" Hizballah made the conflagration in Lebanon a US war as well as an Israeli one. Snow dissembled: "Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not on our territory. This is a war in which the United States -- it's not even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between Israel and Hizballah. I would not characterize it as a war."It is a war, an unjustified war. Israel's legal justifications -- protecting the sanctity of its borders and enforcing UN resolutions -- are disingenuous to the point of being dishonest, after Israel's own years of ignoring the will of the international community and crossing and erasing boundaries with impunity. The US isthe only international actor with the power to stop this war, and instead has chosen to encourage the fighting. So the US, too, will be held accountable by history.

20 July- Belgian doctor- Israel using chemical weapons

2006-07-30T03:46:00.000-07:00

Belgian doctor: Israel using chemical weapons
20 July 2006

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=31715

BRUSSELS — The Israeli military is using chemical weapons during its bombing of Lebanon, a Belgian-Lebanese professor claimed during a press conference in Brussels on Thursday.
The press conference was organised by the secretary of the Tripoli archbishop, Monsignor Jean Abboud. The Belgian professor of Lebanese origin, Bachir Cham, is the head of a hospital in Lebanon.
"The bodies don't look like they normally do. After an explosion there were no traces of blood loss or subcutaneous haemorrhages [bruises]," Cham said via mobile phone direct from Beirut.
"The hair and sometimes the beard and the moustache remained intact. I found no traces of the pressure wave by the
explosion. The colour of the skin was black like a shoe, but the skin was not carbonised or burnt."
Eight mummy-like bodies were taken to the hospital on Monday and photos taken of the corpses. Two children's bodies showed no indication of wounds resulting from an explosion.
"I have the impression that a poisonous product penetrated the body via the skin. Death follows with almost 100 percent certainty," the professor said.
A heart specialist, Mohammad Farran, said letters had been sent to the UN and the EU drawing their attention to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Israel in Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Arab, Lebanese and Belgian peace activists protested for fourth consecutive day in front of the EU headquarters in Brussels against the Israeli attacks in Lebanon.Placards carried by the protestors read: "Israel today is committing a deliberate crime against Lebanon" and "Stop Israeli terrorism".

EXCELLENT PIECE: 19 July- Charlie Rose Interview w/ Rami Khoury

2006-07-30T03:14:00.000-07:00

Charlie Rose Interviews Rami Khoury, Editor of the Daily Star, Lebanon’s English language newspaper and a division of the International Herald Tribune.

Rami Khoury, the editor of Daily Star gave an interview to Charlie Rose regarding the Lebanese Israeli crisis on July 19. You can Google it under Charlie Rose and the date. It is well worth your time.================================

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you. Undersecretary for political affairs at theState Department. We`ll come back and we`ll hear from Rami Khouri, who is a Palestinian Jordanian and who is in Amman, Jordan and will talk to us by telephone. Thank you again. Back in a moment. There`s been a lot of focus on people trying to get out of Lebanon, but there are also people who`re trying to return to their country. One of those is Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the newspaper the "Daily Star." He joins me now by phone from Amman, Jordan. Thank you for doing this.

RAMI KHOURI: My pleasure.

CHARLIE ROSE: I have two big questions. Number one, do you think the Israelis, if they continue these attacks will be successful in doing great damage if not destroying the capabilities of Hezbollah?

RAMI KHOURI: I am pretty certain that they will fail in doing that, and the reason I say that is because they`ve tried this three or four times with various groups in Lebanon and failed. Over the last 25 years, they did it with the Fatah guerillas in the late `60s, they did with the PLO in the`70s, they did it with Hezbollah five -- 10 years ago. They occupied south Lebanon for almost 20 years. They had free fire zones. They had no-go zones, they had red lines, blue lines, green lines. Killing zones. Interdiction zones; international troops. They tried every possible trick in the book. They even funded an armed - a surrogate army in south Lebanon. Every single thing they have tried, including long-term military occupation, has failed. And the reason it has failed is that you cannot provide a military solution to a political problem. And you cannot win with overwhelming military force against a determined guerrilla group fighting for its national sovereignty and its human dignity. This is a lesson that every major military power in the world has learned and the Americans learned it in Vietnam. The Russians in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, the Americans are learning it again in Iraq. And the Israelis are obviously not learning it over and over and over in Palestine and Lebanon, so it will not succeed. There`s no question about that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think the Israelis have not learned the lesson you think they should have?

RAMI KHOURI: I think Israel fundamentally as a nation has never been ableto come to grips with two central notions in its modern history. One is the idea of a viable legitimate Palestinian state, and the other one is with the nature and the identity of Arab national identity, which also includes national identity in Lebanon for the country of Lebanon itself. TheIsraelis have been so obsessed with the idea of their own security and certainly, you know, rightly so, given their modern and ancient history of being persecuted and subjected to pogroms and holocausts. But they have allowed their over-focus on their security to blind them to the fact that they can never have security if their neighbors don`t have it. And I think this has been an irrational strain in - in modern Zionism. And unfortunately, the irrationality seems to have expanded into the White House now as well.

CHARLIE ROSE: I`ll come to that in a moment. It seems - because Nick Burns is on our show tonight. It seems to me that the Israelis or I would assume the Israelis will argue that we were prepared to make a giant bargain at Camp David when, first, with Sadat and then later with Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak. It didn`t happen. We were prepared to take - to retreat from and withdraw from Gaza; we were prepared to try to create boundaries by withdrawing. We had plans on the board for withdrawing from the West Bank. But Palestinians could not control -- this is notHezbollah. Palestinians could not control the most extreme elements within their population who continued to assault us across their border.

RAMI KHOURI: Well, I think that is - that`s a pretty good representation of - of Israeli spin. But it is not an accurate reality of the politics and the nationalism and the forces on the ground in the Middle East. The reality is that the Israelis most recently did unilaterally withdraw from south Lebanon and from Gaza, but unilateral withdrawals do not bring about peace if you don`t negotiate the peace settlement that responds tothe legitimate - and I stress the word legitimate -- needs of both sides. So just pulling out of Gaza, while continuing to expand settlements in the West Bank, assassinating Palestinians, surrounding Gaza, destroying theairport, blockading the seaport, controlling the entry points, suffocating the population, I mean all the things that Israel continued to do to make Gaza unviable made this inevitable. So, there was -- and the same thing pulling out of south Lebanon certainly solved one part of the problem, which was the direct Israeli occupation, but the occupation of south Lebanon was a function of a wider Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflict that has been going on since1948. There is a solution; there is a diplomatic and peaceful solution that responds to the needs of the Israelis and to the surrounding Arab countries. The Israelis have never attempted that, which is to enter in to a peace negotiation that genuinely and legitimately and legally responds tothe simultaneous needs of the Arabs and the Israelis. The Israelis have been focused primarily on Israeli security. And it`s understandable from their point of view, but it is not a recipe for a peace treaty. And so if they want to -- and we`re at the same position again. They keep -- I mean, the words they`re using now are surrealistic in terms of repeating what they`ve said so many times before, that they want to destroy Hezbollah`s infrastructure, they want to push them back from the border, they want to make north Israel secure. They said that three or four orfive times in the last 20 years and have never been able to achieve it. The response has been that the Hamas and Hezbollah and the Iraqis a few years ago developed long-range missiles and just sent them over the security zone. So there is no security in geography or the occupation or the pulverizing your neighbor. The solution is to engage the Lebanese and the Palestinians and the other relevant Arabs -- in this case Syria primarily and the Lebanese government-- to engage them in a truly comprehensive peace negotiation this takes away the root cause of these problems of the last 30, 40 years, which is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They got close to it at one point at Camp David, but they neverreally got to the root cause, which was the original cause of the `48 war,the Palestinian refugees, the statelesness of Palestinians.

CHARLIE ROSE: The right of return and all of that.

RAMI KHOURI: Well, I didn`t use the word right of return on purposebecause it`s a red flag. What I`m talking about is...

CHARLIE ROSE: The red flag for the Israelis or the red flag for the Palestinians?

RAMI KHOURI: For the Israelis. It would drive them nuts.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right, OK.

RAMI KHOURI: What I`m talking about is U.N. resolutions, legitimate international law, complying with Security Council resolutions. I mean, it`s very ironic that Israel and the Bush White House now -- and I assume Nick Burns will say this as well -- say well, all they want is the implementation of Resolution 1559 of the Security Council.

CHARLIE ROSE: I`m sure.

RAMI KHOURI: Well, that`s fine. I accept that. But you can`t choose the Security Council resolutions that you want. If you -- and I`m saying let`sapply 1559. Hezbollah is perfectly happy to apply 1559, but only if we apply the other U.N. resolutions, which call for Israel to stop Jude-izing Jerusalem, expanding its settlements, subjugating the Palestinians to aterrible ordeal, annexing the Golan Heights. Security Council resolutions are not boxes of cereal on a supermarket shelf, where you choose the ones you like and you leave the ones you don`t like. So what we have never had in this process is a diplomaticnegotiation that is based on the principle that the Israelis and the Arabs have identical and simultaneous rights. If we can get to that point -- andI think we can -- I`m still an optimist. There`s not many of us left in this region, but I still think you can negotiate a kind of Arab-Israeli peace that gives the Israelis what they deserve and what they want, whichis security and recognition in their own Jewish majority state, but you`vegot to give those same things to the Palestinians and the Lebanese and the Syrians and everybody else.

CHARLIE ROSE: But let me ask you this. Why do you -- because I want to come to more of -- put this thing in the context of history which you havebeen doing, of history in a different way. But you are constantly saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Arabs have to negotiate onan equal basis and understanding the respective rights of each other. And that`s the way you get to a two-state solution. I`m not sure Hezbollah and Hamas wants a two-state solution.

RAMI KHOURI: Well, my sense is -- and unlike American diplomats who don`teven talk to these people, let alone engage them in negotiation, my sense living here and knowing Hezbollah and Hamas and all the other groups for many years, my sense is that these are relatively pragmatic political organizations. These guys didn`t exist 20 years ago. Hezbollah and Hamas did not exist 20years ago. So where did they come from? They didn`t come from the moon. These are political responses to populations that have been degraded and occupied and bombed and killed and humiliated repeatedly by the Israelis, and often with the direct or indirect acquiescence, or, as we see now, the direct support of the United States. So my sense that we have to go back to the root. We have to keep going back to the root cause, which is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If you have a negotiation that responds to the needs of both sides, my own feeling is that Hezbollah and Hamas will be pragmatic and will in the final analysis accept the peace agreement that responds to their needs, their people`s needs, that`s rooted in international law and U.N. resolutions. And most importantly, these are political organizations that are accountable to their own people. So if the majority of Palestinians, which is the case, say they were prepared to live with an Israeli state in peace and recognition, Hamas ultimately will accept that. There`s no doubt about it. And they`ve shown some clear signs of this or at least signals about this. But they`re not going to do it unilaterally.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. Tom Friedman, a columnist that you know, wrote a piece today -- and I`m going to read you the first paragraph, because I have a follow-up question. "Profiles of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah always describe him as the most brilliant or strategic Arab player. I beg to differ. When the smoke clears, Nasrallah will be remembered as the most foolhardy Arab leader since Egypt`s Gamal Nasser miscalculated his way into the Six-Day War." Do you share that view or not?

RAMI KHOURI: Generally, I don`t share that view, but we really can`t makea verdict. We can`t give a verdict until we see what happens in the current fighting and in the months and years ahead. I know Tom Friedman well. He`s a friend. I respect him greatly. I think his analysis of the Middle East for years and years was actually quite incisive and brilliant, but I think he`s actually wrong on this point. I think the general tendency in Israel and in the American political establishment is to fundamentally and almost completely misunderstand, misdiagnose the significance of Hezbollah and Hamas and the wider Islamist movements that are now winning elections all over the Middle East. And not just in the Arab world, but in Turkey and Pakistan and other places. I think there`s a fundamental misreading of who these people are, what they represent, why they came into being, what they want and what they will agree to negotiate for. And of course, most of the Arab leaders are also making the same mistake. I`m not saying that Hezbollah and Hamas are wonderful groups. I have a strong criticisms of some of the things they do. But I think I understand them correctly for what they are, which is an organic, natural response from Arab societies and political cultures and countries and populationsthat have been repeatedly degraded by Israeli occupations and attacks, and also let down by established Arab political leadership. So these groups emerged finally in the last 15 years as very serious, very effective in many cases resistance movements. Remember, these are resistance movements. They`re not proselytizing religious groups. They`re not mainstream political parties. They`re resistance movements that are fighting for their national liberation and their national dignity. If they can achieve their goals of liberation, my suspicion is that they will strike a pragmatic deal ultimately and co-exist with Israel, but only if Israel in return gives the Palestinians and the other Arabs, Lebanese, their rights as well. Statehood, security, sovereignty. And that requires solving the original 1948 Palestine refugee issue. You can`t get away from it. It`s the core issue. And because we haven`t solved it over the last50 years, this is what we`ve ended up.

CHARLIE ROSE: What is the national liberation that Hezbollah is dedicated to?

RAMI KHOURI: The liberation of all the territory of Lebanon. They are also...

CHARLIE ROSE: From whom?

RAMI KHOURI: From Israel. And they are also committed to having Israel stop other propagations as well. Let me just answer the question. There are several things that Hezbollah wants, which I think many other people want. They make to make sure that every inch of Lebanon is liberated, because there are still some territories that are disputed. They want the prisoners that Israel took from Lebanon to be returned. They don`t want Israel to keep threatening Lebanon withover flights and attacks. And they are also in solidarity with other Arabs who are fighting Israel, like Syria, like the Palestinians. But I`m saying that my personal sense is that if there is a comprehensive negotiation, that these Islamist groups ultimately will co-exist with anIsraeli state. They won`t love it. They won`t be very happy about it perhaps in the first instance, but like the Americans finally came around and accepted what they used to call red China, now they call the People`s Republic of China -- people change. People evolve. You have to see these groups as political movements. And you have to see their political grievances and their political demands, and respond to those, and not to trump up Israeli spin and propaganda, which unfortunately has permeated the American political establishment.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. Having said all of that, and you help us with the context, where do you think Israel`s actions this time -- will it be viewed as an historic moment in which Israel overextended itself, and in the act of pursuing Hezbollah destroyed too much of Lebanon and never was able to overcome these events of the last few days?

RAMI KHOURI: Well, I think Israel has clearly repeated the excessive use of its military force, especially against civilian and infrastructural targets. I mean, when they go around bombing roads and bridges and power plants and civilians and families and trucks, and stuff that is clearly not related to any kind of security threat, I think this is doing what they`ve done before, but they`ve done it in a much more vicious way this time, because the aim is to so pulverize Lebanon that the Lebanese people turn against Hezbollah. The reality is that it`s probably not going to work. Now, if they -- it`s possible that they might actually be able to hit most of Hezbollah`s capabilities. My guess is that that is not going to happen. Hezbollah has been prepared for this for many years. They have proved themselves over the years to be extremely effective in military resistance and attacking Israel. And you know, here they are eight days after Israel started, and they`re still firing missiles all over northern Israel. The Arab countries collectively were defeated in seven days in 1967. But here you have Hamas and Hezbollah still firing rockets into Israel. Some people, of course, will say, well, this is because these guys just want to kill all the Jews. Well, that`s not correct, in my view. I think these guys want to hit back against an Israeli state that has humiliated and occupied them for years and years and has been destroying their countries. And it`s no accident that Israel simultaneously now has destroyed civilian airports in Beirut and in Gaza, knocked out power plants and destroyed governments. And one of the reasons that the Lebanese government is so weak and why Hezbollah has become so strong is precisely because for thelast 25, 30 years since the late `60s, Israel has been repeatedly bombing and shelling and killing, displacing Lebanese and destroying the national economy, to weaken the Lebanese government so much so that there is no Lebanese government, effectively. And people will not live in a vacuum. So you`ve got these resistance movements that have developed and have not only support in their own countries, even though some people, of course, criticize Hezbollah for doing what they did and for triggering this massive Israeli assault, but there`s strong support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. More importantly and I think more worryingly for Israel and the U.S. is there`s now much, much stronger public opinion support all over the Arab world for Hezbollah and Hamas. And this is a catastrophe for Israel and particularly for the United States.

CHARLIE ROSE: Not withstanding what the Saudis and the Egyptians have said in criticizing the Hezbollah?

RAMI KHOURI:Well, the Saudi and the Egyptian governments are not fully representative of their people, I would argue. I think these are governments that have mixed credibility at home. And of course, they say these things, and the Jordanian governments and others, because they`re very worried about this expanding wave of Islamist political sentiment. Even through democratic political elections, Islamist groups are winning -- Muslim Brothers and Hamas and Hizbola -- and this terrifies the Saudi and Jordanian and Egyptian and other governments, so this is -- of course they`re going to say this. They`re also worried about links now with these groups with Iran. So -- but I think what the governments of these countries say is not necessarily what the majority of their people think. And this is one of the phenomena that I think people in Israel and the United States have completely misunderstood. The widespread public opinion, support in theArab countries, as well as many other countries around the world, the support for Hezbollah and Hamas in standing up to Israel and delivering the punishment that they are -- I mean, you know, most of the -- the top third of Israel, the population of the third of -- the northern third of Israelhas been living in bomb shelters for the last two or three days. This is not happy sight for Israelis clearly, but for the first time, you have a balance of civilian terror.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, they say that`s why they`re trying to wipe outHezbollah, because Hezbollah has -- I`m going on too long, but that`s whythey`re trying to wipe out Hezbollah, because Hezbollah has that capability because of its support and encouragement of Syria and Iran whose very missiles it is launching into Israel.

RAMI KHOURI: Well, the reality is that Hezbollah has developed these capabilities and widespread public support in response to the fact that Israel has been bombing and terrorizing civilians in Lebanon for the last 25years. I mean, you have to understand the real cause and effect in this situation. We`re at a situation now where for the first time probably since Saddam Hussein lobbed his missiles into Israel in the war back in what was it..

CHARLIE ROSE: `91.

RAMI KHOURI: ... `91. For the first time, you have widespread fear among civilian populations in northern Israeland possibly in other places in Israel to come. I don`t say this with any glee. I say this with great sadness. I mean, this is a tragedy that you have now Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis all suffering the consequences of this cycle of militarism and barbarism. So this is a cycle that we have to understand it as a war between two different people. The Israelis are trying to project this as peace-loving Israel making all these brave, bold gestures, and the Arabs just want to kill it. What happened to the last, you know, 30 years of Israeli occupation and subjugation and killing of Palestinians and Lebanese? Do we just forget about that? We don`t forget about it. History doesn`t work like that. Human nature doesn`t work like that. People finally in Palestine and in Lebanon developed resistance movements that stand up to the Israelis and deliver some punishment, even though they`re small pin pricks maybe, a missile here and a kidnapping soldier there. But it has developed a certain amount of deterrence, these two groups have developed a certain amount of deterrence, that I think has driven the Israelis mad. They simply cannot handle this, other than with their military punishment.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, Rami, I have to go, but I thank you so much.

RAMI KHOURI: All right. Glad to talk to you. And I hope you`re well. How is your health?

CHARLIE ROSE: Much better. Thank you for asking. Much better.

RAMI KHOURI: All right. Take care of yourself. Bye-bye.

CHARLIE ROSE: Rami Khouri from Amman, Jordan, who lives in Beirut, where he`s editor at large of "The Daily Star." Thank you for joining us. See you next time.

17 July- Yahoo News- Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims- Bolton

2006-07-30T03:07:00.000-07:00

Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims -- Bolton
Mon Jul 17, 4:47 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl_afp/mideastconflictlebanon_060717204728

US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".
Asked to comment on the deaths in an Israeli air strike of eight Canadian citizens in southern Lebanon Sunday, he said: "it is a matter of great concern to us ...that these civilian deaths are occurring. It's a tragedy."

"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he added, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths".
The eight dead Canadians were a Lebanese-Canadian couple, their four children, his mother and an uncle, said relatives in Montreal.

The Montreal pharmacist and his family had arrived in Lebanon 10 days earlier for a vacation in his parents' home village and to introduce his children to relatives, they said.
Three of his Lebanese relatives died too, a family member told AFP.

"It's simply not the same thing to say that it's the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense," Bolton noted.

The overall civilian death toll from the Israeli onslaught in Lebanon since last Wednesday reached 195, in addition to 12 soldiers, officials said. Twenty-four Israelis have also been killed since fighting began last Wednesday, including 12 civilians in a barrage of Hezbollah rocket fire across the border.

Tom Hayden- I Was Israel's Dupe

2006-07-30T03:05:00.000-07:00

I Was Israel’s Dupe
By TOM HAYDEN

Alexander Cockburn writes: Twenty four years ago Ariel Sharon’s artillerymen bombarded Beirut, causing huge terrible civilian casualties, just as Israel’s bombs are doing today. The destruction was so savage that NYT’s Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman complained bitterly in an indiscreet in-house memo when his editors axed the word “indiscriminate” which Friedman had used to describe the bombing. I published that internal memo in the Village Voice and Friedman thought he was going to lose his job. Standing next to those Israeli gunners and cheering them on were Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, eager to promote Hayden’s political career in California. It was one of the most disgusting political spectacles of the 1980s and I wrote angrily that “in the halls of the National Gallery in Washington DC there are 54 portraits of Benedict Arnold. None look alike. All resemble Tom Hayden.” Now, amid another Israeli onslaught Hayden makes amends, with a mea culpa for that trip and an important glimpse of how what’s loosely called “the lobby” really works, when it comes to electing its chosen politicians.

Twenty-five years ago I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them.
“I represent the Israeli defense forces,” Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of power. All that year I tried to navigate the district’s Jewish politics. The solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable factor, as was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders. But the community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some were infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica’s tough rent control ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious of the New Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six Day War; they would become today’s neoconservatives.

I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state capital. This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition, so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend of Israel.”

This wasn’t a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I wanted to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against the global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.

While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I didn’t share the animus of some on the American left who questioned Israel’s very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of Israel’s Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights activists who accepted Israel’s pre-1967 borders as a reality to accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the Israeli settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line Palestinians would grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.

I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about the existence and power of an “Israel lobby.” It is not as monolithic as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in a pluralist political world. In recognizing its diversity, distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites, between Reform and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant and the more observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic) establishment.

However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a “friend of Israel.”

In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew us together, our personal friendship was genuine enough. I think that Benny, as he was called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife, Jane Fonda, into a pro-Israel stance, but he himself was an old-school labor/social democrat who personally believed in a negotiated political settlement. We enjoyed personal and intellectual time together, and I still keep on my bookshelf a wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of violence.

The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared “kosher” by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during a local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was a wild ride.

I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the California Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I easily won the general election in November.

But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots—crazies, I thought, who were preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and naively favored a demilitarized zone.

Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East—but only as long as the Israeli “incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the “incursion” was limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.

There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon—with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else.

For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right” to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America.

Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do this. You have to stop.” He was right, and I did. In the California Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal immediately or accept a worse deal later.

It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and Israeli officials bragging about “rolling back the clock by twenty years” and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak out against history repeating.

How do I read today’s news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the “Israeli lobby” is working overtime to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel’s military effort to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region, going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the equation.

What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S. neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives’ 1996 “Clean Break” memo advocated that Israel “roll back” Lebanon and destabilize Syria in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”

This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.

What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats, who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions? Isn’t this Karl Rove’s game plan for the November elections?

What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a “friend of Israel” to turn a blind eye to its never-ending occupation.

One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.

In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.

It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the following for now: Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation, resistance and deeper quagmire.

The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step. Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S. to
dominate the Middle East militarily.

Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation.