It is 50 years since the Suez Crisis. It seems that once again Israel seems to be in a conspiracy with two other nations, in order to create havoc on a neighbouring state. Whereas the rest of the world has rightly condemned the bombing of the Lebanese people and called for a cease-fire, Blair and Bush have only expressed regret. Evidence has emerged that Bush and his lap dog, Blair, have given Israel a week to destroy the infrastructure of the Lebanon.

As a journalist said on the BBC last night, the idea of bombing civilian areas (so far an estimated 345 people have been killed) in exchange for the capture of three Israeli soldiers, is an example of punishing people because they are considered to be “collectively responsible” for the actions of a group of terrorists. He added, this is just the kind of thing that the Nazis did in occupied Europe. It did not work then and it will not work now. The people of Europe refused to be suppressed into submission. There is no reason to believe that the people living in the Lebanon will react any differently from Europeans. The end result is that the Lebanon will become a breeding ground for terrorism.

I wonder if Blair would have ordered the bombing of Dublin after the IRA bombings in the 1970s? If he did, he would have been rightly condemned as a war criminal. It is only acceptable if you are bombing Arabs.

Of course Blair does not make these decisions himself. We are now a client state. We do not have an independent foreign policy. We just follow the one carried out by the US.

Well said John. I have a feeling this war will go on for much longer than expected...

Morality in foreign policy is often subjective. The US administration is confident that it represents the forces of democracy and freedom, and thus feels free to do whatever it judges best to promote these fine things. Israel perceives Palestinians and Arabs as committed to its destruction, justifying any action taken against them. Some in the Muslim world see no prospect of frustrating western cultural, economic and military dominance on western terms of engagement, and so choose other methods - such as suicide-bombing - that better suit their weakness.

Many Americans and Israelis believe that virtue is anyway unimportant, that the Arab world - and indeed the world at large - chiefly respects the successful use of power. Yet the weakness of this argument is laid bare in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. The US, Israel and their backers - prominently including Tony Blair, if not the British people - are perceived both as behaving immorally, and using force ineffectually.

In a recent article for the International Institute for Strategic Studies journal, Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the School of Public Policy at Singapore University, analysed the precipitous decline of perceived western legitimacy. His principal argument was that it is essential for the US and its allies to be seen to abide by the same rules that they seek to impose on others. He proposed a recasting of the post-1945 Truman consensus, within which most nations acknowledged that the US sought to exercise its might for the welfare of all. Urging the US to renew its commitment to making the UN a real force, Mahbubani acknowledged the justice of giving large powers large voices through the security council. He argued, however, that its members' special influence must be matched by a special sense of responsibility, which is today perceived as lacking.

The world is unimpressed, he said, by US attempts to limit the rising power of China. Osama bin Laden has "successfully delegitimised American power in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims ... One of the key factors in the growing delegitimisation ... is [US] indifference to its impact and to how it is perceived in the eyes of the 6 billion people in the rest of the world." The principle of political and economic even-handedness is key, and is being flouted.

Most of the above seems undeniable by any reasonable person. It is hard to overstate the practical consequences of the west's moral erosion. The 2001 Afghan invasion commanded widespread international support. Yet, in Afghanistan today, most Nato members are fulfilling their commitments to help stabilise the country in the most half-hearted fashion. American behaviour elsewhere has diminished willingness to assist American purposes anywhere. This is mistaken, but unsurprising. The British contingent is striving its hardest in Helmand province, but the leakage of moral authority from Iraq has impacted on the perceived legitimacy of military action in Afghanistan. British soldiers on the ground pay the price, as ever, for their political masters' misjudgments.

Last Tuesday the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, delivered a shamefully complacent speech about Britain's proud record in upholding international law, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We in the United Kingdom," he said, "take great care to ensure that we comply with the rule of law ... We take legitimacy very seriously." Operationally, on the battlefield, this is true. But it seems astonishing that any member of a government that has joined with the US in inflicting frightful damage on western legitimacy should dare to speak in such terms. Goldsmith added: "International law cannot be a substitute for morality or political judgment." True enough. Blair, with the help of his attorney, has driven a coach and horses through all three.

Morality alone cannot make an international order work. Few of us, however, want to be represented by governments that are perceived by most of the human race as pursuing policies which have no moral basis at all.

Hizbullah is a profoundly unpleasant and violent movement, which has inflicted as much grief upon the people of Lebanon as the Israelis. But as long as Israel continues to deny justice to the Palestinians, Hizbullah's actions will be deemed by many to possess more legitimacy than its own. Higher standards are expected from a sovereign state than a terrorist organisation.

It is understandable that George Bush should have endorsed the current Israeli campaign, for no more can be expected from him. It is almost incomprehensible, however, that Blair should also have done so, save in the context of the prime minister's wider loss of radio contact with Planet Earth. Israeli actions fail the pragmatic as well as the moral test. There is no possibility that they will suppress terrorist resistance to their polity. An Israeli academic chided me this week: "You columnists witter about proportionality - you should consider what the Israeli public demands from its government."

This recalled to me the wise observation of that most brilliant of British strategists Professor Sir Michael Howard in the aftermath of 9/11. "We have just got to hope," he said, "that whatever retaliatory action the Bush government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism."

The defeat of terrorism is best achieved through an unglamorous cocktail of politics, diplomacy, intelligence, bribery, police work and special forces operations. Above all, a successful campaign offers the society from which the terrorists are drawn a just political dispensation. Contrary to widespread belief, the British did not defeat the 1950s Malayan insurgency by brilliant soldiering, but by shrewd politicking, which included a promise to quit the country. Northern Ireland today may not be a satisfactory place, but it owes its relative tranquillity to politics and economics rather than to 30 years of counter-terrorist campaigning.

Israel's attempts to quell opponents by the use of superior force may briefly appease its own public opinion, but contribute nothing to the nation's lasting security - indeed the reverse. Bush deserves some sort of award from the erratic and incompetent leaders of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, to name but three, because the force most helpful to sustaining them in power is the raucous hostility of the US.

It is extraordinary to behold the loud, small people who direct US policy-making today, and contrast them with the towering figures who dominated in the late 1940s. Can Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come from the same country that produced Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, George Kennan and George Marshall? There was nothing limp-wristed about the latter. They forged the policy of containment of the Soviet Union and urged Truman to fight in Korea. Yet all were repositories of deep wisdom and generosity of spirit. When I once applauded their memories to Ray Seitz, then US ambassador in London, he dryly reminded me that none achieved elective office.

The point is well made. But they wielded influence in a fashion that determined US policy, in an era when western command of the moral high ground was hardly disputed in any civilised society. Somehow, though surely not under the current US president or British prime minister, this is what we must regain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1827328,00.html

As someone said on the Guardian website: "That's the same US that "From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives"?"

This only emphasizes the fact that the UK no longer has an independent foreign policy. Blair/Beckett refused to condemn the actions of the Israelis (Blair called it regrettable) or to call for a cease-fire. Whereas the rest of the world, including officials of the United Nations pointed out that Israel’s action was completely out of proportion, and some rightly argued that the bombing of civilian areas in the Lebanon was a war crime.

Rumours began to spread that Bush had given Israel seven days to smash the infrastructure of Lebanon. As it turns out, it seems it was ten days. Today US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested that Bush is now ready to accept a cease-fire. A few hours later Blair claimed he was now in favour of an “immediate cessation of hostilities" in Lebanon.

There was no need for Blair to issue this statement. All we need to do is to read the ones issued by the White House.

I agree, John. It seems this has been a joint US/Israeli effort to establish Israel as a regional superpower. Ultimately Syria and Iran are the targets. Blair and that other poodle John Howard just follow like sheep.

The outcome for Lebanon is that this smoking wasteland will become a rich breeding ground for terrorists. I've read that many fleeing Lebanese have stated they are now prepared to give their lives for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. As if the US and Israeli Governments didn't know this would be one of the consequences. They would be more than happy to see this occur, IMO. A cynic might suggest that the fanatical Christian neocons in Washington and the equally fanatical zeolots in Tel Aviv are dragging the world into some kind of biblical Armagedden prophesy. Bush has already claimed that his orders come from a "higher power".

When the smoke clears, I wonder who'll get the contract for restoring Lebanon's shattered infrastructure?

War on terror indeed. Create the terrorists, then drag the western world into a war on them. Make billions while you're at it. I know who the "axis of evil" is.

Steven Jones (Palestine Chronicle)

I recently came across a graphic on the McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) website entitled “Weapons aimed at Israel”[McClatchy Washington Bureau 7/21/06]]. Curious, I opened the link. I discovered that Hezbollah currently has aimed at Israel short range Katyusha rockets (developed, ironically, by the USSR to repel the Nazis in WWII), as well as series of medium and longer-range missiles, including the Iranian made Fadjr 3 and Zelzal-2 among others. I clicked back to the previous page to see if there was a graphic on “Israeli weapons used to vaporize and incinerate Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.” Much to my disappointment, but not to my surprise, I found nothing.

The New York Times was a little (a very little) more informative. In an article dated July 22 [“U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis”], the Times states that “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.” According to the “American officials” cited by the Times, the rush job is out of the ordinary and has not been announced publicly by the government, but the bombs are “part of a multi million-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed.” We are further informed that this is “just one example of a broad array of armaments that the U.S. has long provided Israel”, without being given any details.

The Times goes on to state that “Israel’s need for precision-guided munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon,” which is, judging from what Israel has done in Lebanon since July 12, to massacre as many civilians and as few militants as possible in a savage campaign of bombing that is fulfilling the promise of IDF chief Dan Halutz (certainly in line to become Israel’s next former General/war criminal PM) to set Lebanese infrastructure back “20, maybe 50 years.” Meanwhile, judging from the number of rockets that Hezbollah continues to fire into Israel, the IDF bombardment, including 23 tons of ordinance dropped on a single target, has done little damage to “terrorist infrastructure.”

I recalled a line in William Blum’s Rogue State. “A terrorist is someone with a bomb but not an air force.” I followed a certain logic: Israel is fighting “terrorism”, therefore Israel is not itself a terrorist entity, therefore Israel must have an air force with which to drop their American bombs so precisely on minivans of Lebanese families fleeing their homes on the advice of Israeli leaflets raining down from cruel summer skies warning of an imminent heavy metal sufa. Sufa means storm in Hebrew and, coincidentally, is also the name of the type of Israeli fighter jet that crashed during take off from the Negev on its way to Lebanon the other day [Ha’aretz 7/20/06]. It turns out that despite its Hebrew name, the Sufa is actually manufactured in Texas by none other than Lockheed Martin. According to the same Ha’aretz article, Israel bought 102 of these new fighter jets, also known as the F-16I, at a cost of “nearly $70 million” per aircraft.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07240641722.htm

It looks like Israel is tired of acting like NATO and now wants to bring NATO into the fray. They've just been paving the way for NATO occupation. This comes from Arutz Sheva, a right-wing Israeli news source:



(This isn't my discovery by the way, thanks go to Francisco Gil-White's latest article, although he draws all the wrong conclusions from this.)

EDIT: I've just found some additional interesting information. Apparently Israel conducted a joint "tactical exercise" with NATO about a month ago (its first).

IDF AND NATO STRENGTHEN TIES

"For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli naval forces into a military exercise, Arutz-7 reported. Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises. The military exercise will take place in the Black sea off the coast of Romania. The exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and rescue drills.

Senior IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers said that the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation. Some analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel's ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit." (source)

From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel in first NATO tactical exercise

"The purpose of the exercise, explained Lavi, was to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. To do that, the exercise practiced communicating between the fleets and emphasized how the different independent systems on each boat worked in concert with one another." (source)

It's my understanding that Hizbollah has repeatedly said it will disarm when the Lenanese Military are capable of defending the country.

It therefore seems to me that Condoleeza has an obvious game plan for solving the 'conflict'.

She has only to persuade her good friend George W and the nice folk at the Pentagon to arm its democratic ally in the middle east to a sufficient level that next time Israel attacks, The Lebanon can repel and punish the aggressor with superior force.

On that basis, Hizbollah would aurely disarm and the Israelis would be presumably be delighted to have a secure neighbour to the north.

How's about that for an instant peace policy? Who could possibly object? Even the Military Industrial Complex would have a field day. As we ALL know, it's ONLY interest is to sell more arms. Hence arming The Lebanon to at least the Israeli level would be in the MIDs interests also, wouldn't it?

Win, win, win all round!

Wonder why this will never happen?

Owen,

Well that is very interesting. It would seem that there's a larger strategy being employed here. The US can't wait any longer. Control of the entire region, with Israel as a willing ally, would seem to be the big picture.

Maybe the concern over Iran's pending nuclear capability has forced their hand. Once Tehran has this capability, there's no way the US and Israel could throw their weight around like this.

"(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon."

So, Israel will "allow" NATO forces into The Lebanon - a sovereign nation whose population is not represented in the Knesset.

How jolly nice.

Does that mean putative NATO forces in The Lebanon won't be attacked and murdered by the Israeli military - a fate experienced by both UN forces and the Red Cross?

It's great to hear from 'left-wing' Zionists such as Peretz on matters such as this, so we can better understand the Zionist 'center of gravity' on this debate.

I agree Sid.

The sad thing is that they'll convince gullible people in the West that they're being fair and reasonable (because the Western media will say this is so, of course).

Israel and the US have zero respect for the sovereignty of other nations. That's an undisputable fact. Under the dubious pretexts of spreading democracy, liberating them from oppression and eradicating terrorism (a problem mostly of their own making), our allies have sunk to the status of global cowards and bullies. The emperor is buck naked and what an awful sight it is.

From today's Sydney Daily Telegraph comes this quote from Connie Rice during her visit to Sydney four months ago:

I do think we were hurt by sixty years of turning a blind eye to the absence of freedom in the Middle East. But we have a different course now and I believe over time the people of the Middle East will see that that's a course supportive of their aspirations.

My interpretation of this garbage is:

We are in deep trouble. We want that oil--ALL the oil, before China gets a sniff. Because of the way Israel and the US have behaved in the region since WW2, there's no chance of us getting it peacefully so we're just going to take it by force. But don't worry friends--we'll say we're bringing freedom to the region. Ain't that hilarious? We get the oil and Israel gets to destroy its regional enemies. It's win win. BTW, if you're not with us, you're against us. That should keep you all in line.

More details on this NATO force:



Isn't it funny that while the Lebanese P.M. wants a UN force, our own Ambassador to the UN (who is trying to bring about "reform") wants a NATO force "perhaps authorized by the Security Council." Blair and others are sick of the UN and want something a little more "robust." We can gather from all this that Siniora has no say in the country he is supposed to govern and that NATO will bypass the Security Council altogether, just like they did in Kosovo. NATO is going to "help" him "implement" resolution 1559, whether he wants their help or not.

Also, Israel is committing more war crimes. This comes from HRW:

Two sides of the story published in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828055,00.html

This is a fight for our survival

Isaac Herzog, Israeli government
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian


Some may wonder how, as a man of the left and Israel's peace camp, I can at the same time be a member of a government now fighting a war in Lebanon. The answer is the same one that Clement Attlee or even Harold Wilson would have given: when your very existence is under threat, you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to your people to defend their security. Let's be clear: Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation. This is not a political issue, it is not an ideological issue; it is a matter of survival. That is why I and the vast majority of the Israeli population support this military response.

Israel today is facing a sustained onslaught from one of the world's most dangerous and effective terrorist organisations. In the past few days, 1,000 rockets and 1,200 mortar rounds have been hurled across the border by Hizbullah at hospitals, schools and homes. Their intention is the killing and maiming of Israelis in general.

Israel is fighting back. Israel's use of force is entirely proportionate to the extent of the threat that Hizbullah poses. A third of our people are in immediate danger of Hizbullah missiles and are sheltering for fear of their lives. The whole of the north of our country has in effect been shut down. International law recognises the right to respond to the extent of a threat, and Israel has therefore acted within international law.

Our goals are clear. Israel was forced to enter this conflict after an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah terrorists across the border, in which three soldiers were killed, and two kidnapped. The attack, one of many in recent years, was made possible because of an abnormal political situation in Lebanon. Since May 2000 the southern part of that country has effectively been hijacked by a terrorist organisation. Hizbullah controls the border, and administers every aspect of life for the residents of southern Lebanon. The organisation is armed, trained and kept afloat by foreign powers - Iran and Syria are at the forefront.

This terrorist organisation openly desires the destruction of Israel. Its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is an anti-semite, and is one of the most cynical leaders in the region. He uses Lebanon as a launch pad to pursue his own agenda with a wilful disregard of the hardship and pain he has brought on his fellow countrymen and women in Lebanon.

This situation is unacceptable. It will not continue. Israel's goal, first and foremost, is to ensure that, when our operations end, Hizbullah no longer controls the border with Israel, and may not reignite fighting at its whim. This is why a simple ceasefire, as attractive as it sounds, is not enough. It would allow Hizbullah, as it has done for six years, to rest, regroup, replenish supplies, and then start the fighting all over again.

The goal of ending Hizbullah's capacity for aggression can be achieved in a number of ways. From our point of view, the obvious solution would be the deployment by the Lebanese army of its forces throughout the entirety of Lebanese territory. This is in accordance with the norms of life in sovereign countries. It is also required by Lebanon's obligations according to UN resolution 1559. We are told, however, that the Lebanese army is weak and small, and contains within its own ranks a considerable number of Hizbullah sympathisers.

So be it. Clearly, it is imperative that the international community endeavours to help the Lebanese government to reach a situation where it is able to effectively police its territory, and prevent it from being seized by armed organisations in the pay of foreign states.

The international community has already proved that with solid, unified support it helped Lebanon rid itself of Syrian occupation. The same international will must now be garnered to rid Lebanon of Hizbullah. For the interim period, however, Israel could accept the deployment of a sizeable, effective international force along the border.

Hopefully, the Israeli action of recent days has disabused Hizbullah and its backers of the notion that Israel is a "paper tiger", lacking the will to act in its citizens' defence. If this lesson has not been absorbed, and the aggression recommences, Israel will be prepared, if necessary, to mobilise once again.

It is to be hoped that arrangements of this type, along with the immediate return of the kidnapped soldiers, will now be enforced upon Hizbullah. The lives and dignity of the people of both Lebanon and northern Israel have for too long been forfeit to the whims of a terror group in the pay of a neighbouring dictatorship. It is time for this situation to end. Hizbullah's immoral and illegal behaviour must end so a new era may dawn on the region.

· Isaac Herzog is minister of tourism and a member of Israel's security cabinet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828055,00.html

We are defending our sovereignty

Ali Fayyad, Hizbullah leadership
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian


For nearly two weeks Israel has been waging a war of terror and aggression against Lebanon. Its stated justification is the capture by the Islamic Resistance (Hizbullah) of two Israeli soldiers with the aim of exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners. The war has already resulted in the killing of around 400 and wounding of more than 1,000 Lebanese. Most are civilians (a third children), crushed in their homes or ripped to pieces in their cars by Israeli bombs and missiles.

In reality, the Israeli escalation is less about the two soldiers and more about its determination to disarm the Lebanese resistance. According to the US, Israel and some other western states, this would implement UN security council resolution 1559, which led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon last year.

Most Lebanese, however, do not regard the resistance forces of Hizbullah as militias, as referred to in the UN resolution, let alone any kind of terrorist organisation. Our resistance accomplished a major national mission by forcing Israeli troops to withdraw from most Lebanese territory in 2000 after 22 years of occupation. Since then there has been intense national debate about how Lebanon can defend itself in future once the resistance has achieved the liberation of the remaining occupied Lebanese land (the Shaba'a farms area) and the release of Lebanese detainees.

The Lebanese people's support for the resistance was demonstrated by the fact that Hizbullah and its allies won more seats in the 2005 elections, following the Syrian withdrawal, than when Syrian troops were still in the country. That is why Israel is now targeting civilians.

In the context of the continued occupation, detention of prisoners and repeated Israeli attacks and incursions into Lebanese territory, the capture of the Israeli soldiers was entirely legitimate. The operation was fully in line with the Lebanese ministerial declaration, supported in parliament, that stressed the right of the resistance to liberate occupied Lebanese territory, free prisoners of war and defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. International law also allows peoples and states to take action to protect their citizens and territory. The Israeli onslaught is aimed not only at liquidating the resistance and destroying the country's infrastructure but at intervening in Lebanese politics and imposing conditions on what can be agreed.

There is now a clear national consensus on the need to maintain the military power necessary to prevent Lebanon from being subjugated by Israel's war machine. Popular resistance is a way of redressing the huge imbalance of power, defending Lebanon's sovereignty and preventing Israel from intervening in Lebanese internal affairs, as has happened repeatedly since 1948. It is also - as has been the case in the prisoner-capture operation - dictated by an entirely local agenda, rather than reflecting any Syrian or Iranian policy.

The aggression against Lebanon, which has primarily targeted civilians and failed to achieve any tangible military objectives, is part of a continuing attempt to impose Israeli hegemony on the area and prevent the emergence of a regional system that might guarantee stability, self-determination, freedom and democracy.

Hizbullah has tried from the start of this crisis to limit the escalation by adopting a policy of limited response while avoiding civilian targets; its aims were restricted to freeing the prisoners of war held in both camps. However, Israel's systematic destruction of entire civilian areas in Beirut and elsewhere and perpetration of scores of horrific massacres prompted Hizbullah to shift to an all-out confrontation to affirm Lebanon's right to deter aggression and defend its territorial integrity and its citizens, just as any sovereign state would do.

Thus far, Hizbullah has had surprising military successes, while maintaining its position in the face of Israel's superior fire power, and preserved its capacity to wage a long-term war. But Hizbullah is still ready to accept a ceasefire and negotiate indirectly an exchange of prisoners to bring the current crisis to an end.

This is what Israel has so far rejected, with the support of the US. For this is also a war of American hegemony over the Middle East, and the US - supported by the British government - is fully complicit in the Israeli war crimes carried out in the past two weeks. It would appear that the peaceful option will not be given a chance until Hizbullah and the forces of resistance have demonstrated their ability to confront Israel's aggression and thwart its objectives, as happened in 1993 and 1996. That is why resistance is not only a pillar of our sovereignty but also a prerequisite of stability.

· Ali Fayyad is a senior member of Hizbullah's executive committee

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828134,00.html

Last night, on national TV, Australian Prime Minister John Howard repeated hisd Government's pro-Israeli line on the current conflict in The Lebanon.

Inter alia, Howard said:



This is consistent with the general impression one gleans from the mainstream media about this incident.

There appears to be an alternative narrative, however, doucmented HERE. In this account, the soldiers were captured while walkabout in Southern Lebanon.

As an entire country is currently being destroyed, allegedly in response to the soldiers' capture - and given the possibility an even wider and more terrible war ensuing - it seems of some importance to establish the truth on this matter.

Do any forum members have more definitive information?

Where were these Israeli soldiers when captured? Were they inside Israel - or operating (illegally) within another country?

You've got it right John. I see it as American foreign policy as much as Israeli, however. The soldiers were just an excuse. Israel, after all, has been capturing Palestinian and other Arab civilains, soldiers and even legislators - or just killing them - and has not addressed its long illegal occupation - nor its effects on a huge occupied and miserable population. Again when people do not look at history, but only at the immediate 'situation' they can be manipulated into false notions of who is the aggressor and who the victim. Israel now [with the current foreign policy and government] is just a moored American aircraftcarrier in the Middle East for projection of American Foreign Policy. It is just a continuation of the march toward empire and away from any sense of care for humans as humans. Neither the government of Israel nor the USA care one wit about the lives of innocent persons not of their tribe or nation and label it with newspeak - collateral damage. This will only prolong the death and suffering and tension in the region for another few decades - which is what it is intended for...the humans be damned in this cynical and bloody chessgame for power over oil and geopolitical advantage. This kind of policy is only creating new enemies toward those behind it with every day. All nations and adminstrations involved will have to answer for their War Crimes and disregard of Peace and the humans lives destroyed. Arabs are the 'fashionable' 'other' to disregard now as even worthy of concern about....but that is interchangable...Vietnamese, Cuban, Nicaraguan, whatever...just the 'flavor' of hate for the times. The problem is that the world is increasingly run by fundamentalist madmen - Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other.....but I'd have to put the blame for the largest part of this madness having been created as a result of many of the actions of the USA, since the War...taking over from the British before it. Empire and the quest for it will always produce a reaction.

Greg Palast's newsletter that arrived this morning:

BLOOD IN BEIRUT: $75.05 A BARREL

The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.

By Greg Palast
July 26, 2006


I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil.

I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.

So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.

What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)

Let's begin with the facts we can agree on: the berserkers are winning. Crazies discredited only a month ago are now in charge, guys with guns bigger than brains and souls smaller still. Here's a list:

-- Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating in June was down to a Bush-level of 35%. But today, Olmert's poll numbers among Israeli voters have more than doubled to 78% as he does his bloody John Wayne "cleanin' out the varmints" routine. But let's not forget: Olmert can't pee-pee without George Bush's approval. Bush can stop Olmert tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hezbollah, a political party rejected overwhelmingly by Lebanese voters sickened by their support of Syrian occupation, holds a mere 14 seats out of 128 in the nation's parliament. Hezbollah was facing demands by both Lebanon's non-Shia majority and the United Nations to lay down arms. Now, few Lebanese would suggest taking away their rockets. But let's not forget: Without Iran, Hezbollah is just a fundamentalist street gang. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop Hezbollah's rockets tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hamas, just days before it kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers, was facing certain political defeat at the hands of the Palestinian majority ready to accept the existence of Israel as proposed in a manifesto for peace talks penned by influential Palestinian prisoners. Now the Hamas rocket brigade is back in charge. But let's not forget: Hamas is broke and a joke without the loot and authority of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah can stop these guys tomorrow. He hasn't.

Why not? Why haven't what we laughably call "leaders" of the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia called back their delinquent spawn, cut off their allowances and grounded them for six months?

Maybe because mayhem and murder in the Middle East are very, very profitable to the sponsors of these characters with bombs and rockets. America, Iran and Saudi Arabia share one thing in common: they are run by oil regimes. The higher the price of crude, the higher the profits and the happier the presidents and princelings of these petroleum republics.

This Thursday, Exxon is expected to report the highest second-quarter earnings of any corporation since the days of the Pharaoh, $9.9 billion in pure profit collected in just three months -- courtesy of an oil shortage caused by pipelines on fire in Iraq, warlord attacks in Nigeria, the lingering effects of the sabotage of Venezuela's oil system by a 2002 strike... the list could go on.

Exxon's brobdingnagian profits simply reflect the cold axiom that oil companies and oil states don't make their loot by finding oil but by finding trouble. Finding oil increases supply. Increased supply means decreased price. Whereas finding trouble -- wars, coup d'etats, hurricanes, whatever can disrupt supply -- raises the price of oil.

A couple of examples from today's Bloomberg newswire are:

"Crude oil traded above $75 a barrel in New York as fighting between Israeli and Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon entered its 14th day... Oil prices rose last month on concern for supplies from Iran, the world's fourth largest producer, may be disrupted in its dispute with the United Nations over its uranium enrichment ... [And, said a trader,] 'I still think $85 is likely this summer. I'm really surprised we haven't seen any hurricanes.'''

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad may or may not have a plan to make a nuclear bomb, but he sure as heck knows that hinting at it raises the price of the one thing he certainly does have -- oil. Every time he barks, 'Mad Mahmoud' knows that he's pumping up the price of crude. Just a $10 a barrel "blow-up-in-the-Mideast" premium brings his regime nearly a quarter of a billion dollars each week (including the little kick to the value of Iran's natural gas). Not a bad pay-off for making a bit of trouble.

Saudi Arabia's rake-in from The Troubles? Assuming just a $10 a barrel boost for Middle Eastern mayhem and you can calculate that the blood in the sand puts an extra $658 million a week in Abdullah's hand.

And in Houston, you can hear the cash registers jing-a-ling as explosions in Kirkuk, Beirut and the Niger River Delta sound like the sleigh-bells on Santa's sled. At $75.05 a barrel, they don't call it "sweet" crude for nothing. That's up 27% from a year ago. The big difference between then and now: the rockets' red glare.

Exxon's second-quarter profits may bust records, but next quarter's should put it to shame, as the "Lebanon premium" and Iraq's insurgency have puffed up prices, up by an average of 11% in the last three months.

So there's not much incentive for the guys who supply the weaponry to tell their wards to put away their murderous toys. This war's just too darn profitable.

We are trained to think of Middle Eastern conflicts as just modern flare-ups of ancient tribal animosities. But to uncover why the flames won't die, the usual rule applies: follow the money.

Am I saying that Tehran, Riyadh and Houston oil chieftains conspired to ignite a war to boost their petroleum profits? I can't imagine it. But I do wonder if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of crude to crash. You know and I know that if this war took a bite out of Exxon or the House of Saud, a ceasefire would be imposed quicker than you can say, "Let's drill in the Arctic."

Eventually, there will be another ceasefire. But Exxon shareholders need not worry. Global warming has heated the seas sufficiently to make certain that they can look forward to a hellacious -- and profitable -- season of hurricanes.

Greg Palast, IMO, is a more devious shill for not-very-nice political forces than Melanie Phillips on her high-performing days. Blaming big oil for wars in the middle east. Now when did I last hear that decreasingly plausible line? March 2003? Around the time R Murdoch told us to expect lower oil prices after the invasion of Iraq, LOL.

I may have imagined it - but it seemed to me the BBC (international TV service) momentarily lost a little composure, the moment the announcement came through that the four murdered UN observers had been killed by a precision guided missile. This news arrived just after the Beeb had replayed (several times!) an interview with an Israeli Government spokesperson assuring all and sundry that the observers' deaths were just a terribly tragic accident.

The BBC commentators displayed the kind of gentle annoyance one might expect from a doting parent whose delinquent child had been caught out, yet again, electrocuting a family pet and lying about it afterwards. Sheepish grins and shrugs all round. Oh dear, Jonny is naughty sometimes, but he's our boy and we do love him!

Regarding the hotly-debated topic of the "proportionality" of Israel's "response", the figure of 10 to 1 deaths has been quoted often.

Ex-Israeli anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon writes that a more accurate ratio would be 500,000 : 2

That was the proportion of involuntarily relocated Lebanese refugees to the two involuntarily relocated Israeli soldiers, whose interdiction allegedly triggered Israel's latest assault on its northern neighbour.

Of course, this ratio may need to be revised upwards; the number of Lebanese refugees rises on an hourly basis.

The IDF was reportedly reminded 10 times of the UN peacekeepers presence. Still they copped a direct hit. I can't see the IDF deliberately hitting them because there's no military or political advantage in doing so. However, if it was not deliberate then it's a shocking display of carelessness. Is the IDF that careless?

As far as world opinion is concerned, this war is going very badly for Israel. The death of the peacekeepers means the PR battle is comprehensively lost, IMO. China is furious and demanding an explanation from Israel. I'm keen to see what excuse John Howard comes up with for his dear friends in Jerusalem. What an embarrassment this man is.

As more news filters in about today's Israeli strikes on the UNIFIL observation team, the story sounds eerily reminiscent of the USS Liberty attack. Apparently there were numerous attacks over a sustained period and the Israelis were warned many times. When the kill came, it was a precision weapon. To dispatch such a missile, exact co-ordinates must be entered by the operator. Little room for acciudents in this procedure, one would have thought. One commentator speculates that the strike might well have been a deliberate assault to remove indpendent witnesses close to the Syrian border.

On cue, the White House announces that there's no evidence the attacks were deliberate. Gee, they sure have good 'intelligence' in Washington. Just like 1967? The quality of spin has been declining ever since the smooth-lying Ari Fleischer left the team; amazingly, Washington has yet to blame Iran or Syria for these UN slayings.

From Rome, Condi Rice calls for "sustainable peace" but not a cease fire. I guess that gives the Lebanese something else to look forward to. Santa Clause is due too in another six months.

Ariel Sharon stirs. Perhaps the 'Hero of Qatana' misses the action? Terror 101.

The suave Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev appears on the screen once again. He assures the gullible that Israel's Lebanon 'operation' is on behalf of the whole world. The suffering Jewish State is making great sacrifices for humanity by waging the War on Terror on the front lines. He hisses when Syria is mentioned. It's a terrorist country, addicted to war and lying. He says this without a trace of irony.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Israeli surgical strikes have destroyed another aid lorry, killing its driver (it's the second in a week).

The Israelis continue to use cluster bombs and phosphorus (a chemical weapon). Even the timid Human Rights Watch is finding this hard to be 'even-handed' about. Those with strong stomaches might care to check THIS link.

Only the most profound racism on the Israeli side can explain their nonchalence about massive civilian casualties in The Lebanon and their determination to persist with military policies that will inevtiably lead to a lot more of the same.

Lest we forget, Gaza continues to scream in agony, its torments largely overlooked in the current excitement.

I received this article via Israel Shamir's email list. It makes grim reading. The courage of the Palestinian people is almost beyond belief. They show us all that the human spirit is still alive, even within their walled, segmented, bombed and largely destroyed ghetto.

_______________________

A disturbing post. The major difference between the Liberty incident and the killing of the UN observers is that there was no internet in 1967. Besides the statements of those involved, there was only the mainstream news media so this issue was silenced by LBJ and his friends by threatening retribution for those who spoke out. Even if they did, the media, deeply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, wasn't interested. That's why the Liberty story was never really fully exposed and analysed when it occurred. The fact that the victims of the Liberty attack were all Americans also made it easier for LBJ to cover for Israel.

Actually, the death of the observers could turn out to be a disaster for Israel as it will prompt more thinking people to circumvent the mainstream media and find out what Israel has actually been doing to the Palestinians. The US/Israeli propaganda machine only gives us the story from the Israeli perspective but the internet provides the opportunity to look beyond the superficiality and get a glimpse of the real story. Of course, the internet can be spiked also, but more politicians and opinion leaders (those not captive to the Israeli lobby, that is) are beginning to speak out. Hopefully, we're getting close to critical mass.

The old fighting terrorism line is wearing very thin. It can't justify the mass slaughter of civilians and constant oppression of civilian populations. It's all total bullshit. The Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days called themselves warriors in the noble struggle for Hebrew liberation. What's it going to take for the world to see the double standards being employed here?

Five myths supporting Israeli war crimes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm

A very good article Mark.

Thanks for the link.

I came across this yesterday in an Oklahoma State University student publication:



http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=30268

Does anyone have any idea what LBJ tape(s) about the Liberty the writer is talking about?

Hezbollah was reportedly using the UN post as a shield to launch rocket attacks. If true, then a tactical decision was made to remove the shield.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Nice find, Ron. I suspect the writer is using a bit of 'student poetic license' there. I've never heard of anything like this on the LBJ tapes. LBJ always removed incriminating evidence. I would be keen to find out the author's sources.

Sadly, from what has been revealed in the last 30 years about LBJ's activities, I wouldn't put it past him.



Very interesting. If true, then Kofi Annan was right.

They were told repeatedly that the observers were in the shelter. That would make it murder--and another war crime.

Tony Blair has been rightly criticised by the media for appearing to be George Bush’s lap dog. He has just dashed off to Washington where he will try to persuade Bush to call for a cease-fire. No chance of course. One of the problems is that Bush’s support for Israel has increased his poll-ratings. It seems the American public think that the bombing of the Lebanon is likely to reduce the threat of terrorism. They clearly know nothing about politics in the Middle East.

The "hiding among civilians" myth

Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible.

By Mitch Prothero

Jul. 28, 2006 | The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And "everyone" apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit.

Two guided bombs struck it in a huge flash bang of fire and concrete dust followed by the roar of 10 stories pancaking on top of each other, local residents said. Jihad Husseini, 46, runs the driving school a block away and was sitting in his office when the bombs struck. He said his life was saved because he had drawn the heavy cloth curtains shut on the windows facing the street, preventing him from being hit by a wave of shattered glass. But even so, a chunk of smoldering steel flew through the air, broke through the window and the curtain, and shot past his head and through the wall before coming to rest in his neighbor's home.

But Jihad still refuses to leave.

"Everything is broken, but I can make it better," he says, surrounded by his sons Raed, 20, and Mohammed, 12. "I will not leave. This place is not military, it is not Hezbollah; it was an empty apartment."

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

People throw the phrase "ghost town" around a lot, but Nabatiya, a bombed-out town about 15 miles from the Lebanon-Israel border, deserves it. One expects the spirits of the town's dead, or its refugees, to silently glide out onto its abandoned streets from the ruined buildings that make up much of the town.

Not all of the buildings show bomb damage, but those that don't have metal shutters blown out as if by a terrible wind. And there are no people at all, except for the occasional Hezbollah scout on a motorbike armed only with a two-way radio, keeping an eye on things as Israeli jets and unmanned drones circle overhead.

Overlooking the outskirts of this town, which has a peacetime population of 100,000 or so -- mostly Shiite supporters of Hezbollah and its more secular rival Amal -- is the Ragheh Hareb Hospital, a facility that makes quite clear what side the residents of Nabatiya are on in this conflict.

The hospital's carefully sculpted and trimmed front lawn contains the giant Red Crescent that denotes the Muslim version of the Red Cross. As we approach it, an Israeli missile streaks by, smashing into a school on the opposite hilltop. As we crouch and then run for the shelter of the hospital awning, that giant crescent reassures me until I look at the flagpole. The Lebanese flag and its cedar tree is there -- right next to the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It's safe to say that Ragheh Hareb Hospital has an association with Hezbollah. And the staff sports the trimmed beards and polite, if somewhat ominous, manner of the group. After young men demand press IDs and do some quick questioning, they allow us to enter.

Dr. Ahmed Tahir recognizes me from a funeral in the nearby village of Dweir. An Israeli bomb dropped on their house killed a Hezbollah cleric and 11 members of his immediate family, mostly children. People in Lebanon are calling it a war crime. Tahir looks exhausted, and our talk is even more tense than the last time.

"Maybe it would be best if the Israelis bombed your car on the road here," he said, with a sharp edge. "If you were killed, maybe the public outcry would be so bad in America that the Jews would be forced to stop these attacks."

When I volunteered that the Bush administration cared little for journalists, let alone ones who reported from Hezbollah territory, he shrugged. "Maybe if it was an American bomb used by the Israelis that killed an American journalist, they would stop this horror," he said.

The handful of people in the town include some from Hezbollah's political wing, as well as volunteers keeping an eye on things while the residents are gone. Off to the side, as we watch the Israelis pummel ridgelines on the outskirts of town, one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years.

Although Israel targets apartments and offices because they are considered "Hezbollah" installations, the group has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones.

"You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

Perhaps once a year, Hezbollah will hold a military parade in the south, in which its weapons and fighters appear. Media access to these parades is tightly limited and controlled. Unlike the fighters in the half dozen other countries where I have covered insurgencies, Hezbollah fighters do not like to show off for the cameras. In Iraq, with some risk taking, you can meet with and even watch the resistance guys in action. (At least you could during my last time there.) In Afghanistan, you can lunch with Taliban fighters if you're willing to walk a day or so in the mountains. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Fatah or Hamas fighter is almost ubiquitous with his mask, gun and sloganeering to convince the Western journalist of the justice of his cause.

The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid. In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me. But no fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them.

Even before the war, on many of my trips to the south, the Lebanese army, or the ubiquitous guy on a motorbike with a radio, would halt my trip and send me over to Tyre to get permission from a Hezbollah official before I could proceed, usually with strict limits on where I could go.

Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews. All he will say is, "I'll be gone for a few months for training. I'll call when I'm back." Presumably his friends and neighbors may suspect something, but no one says anything.

Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong.

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, I stood next to a giant crater that had smashed through the highway between Tyre and Sidon -- the only route of escape for most of the people in the far south. Overhead, Israeli fighters and drones circled above the city and its outlying areas and regular blasts of bombs and naval artillery could be heard.

The crater served as a nice place to check up on the refugees, who were forced by the crater to slow down long enough to be asked questions. They barely stopped, their faces wrenched in near panic. The main wave of refugees out of the south had come the previous two days, so these were the hard-luck cases, the people who had been really close to the fighting and who needed two days just to get to Tyre, or who had had to make the tough decision whether to flee or stay put, with neither choice looking good.

The roads in the south are full of the cars of people who chose wrong -- burned-out chassis, broken glass, some cars driven straight into posts or ditches. Other seem to have broken down or run out of gas on the long dirt detours around the blown-out highway and bridge network the Israeli air force had spent days methodically destroying even as it warned people to flee.

One man, slowing his car around the crater, almost screams, "There is nothing left. This country is not for us." His brief pause immediately draws horns and impatient yells from the people in the cars behind him. They pass the crater but within two minutes a large explosion behind us, north, in the direction of Sidon, rocks us.

As we drive south toward Tyre, we soon pass a new series of scars on the highway: shrapnel, hubcaps and broken glass. A car that had been maybe five minutes ahead of us was hit by an Israeli shell. Three of its passengers were wounded, and it was heading north to the Hammound hospital at Sidon. We turned around because of the attack and followed the car to Sidon. Those unhurt staked out the parking lot of the hospital, looking for the Western journalists they were convinced had called in the strike. Luckily my Iraqi fixer smelled trouble and we got out of there. Probably nothing would have happened -- mostly they were just freaked-out country people who didn't like the coincidence of an Israeli attack and a car full of journalists driving past.

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

And the civilians? They see themselves as targeted regardless of their affiliation. They are enraged at Israel and at the United States, the only two countries on earth not calling for an immediate cease-fire. Lebanese of all persuasions think the United States and Israel believe that Lebanese lives are cheaper than Israeli ones. And many are now saying that they want to fight.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/...llah/print.html

A very interesting dialogue with the head of Hezbollah as well as interpretation of it and the current situation by someone in Reagan's TaskForce on Terrorism!...from democracynow.org today [July 28]

JUAN GONZALEZ: During the meeting, Nasrallah was asked about Hezbollah's strategy to free Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. This was his response.

SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] The only possible strategy is for you to have Israeli prisoners, soldiers, the soldiers as prisoners, and then you negotiate with the Israelis in order to have your prisoners released. Here, this is the only choice. Here, you don't have multiple choices in order for you to choose one of them. You have no multiple choices. You have two options, either to have these prisoners or detainees remain in Israeli prisons or to capture Israeli soldiers.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. One of the retired diplomats who met with Nasrallah in February is Edward Peck. When we come back from our break, he joins us in studio. Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to one of the retired diplomats who met with Hassan Nasrallah in February, Edward Peck. He is the former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania, served as the Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration. We welcome to you Democracy Now!, Ambassador Peck.

EDWARD PECK: Thank you, ma'am.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you describe this meeting you had with the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon? And then we'll talk about the content of what he had to say, because this was before the capture of the two soldiers, and he basically said this was the plan.

EDWARD PECK: Well, we were out there as international election observers in Gaza for the election, and then we traveled elsewhere through the area, to Israel, to the West Bank, to Jordan, Syria, and finally to Lebanon, where we met with Nasrallah. We had spoken already with senior officials in Egypt and for Hamas and Fatah and the presidents of Syria and Lebanon in an effort, which the Council for the National Interest was sponsoring, to get a feeling for the area, how it was at that time in January.

It was interesting to meet with him, because we had already met with leaders of Hamas and Fatah before and after the election was over in Palestine, and his point was a fairly simple one, I think. Talking to us, retired diplomats, Americans, his key concerns were essentially how to free his country from the domination, which he perceived, and how to go about building the nation up again, despite all of the things that had happened to it over the years.

So it was a logical, reasonable presentation. No screaming, no shrieking. You know, just an educated intelligent man talking about serious issues that he perceived. It was interesting in the sense that the projection of people like that in this country is of, you know, blood-soaked wackos, and there are some of those out there on all sides, but that certainly was not the case with him. He believes very strongly in what he’s doing, which is something that you want to think about as you deal with him, because he is intent on accomplishing the objectives that he believes are the right ones.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And this issue of using Israeli, capturing Israeli soldiers to, in essence, trade for Lebanese prisoners is not unheard of, actually. Didn’t Nasrallah negotiate a major prisoner release back in 2004?

EDWARD PECK: Yes, and the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Lebanese, Hezbollah and Israelis have negotiated prisoner exchanges before. As I think you're aware, the Israelis have been holding a number of Lebanese as prisoners that they kidnapped from Lebanon, which is one of the contentious issues that upsets the folks on the northern side of that border.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, he was very clear, Nasrallah, saying the only possible strategy is to have Israeli prisoners and soldiers as prisoners, and then you negotiate in order to get your prisoners. This is the only choice. You don't have multiple choices in order for you to choose. You have the two options, either to have your detainees remain in Israeli prisons or to capture an Israeli soldier.

EDWARD PECK: Yeah, and it’s called a bargaining chip. It’s kind of a demeaning phrase, but if you've got some, and we've got some, then perhaps we can make an exchange. And that has indeed happened before. One of the things that concerns me, of course, is that I am not convinced that it’s the capture of those two soldiers, which has provoked this horrific Israeli response. I believe they were looking for an excuse, and there it was, and this is what’s happened since.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let's go back to this videotape that we have gotten a copy of. During your meeting with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, he also discussed the founding of Hezbollah.

SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] You know that in the year 1978, the Israelis invaded South Lebanon, and the UN Security Council issued or passed the Resolution 425. They requested that the Israeli forces immediately withdraw from South Lebanon, and the Israelis did not. On the contrary, in the year 1982, they invaded more Lebanese territory. They even occupied the capital, Beirut. Mr. Sharon was the defense minister then.

Between 1978, 1982, up ’til the year 2000, the international community did nothing to help the Israeli occupation forces out of Lebanon, nor did it, meaning the international community, do anything to prevent these aggressions on Lebanon. There was a resolution called 425, but it was put on the shelf. We, as Lebanese, were left to face our fate.

Lebanon is a small country, weak, an army with very humble capabilities. What is first is that the people is torn as a result of the civil war, while facing the strongest army in the Middle East, meaning the Israeli Army. Not only the international community, specifically the U.S. administration, did nothing, there's also the Arab League, the OIC, Organization of Islamic Countries, nobody did anything.

We are a group of Lebanese youth. We took the decision that we needed to confront and resist the occupation. The resistance which we have established, when we started with it, I was -- our ages, he’s talking about the ages of the young who took part in this -- I was 22 years old then. The oldest among us was 27 years old, because those who were over 30 then believed that it was impossible to defeat Israel. They viewed themselves as sage, as wise people, and they viewed us or considered us as the crazy youth.

AMY GOODMAN: Hezbollah founder Hassan Nasrallah, speaking with a group -- leader, not founder -- speaking with a group of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Edward Peck, who joins us in our studio in Washington. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Ambassador, he mentions there this UN Resolution 425, which obviously is almost ancient history, forgotten in current crisis. But Israel is constantly mentioning UN Resolution 1559, and there are some, including Hezbollah, who believe that that resolution doesn't really apply to Hezbollah, per se. Could you explain that and the differences of opinion about even this latest resolution?

EDWARD PECK: Well, let me start with saying that people in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, find it sort of ironic that Israel is now insisting on the implementation of 1559, whereas, as Nasrallah said, they ignored this earlier Security Council resolution demanding that they remove themselves from South Lebanon for 20 years, that that’s called selective morality. Everybody practices that, but it kind of cuts the ground up from under your stance if you think that only certain Security Council resolutions should be enforced.

Hezbollah, the problem we face -- the problem the Lebanese government faces is that Hezbollah is a political party, as you’re aware, that does a lot of things in the humanitarian and social field, which is good, and does some things in the military field, which certain people consider to be not good. And the Lebanese government, which is weak and riven, as you know, by the many, many sectarian groups and the differences that they have religiously and socially, is in no position whatsoever to take on Hezbollah. That would be a civil war. And while Israel does not mind necessarily seeing that happen, would like very much to have Hezbollah go away, there’s no way in the world, as far as I can tell, that the Lebanese would even consider undertaking this. And this was made clear to us by the leaders of the Lebanese government with whom we also met on that trip.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, did you have any inkling, when you met with Nasrallah, after talking to him, that something was imminent, that some kind of action was going to be taken?

EDWARD PECK: No, ma'am. Certainly not from that meeting. But those of us who have lived in and worked on that part of the world for a long -- well, for any length of time recognize that eventually there’s going to be some kind of an explosion, to use the phrase correctly, because the situations like that, just they're rumbling. They’re like, you know, semi-nascent volcanic eruptions. Something is going to happen. But certainly, there was no indication at that moment that I detected, nor my colleagues either, that something like this was going to transpire.

And it’s worthwhile noticing, by the way, that what some people call the disproportionality of the Israeli reaction -- if I could, I have a piece of paper here I would like to quote from, if I may, because this discussion comes up so many times. In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us -- this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group -- they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.

After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”

Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And I think it’s useful for people who discuss that phrase to remember that Israel was founded by terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders, Menachem Begin, who became statesmen and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And Nasrallah may not be the same kind of guy, but his intentions are the same. He wants to free his country from domination by another.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to the videotape. Nasrallah also mentioned an event that’s back in the news this week, and that’s Israel's bombing of a UN observation post in the southern Lebanese town of Qana in 1996. In that attack ten years ago, about 106 refugees were killed.

SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] Between the years 1985 and the year 2000, we went on with the resistance. There was, for example, the Qana massacre. You’ve heard about that. The UN Security Council did not to condemn the Qana massacre, due to the U.S. veto. In other words, our experience with the international community, first, it does not protect us, meaning it does not prevent Israeli aggressions on Lebanon. And even after the aggression takes place, they do not even condemn the aggressor. On the contrary, they condemn the victim and regard those who defend themselves as terrorists.

AMY GOODMAN: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, speaking with U.S. diplomats in February, among them, Ambassador Edward Peck, who is the former Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration, joining us in Washington. You were meeting with Nasrallah, as, of course, the occupation and the war in Iraq continued. What effect was that having on him? How did he describe that?

EDWARD PECK: I don't remember directly, but one of the things that we spoke -- I have to tell you that we spoke to so many interesting people, interesting in the sense of having things to say that we needed to hear, that I would have to remind myself. But I think it’s important for Americans to try to understand that those dots are connected. There is, in the minds of the people in that part of the world, at the very minimum, a connection between Palestine, West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan and the threats against Syria and Iran. And Nasrallah, who is an educated man, is certainly aware that these things are indeed linked, and he probably, and I have to -- I’m open to correction -- he probably implied that there was a direct connection between what America's involved in in Iraq and the American concerns with the security and safety of Israel at any cost.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In your opinion as a veteran diplomat, what is the impact of these United States actions in the world at large, especially in the Arab world? How is our standing in the eyes of the Arab world developing, especially now in this latest Lebanon situation?

EDWARD PECK: Well, the latest situation is merely, you know, further indications of the sorts of things that they had already come to believe. There are facts and there are facts, and then there are perceptions, and perceptions are the only reality. And the perceptions, in the minds of an awful lot of people in the Arab world and Europe and elsewhere, reflects the loss of American prestige, credibility, respect, as we go on doing things, which seem in the eyes of others to be irrational and unjustifiable.

And now, when we have stepped up and say -- you know, the first thing that you do in any struggle anywhere in the world is try to get a ceasefire so you can work on solving or trying to solve underlying problems. And then the United States says, “No, no. No ceasefire. Let's let them go on bombing and killing.” I think that the damage to us is not only vital, I think it is going to have a lasting effect on our relations with the rest of the world commercially, socially, culturally, in every way imaginable.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, the way the Western media deals with al-Qaeda, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, is sort of basically massing them all together. You have been meeting with people individually. What is your sense? I mean, the latest news, al-Qaeda releasing a new recording urging Muslims to attack Israel and its allies over the ongoing attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. What is your sense of where they agree and disagree and how much they work together?

EDWARD PECK: I guess it’s the sort of thing that you could see -- it's a clumsy analogy, but it’s the sort of thing where Democrats and Republicans will work together towards the achievement of an objective that they both see desirable, and as soon as that is over, they’ll go back to squabbling again.

And I think that that’s the sort of thing that applies with any political, economic, military operation, so that Hezbollah and Hamas, which are from different sects, different sections of Islam, are perfectly prepared, for example, to take money and arms, if they can get them, from Iran. But they have no desire, certainly in the case of Hamas, to become a Shiite-dominated fundamentalist government. It’s in the same way that we provide arms and money and so forth to Israel, but Israel certainly does not do our bidding, as we have seen many times, especially since we don't ask them to do much.

The linkage of America with Israel with this perceived war on Islam is, to me, deeply concerning, because history has shown that you can build tremendous pressures of that kind, especially in societies which tend to be less developed than our own, which tend to be less well educated than our own in many cases, and which become -- you know, they're more traditional than we are, and you can generate an awful lot of anger and resentment, which we have succeeded in doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, I want to thank you very much for being with us, former ambassador to Mauritania.

EDWARD PECK: Sorry to talk so much.

AMY GOODMAN: No. Thank you very much for speaking with us, speaking with us from Washington. Former White House Task Force Deputy Director on Terrorism in the Reagan administration.

Very interesting pieces from Owen and Peter.

I notice the US didn't veto UN resolution 425 calling for Israeli withdrawal in 1978, when Carter was President, but they did veto a resolution in 1985, when Reagen was President. I also remember Carter being critical of Begin during the peace talks between Israel and Egypt during that period. America's brief flirtation with impartiality during Carter's administration must have alarmed Israel greatly. No matter, it's been all one way traffic since.

It's quite incredible. Of course, Rupert Murdoch and friends try to ensure that the American public only get to hear one side of the debate. Hezbollah = Terrorism = Evil is the theme hammered home in all Murdoch's media outlets. All his 200 odd newspapers supported the invasion of Iraq. He's strongly pro-Israel. War and carnage also sells newspapers and increases ratings. It's win win. My opinion of Murdoch is unprintable.

One of the holds that Israel has over Bush junior is that it helped Bush senior overthrow Jimmy Carter (October Surprise). This is the story the Bush family is very keen not to emerge. This includes making death threats to journalists trying to uncover the story. See the thread on Robert W. Owen for background to this story.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7542

As I recall US Government files from 1980 that might have thrown a little more light on the 'October Surprise' scam were overdue for release by September 11th 2001. Dubya's delay in releasing documents in a timely way was becoming an issue. After 9-11, with everyone looking for Moslem's under the bed, Bush quietly changed the release rules.

Interesting the way you say, rightly in my opinion John, that the Israelis could hold the events of 1980 against the Bush clan. This neatly illustrates the relative power relations. In theory, after all, the reverse could also be true. But blackmail seems to be a one-way street when it comes to Israel. I imagine anyone trying to turn the tables has greatly diminished life-expectancy - and media coverage of their untimely demise would not be favourable.

A powerful article by an American conservative from the era before US Republican Administrations became 100% 'neoconned'

The Shame of Being an American

By Paul Craig Roberts - July 21, 2006

Gentle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians.

Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel’s attacks on civilian residential districts are children? That is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel misses Hizbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS. Don’t be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less evil than the puppet master?

Of course, you don’t know these things, because the US print and TV media do not report them.

Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Community "NO." Bush has told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice. Bush is very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel’s rampage and wishes he could do the same thing in Iraq.

Does it make you a Proud American that "your" president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends?

Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet?

On July 20, "your" House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of Israel’s massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every American complicit in war crimes, "your" House of Representatives, according to the Associated Press, also "condemns enemies of the Jewish state."

Who are the "enemies of the Jewish state"?

They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant Zionist "settlers" under the protection of the Israeli army who beat and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes because they will be murdered by Israeli "settlers."

The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called "terrorists." When Bush forced free elections on Palestine, the people voted for Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to the Jewish state. This means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results Bush and Israel want.

Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel’s way are terrorists.

Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hizbollah. Hizbollah is a militia of Shia Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon. During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel’s atrocities was Hizbollah, which fought the Israeli army, defeated it, and drove it, with its Satanic tail between its legs, out of Lebanon. Today Hizbollah not only defends southern Lebanon but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care.

To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time.

Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Both governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White House Moron doesn’t know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be "cakewalks" like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents.

If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing nothing good for Israel or for America.

On July 20 when "your" House of Representatives, following "your" US Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel’s war crimes, the most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming "The American people overwhelming support Israel’s war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis."

The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do not support Israel’s war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span.

Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US "reporting," a majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah is located in southern Lebanon. If Israel is targeting Hizbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on northern Lebanon? Why are they falling on Beirut? Why are they falling on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals?

Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House confirm Osama bin Laden’s propaganda that America stands with Israel against the Arab and Muslim world.

Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world’s largest per capita incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that much of this "aid" comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect "our" representatives in Congress.

This perception is no favor to Israel, whose population is declining, as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel’s actions and inhumane policies.

The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a refugee.

This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America still had some prestige in the Arab world.

The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel’s puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe.

With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag militia in southern Lebanon. The vaunted US military cannot defeat a rag tag, lightly armed, insurgency drawn from a minority of the population in Iraq, insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in civil war against the Shia majority.

What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel’s desires.

Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration. Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in neocon thinking WW III was the cold war) to overthrow Islam in the Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a formalized, secular ritual.

Rumsfeld’s neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states.

Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, "Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world," thus equating war criminals with civilized men.

Neocon Larry Kudlow says that "Israel is doing the Lord’s work" by murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel’s Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, "go forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands"?

The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.

Original is HERE

Sid,

Thanks for posting that piece. Strong words indeed.

There'll be hell to pay when Americans eventually realise how they've been decieved into blindly supporting Israel's every move, regardless of its morality and damage to America's credibility in the wider global community. Over the last 40 years or so Israel and its multitude of influential supporters in America seem to have cleverly embedded within the American psyche the idea that what's good for Israel must be good for America. There seems to be some kind of prevailing paradigm, which stretches from the intelligensia down to the person in the street, that criticism of Israel is somehow immoral, regardless of how outrageous Israel's actions become. There's a similar situation here and in Europe but its nowhere near as strong, IMO. European leaders regularly criticise Israel, mostly with justification. I guess if I lived in America there's a chance I might subscribe to the 'Israel is on God's side' argument too. But from here in Australia, America's endless pandering to Israel sticks out like the proverbial dog's balls. It might also explain the reluctance of American members of this Forum (with a few notable exceptions) to express their concerns about an ally who has clearly slipped over the edge. They don't want the anti-Semite tag, or any other label inferring immorality.

Another 57 dead from the bombing of a building in Qana. Connie Rice told to get lost (she denies it of course). Israeli PM says Israel might need 'another ten to fourteen days' to achieve its aims. Nice going Israel, you murderous scum.

How about the 411 members of Congress who voted in favor of Israel's continuance of hostilities, against 8 against. So much for those who say Israel doesn't control the US Congress.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25251&l=i&...size=1&hd=0

Here are some photos of the first (1996) and second (2006) Qana massacres (link). What an anniversary.

It could now be argued that the removal of Straw was about Israel’s policy in the Middle East. Straw is the first minister to criticise government policy by claiming that Israel’s bombing of the Lebanon was “disproportionate”. Meanwhile, Margaret Beckett, the new foreign secretary, has loyally supported the Bush line. Her husband, Leo, has also enjoyed the regular trips abroad.

As my mood on things in Lebanon go from upset and sadness to total disgust with both Israel and the USA, I offer this sad eye witness report from perhaps the best western journalist on things in that region.

From www.democracynow.org for today

AMY GOODMAN: Following Israel’s bombing of the town of Qana, that killed nearly 57 people, we turn to veteran war correspondent, Robert Fisk. I reached Robert Fisk early this morning at his home in Beirut. Robert Fisk's reporting in Lebanon led to the United Nations condemnation of the Israeli attack on Qana ten years ago, in 1996. Early this morning, when we reached Robert Fisk, he had just returned from Tyre, where victims from Sunday’s Israeli air strike in Qana were taken, following the attack.

ROBERT FISK: I went to Tyre, Amy. By the time this has happened -- to get from Beirut now to the south takes 46 hours, because of the broken bridges and the bombed roads, and I realized that by the time I got down there, the wounded would have been in the hospitals in Tyre, and the dead would be already brought from Qana to the villages. So when I got there, I went straight to the government hospital in Tyre, where many of the wounded -- and there weren't many, because most of them died -- had been taken and where they were counting the number of children.

When I arrived there, there were a number of, maybe 20, 30 children, the corpses of children, lined up outside the government hospital, hair matted, still in their night clothes. The bomb that killed them was dropped at 1:00 in the morning. And they ran out of plastic bags. They were trying to put the children in plastic bags, their corpses, and they would put on it, you know, “Abbas Mehdi, aged seven,” and so and so, aged one, and use a kind of sticking tape on it. But then they ran out of plastic bags, so they had to put the children's corpses in a kind of cheap carpet that you can buy in the supermarkets, and they roll them up in that and then put their names on again. I was having to go around very carefully and write down, from the Arabic, their names and their ages. It would just say “Abbas Mehdi, aged seven, Qana.”

And, of course, every time I saw the “Qana,” I remember that I was actually in Qana ten years ago when the massacre occurred there then. This is the second massacre in the town whose inhabitants believe that this is the place where Jesus turned water into wine in the Bible, most of whom, 95% of whom, are Christians -- I’m sorry, are Muslims. I think all who died were Muslims. The 5% is Christians who have been there for hundreds of years, their families, because they do believe it is the Biblical Qana. There is a claimant to the rival of Qana in Galilee in northern Israel actually.

The Lebanese soldiers were trying take down the names of all who had died, but I found a man with a clipboard who had taken down 40 names, and he said that they weren't accurate, because some of the children were blown into bits and they couldn't fit them together accurately and there might be -- they couldn't put the right head on the right body, and therefore they might not be able to have an accurate list of the dead. But he was doing his best in the circumstances of war to maintain the bureaucracy of government.

One by one the children's bodies were taken away from the courtyard of the government hospital on the shoulders of soldiers and hospital workers and were put in a big refrigerated truck, very dirty, dusty truck, which had been parked just outside the hospital. The grownups, the adult dead, including twelve women, were taken out later. The children were put in the truck first. Pretty grim. As I said, the children's hair, when you could see the bodies, were matted with dust and mud. And most of them appear to have been bleeding from the nose. I assume that’s because their lungs were crushed by the bomb, and therefore they naturally hemorrhaged as they died.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk reporting from Beirut. After the attack Sunday, Israel released what appeared to be video footage of Hezbollah rockets being launched from Qana toward towns in northern Israel. I asked Robert Fisk about the footage.

ROBERT FISK: I’ve seen the video footage. It’s impossible to tell from the footage if indeed this is from Qana. You know, you have to realize that last time the massacre occurred at Qana in 1996, when they killed 106 refugees who were sheltering in the then-UN base that was there -- it doesn't exist anymore, but it did then -- more than half of them children, again. They said that missiles had been fired from within the UN base. It turns out that they were fired from half a mile away. They then said that they didn't have a live time pilot-less aircraft over the UN base at the time. And, in fact, on the Independent, I found a UN soldier who did have a videotape, showing clearly at the time of the bombardment -- this is in 1996 -- a live time photo reconnaissance unmanned aircraft over the base. The Israelis were later forced to admit that they had not told the truth: indeed there was a machine over the base at the time. You know, you can do what you want with photo reconnaissance pictures and with photographs after the event. It’s interesting that we weren't shown these pictures before the massacre. We were only shown them after the massacre.

But they may be correct. The Hezbollah are firing missiles from villages in southern Lebanon, just as, for example, when the Israelis entered southern Lebanon and go into places like Bent Jabail, they're using civilian houses as cover for their tanks, so the Hezbollah use houses as cover for their missile launching. But the odd thing is the idea that for the Israeli military that somehow it’s okay to kill all these children; if a missile is launched 30, 90 feet from their house, that's okay then. We’ve got some film to show the missiles were launched; that's okay then. I mean, did the aircraft which dropped this bomb, a guided weapon, by the way -- they knew what they were hitting. It’s a guided weapon. We know that because the computer codes have been found on the bomb fragments. Did they say, “Oh, well, then, the man who launched the missile is hiding with the children in the basement of the house we're going to hit”? Is it the case now that if you happen to live in a house next to where someone launches a missile, you are to be sentenced to death? Is that what Israel thinks the war is about?

I’m sitting here, for example, in my house tonight in darkness -- there’s no electricity -- next to a car park. What if someone launches a missile from the car park? Am I supposed to die for that? Is that a death sentence for me? Is that how Israel wages war? If I have children in the basement, are they to die for that? And then I’m told it’s my fault or it’s Hezbollah's fault? You know, these are serious moral questions.

It’s quite clear from listening to the IDF statement today that they believe that family deserved to die, because 90 feet away, they claim, a missile was fired. So they sentenced all those people to death. Is that what we're supposed to believe? I mean, presumably it is. I can't think of any other reason why they should say, “Well, 30 meters away a missile was fired.” Well, thanks very much. So those little children’s corpses in their plastic packages, all stuck together like giant candies today, this is supposed to be quite normal, this is how war is to be waged by the IDF.

The fact that when they made these comments, they went unchallenged on television, was one of the most extraordinary scenes I’ve seen. I got back from Tyre on a very dangerous overland journey on an open road, which was under air attack, and I got back, and just before the electricity was cut, I saw the BBC reporting what the Israelis had said, but without questioning the morality that if someone fires a missile near your home, therefore it is perfectly okay for you to die.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll return to our interview with Robert Fisk of the Independent newspaper in Britain, reporting from Beirut.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with Robert Fisk of the Independent. He has been based in Lebanon for the last 30 years. I spoke to him early this morning, after he had just returned from Tyre. I asked him to respond to Israel's announcement it would suspend air strikes over southern Lebanon for 48 hours.

ROBERT FISK: That would certainly give the United Nations and particularly the International Red Cross the opportunity of getting thousands of people out of the region. But whether you can arrange convoys for thousands of people to leave in that period of time, I don't know. The people who the haven't left are either too frightened to leave, or they’re too poor, or they have no cars, or they’re too elderly or too young. Can the International Committee of the Red Cross with whom I have been traveling for some of the last few days -- does that give them enough time to get people out? Does that mean there will be no shells on the road, or is it just air attacks that are stopping?

You know, it’s very interesting that the Israelis should say now, now after all these days, they're going to give 48 hours. Why didn't they give an extra 48 hours at the beginning to get the people out? Why now? Is this a bonus, a plus point, something you -- a supermarket extra card that you win because you’ve killed so many people? Is it a monopoly board that you're going to gamble? Okay, you get 48 hours free of air attack, because you killed so many people yesterday. Is that what this is supposed to mean?

AMY GOODMAN: In an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, it voted Sunday not for a cessation of hostilities -- the U.S. was opposed to that -- but to deplore what happened in Qana and an end to the violence. I asked Robert Fisk to respond.

ROBERT FISK: John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has consistently opposed any kind of ceasefire, because he believes, as Mr. Bush does and as our own dear prime minister, Lord Blair, as I call him, does, that the Israelis can accomplish these hopeless political military aims. Well, the Israelis believe that they can actually destroy one of the most disciplined and most ruthless guerrilla armies in the world. They can't, anymore than the Americans could destroy the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese or British could destroy the IRA. And, believe me, the Hezbollah are not as weak and cowardly as the IRA was. But they can't. These are hopeless political aims. All the United Nations is doing by postponing a ceasefire is condemning more Lebanese to death. I wrote in Saturday’s paper, before Qana, that the actions of Blair and Bush, and Bolton by extension, and Condoleezza Rice, were going to condemn more innocents to death.

You know, I went into a hospital in Marjayoun last week, and I saw this very beautiful young woman lying in bed, and her skin had been pitted with very familiar wounds, the little tiny round crimson holes of cluster bomblets. We used cluster bombs in Iraq in 2003. I know exactly what the wounds look like. I identified them at once. Indeed, she described the cluster bombs falling like grapes, as she put it, out of the sky, oddly enough an expression used by an Iraqi woman in 2003 to me. This young woman had been wounded 48 hours before I saw her. Had Bush and Blair insisted on a ceasefire at the beginning, this woman, her skin would not be destroyed in the way it has been.

On the ground, when you're here, when you see the wounded, see the dead, you realize the immorality, the obscenity, the atrocity of statesmen, as they think they are, claiming that, you know, it isn't yet time for a ceasefire. A hasty ceasefire would not be a good thing, as Condoleezza Rice said. 24 hours before, I saw a picture of her on a beach in Malaysia. And people remember this. People remember this. In the hospital it was a young man who said -- turned to me, he said, “Why have you done this to us? Why have you done this to us?” And the woman I was talking to said the same: “Why does the West want to do this to us?”

You know, this has been going on for more than two weeks now. I’m traveling around the south, increasingly outraged at what I see, as a human being. And I’m not a Muslim. I’m not a Muslim. And I keep saying to myself, “If I was a Muslim, how much more outraged might I be?” I turned to an American friend of mine tonight back in Beirut before I came home, and I said, “You know, I’ve been watching this now for more than two weeks, and there's going to be another 9/11.” There’s going to be another 9/11, and then we’re going to hear all the usual claptrap about how it’s good versus evil, and they hate us because we’re good and democratic, and they hate our values, and all the other material that comes out of the rear end of a bull that your president and my prime minister talk.

What’s going on in southern Lebanon is an outrage. It’s an atrocity. The idea that more than 600 civilians must die because three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured on the border by the Hezbollah on July 12, my 60th birthday -- I’ve spent 30 years of my life watching this, this filth now, you know -- is outrageous. It’s against all morality to suggest that 600 innocent civilians must die for this. There is no other country in the world that could get away with this.

You know, when -- I wrote in my paper last week, there were times when the IRA would cross from the Irish Republic into northern Ireland to kill British soldiers. And they did murder and kill British soldiers. But we, the British, didn’t hold the Irish government responsible. We didn't send the Royal Air Force to bomb Dublin power stations and Galway and Cork. We didn't send our tanks across the border to shell the hill villages of Cavan or Monaghan or Louth or Donegal. Blair wouldn't dream of doing that, because he believes he's a moral man, he’s a civilized man. He wouldn't treat another nation like that.

But when the Israelis treat Lebanon like that, it's okay, and Blair doesn't want a ceasefire. You can’t have a real ceasefire. In other words, we've got to have the Lebanese on their knees to sign the dotted line, before we give them a ceasefire. And that dotted line means the disarmament of Hezbollah, which will be impossible for the Lebanese to do without restarting the civil war, because to disarm Hezbollah, you must use the army, and most of the Hezbollah are, of course, Shiite Muslims, and most of the army are Shiite Muslims. So you’re going to have brothers assaulting brothers to take their weapons away. It will not happen. However much you may wish it and however much I may wish it, it won't happen. And, again, this double morality: Blair wouldn't dream of attacking the Irish Republic because the IRA crossed the border from Ireland, but it’s quite in order for Israel to attack the Lebanese Republic because the Hezbollah crossed the border from Lebanon.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, speaking to us from Beirut, Lebanon. He had just returned from Tyre, where victims of the Qana bombing had been taken. We'll play part two of this interview tomorrow on Democracy Now!

(my comments here):....my thoughts move from just War Crimes to what becomes in the Middle East generally the slow Genocide of the Arabs...a word I know well. It was coined by my uncle Raphael Lemkin. He would turn in his grave to know that his own people, the Jews [he had to flee the Nazi invasion of Poland because he was Jewish and the top lawyer for the city of Warsaw] are now doing [if at a more 'modified' pace] what was done to them, upon others...and the country he adopted (USA) has also been involved in their own new ones [Afghanstan, Iraq...soon to be others - on top of many from the past - from the genocide of the Native Americans through many others - Indonesians, Vietnamese, et al.....ad nauseum.] 'Those who do not learn the lessons of history'.....no matter who they are! He wrote the Genocide Convention at the United Nations and spent his entire remainder of his life working to get it adopted - at his own expense of time and money. The USA was almost the last nation to sign - something that saddened him no end his whole life. The current US and Israeli govenments [attached at the military and intelligence levels now as all but one] both are the largest ignorers of the UN and the body of international law today - sadly. Both have good persons within them, none of whom are now in control. Both nations, I believe, were covertly taken over. Both are out of control. Humanity is really at the brink and evil madmen are at the helm in the most powerful nations at the moment. [some others not here mentioned as well] A very sad moment in history that could well be near the end of it in short order. I place the greatest blame now on the USA, however. She has now lost all moral authority and is left only as the brute on the planet increasingly only to be feared. Israel is also to be blamed, but one sharp word from the USA or shutting off the weapons flow and Israel would stop in its tracks. It is doing most of what it does at the USA's bidding - and with their permission...and the USA is now run (illegally) by global-imperialists, warmongers and weapons-manufactures and their leeches in congress, the executive and media etc.

Here's a piece that suggests that controlled demolition of sorts was used on the building in Qana, hours after the Israeli attacks on the area.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8997.htm

Bring down a building, killing innocent people (or people brought in who were already dead), and blame it on someone else? Who has ever heard of such a thing?

Looks like crap to me. Perhaps the reason that "[t]heir faces were ashen gray" would be because they were, I dunno, buried under the rubble. The "unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap" appears to be an IDF fiction, with no substantiating evidence. Another report on the same site notes that "[s]ome villagers, however, dispute that the collapse occurred at that time, saying that extensive damage occurred in the wee hours of the morning." [source] What did they say? I'm going to quote from a Haaretz article appropriately entitled "Qana villagers refute IDF claims building fell hours after strike":



Where is all this apologism for Israel aggression coming from, Ron?

This is not apologism. Destroying the building and blaming it on the Israelis would be a smart move by Hezbollah, considering the fact that they don't mind killing innocent people. I don't know if Hezbollah did it or not. I do find it hard to believe that the residents survived one attack, then died right after that in another attack "in their sleep," as if they sleep through such bombardments.

My basic view of the Israeli/Arab conflict, given its history, is simple: A pox on both their houses.

Hezbollah's armed wing has a policy of avoiding contact with civillians (for reasons that are primarily tactical, not humanitarian). Read the Salon article I posted a page back.



The Qana survivors didn't say their compatriots died "in their sleep." This is just a CNN reporter's vague impression of the bodies, which isn't all that valuable as evidence.

Salon is contradicted by accounts that Hezbollah wears civilian clothes in order to immediately disappear into civilian buildings after launching rockets. This would hardly be the way to avoid civilian contact.

Here is a group of Hezbollah fighters, dressed as civilians, posing proudly in a civilian area:

I'd have to know the source of the photograph, but the fact that (some) of the fighters pictured are wearing civillian clothes doesn't actually mean that this is because they operate among civillians. I'd also note that two of the men in plain clothes are rather overweight and don't really look like their duties primarily involve combat and the other is operating the artillery. The men with guns, who would be the ones expected to run off into the crowds, are dressed for combat.

Also, this Guardian report has detailed testimony from survivors who were actually in the building at the time, and it dovetails perfectly with the Haaretz article. Here's a small excerpt, which serves as a short summary:



Is Hezbollah dictating all of this eyewitness testimony, which just happens to refute the IDF's bogus and baseless contention?

The photo is from Australia's Herald Sun.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,...5007220,00.html

In the Fog of War, who knows what really happens on the ground?

I'd be more receptive to Israeli claims that the building in Qana did not collapse as a consequence of Israeli aerial bombings if

1. it was one atypical incident of massive loss of civilian life caused by Israeli bombs - not one case among many, both in this lopsided 'war' and in wars past, and
2. the Israeli spin doctors are not so actively promoting the story that the reason for attacking the Qana building was the presence of Hezbollah forces in the basement - a claim promoted with accompanying surveillance videos.

Can Israeli propagandists please get their story straight about the Qana 2 massacre?

Regarding casualties, about ten days ago, at the end of the first week of Israel's 2006 bombing assault on the Lebanon, a Jewish Australian called Deborah Miller was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Her tale of woe from northern Israel helped counter-balance the emerging stories of massive Lebanese civilian casualties.

Here's an extract from the transcript::


Now, I freely admit that I do not have access to perfect information. I may have missed relevant reports. But with the aide of the internet and Google, I've been unable to verify that THREE peopel were killed by that date in Safed as a consequence of Hezbollah attacks by July 21st. ONE death in Safed is reported in other media sources. THREE deaths appear to be absent from accounts other than the ABC.

We know the village in question is Safed because of reports such as THIS and THIS.

Did Ms Miller exagerate the number of deaths in Safed by 200%? Did the reporter, Tom Iggulden, report inaccurately, by design or accident? Or have I missed reports of THREE rocket attack deaths in Safed?

It's hard to say. References are welcomed. Further information may shed more light on this minor subplot in the overall war, including the propaganda war.

When I called Lateline about its 21st July report, I was initially given polite assistance, but once it emerged that I entertained any doubts about its accuracy, the staffer became remarkably hostile and aggressive. Rather peevishly, he refused to provide reporter Tom Iggulden's email address so I could follow up the matter without additional effort. One would have thought accuracy would be of foremost importance to 'our' public broadcaster, along with 'balance'.

I was sustained by the unspoken assumption that, in this case at least, it is still lawful in Australia to query civilian casualty figures asserted by Zionists and their sympathisers.

Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I missed a clause or two buried deep inside Australia's new armada of 'anti-terrorism' laws?

Thanks for that. I think my points about the photo and, more importantly, the numerous eyewitness accounts from survivors of the Qana massacre which refute the IDF's lie stand. In other news... here's a Reuters article reprinted under the the clever title "Making the desert bloom" on Norman Finkelstein's site:

Oil Spill Adds Ecological Crisis to Lebanon's Agony

July 28, 2006 | REUTERS Story by Lin Noueihed

BEIRUT - Along Lebanon's sandy beaches and rocky headlands runs a belt of black sludge, 10,000 to 30,000 tonnes of oil that spilled into the Mediterranean Sea after Israel bombed a power plant.

Lebanon's Environment Ministry says the oil flooded into the sea when Israeli jets hit storage tanks at the Jiyyeh plant south of Beirut on July 13 and 15, creating an ecological crisis that Lebanon's government has neither the money nor the expertise to deal with.

"We have never seen a spill like this in the history of Lebanon. It is a major catastrophe," Environment Minister Yacoub al-Sarraf told Reuters.

"The equipment we have is for minor spills. We use it once in a blue moon to clean a small spill of 50 tonnes or so. To clean this whole thing up we would need an armada ... The cost of a full clean-up could run as high as US$40-50 million."

The spill is especially threatening since fish spawn and sea turtles nest on Lebanon's coast, including the green turtle which is endangered in the Mediterranean, local ecologists say.

Carried by a north-easterly wind, the spill has travelled 70-80 km up the coast of Lebanon, which has been bombarded by Israel for 16 days in a war against Hizbollah.

An Israeli warship damaged by a Hizbollah missile on July 15 may also have spilled diesel oil into the sea, according to the Environment Ministry website (www.moe.gov.lb).

At Beirut's Sporting Club, seven men in navy overalls perch on the edge of a man-made inlet skimming sludge, using buckets on the end of sticks and pouring it into plastic containers.

The ground around them is black, as are their forearms and clothes. The air is thick with acrid fumes that sting the eyes and irritate the throat.

The team is part of a pilot clean-up commissioned by the Environment Ministry. Another mop-up is underway at the San Antoine Sandy Beach Resort in northern Lebanon.

MARINE LIFE DEAD

"It arrived the day after they hit the Jiyyeh power plant. The worst has passed now. A couple of days ago the whole coastline was black," said Walid Abu Nassar, surveying the damage to the Sporting Club, which he runs.

"First they tried to pump it out but that didn't work, now this. These are crude methods but Lebanon has no other way."

Lebanon has turned to oil producer Kuwait for help. A plane load of equipment is due to arrive from Kuwait via Syria by the end of the week, Sarraf said.

But one of the main problems is that an Israeli air and sea blockade in place since the war began on July 12 is hampering both the clean-up and the delivery of equipment.

"To really clean it up we need access to the sea, which we don't have," Sarraf said. "We need more equipment and mobilisation but for that we need the hostilities to end."

The migratory season is over so birds should not be badly affected and some oil may evaporate or decompose, but spills can smother or poison sea life, the Environment Ministry says.

Even if Lebanon is able to mop up, the marine ecosystem could take years to recover, local environmentalists say.

Commercial fishing and tourism has been at a standstill since the war began because of the air and sea blockade.

"July is hatching season for turtle eggs and baby turtles have to reach deep water as fast as possible to avoid predators. With the oil in their way, they will not survive," Wael Hmaidan, a local environmental activist said.

"The oil spill, part of which has settled on the sea floor, threatens blue fin tuna, which is an important but overfished commercial fish, as well as shark species."

Story by Lin Noueihed

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Does anyone in the Forum know the status of the Yesha Rabbinical Council within the Jewish religion? Is this the main rabbinical council for 'Judea, Samaria and Gaza' - or just a marginal group of religious extremists?

If the former, is "Judeo-Christianity" finally starting to fall apart at the seams?

I'm now going to (hopefully) finish off the IDF's phony Qana timeline once and for all.

First, those who (like me) have no real physiological knowledge should read this Wikipedia article on rigor mortis (here).

Second, watch this Reuters video of the Qana bodies being hauled out (here).

Pay particular attention to the corpse with the raised arm. Notice how, while relatively stiff, it flops about somewhat.

It is immediately obvious that rigor mortis has set in. Therefore, the IDF's contention that the collapse occured at 8 A.M., an hour before the rescue teams and media arrived, can't be true. This is because rigor mortis "[a]ssuming mild temperatures... usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death." At the same time, the bodies appear much too "fresh" to have been dead "for days," brought in from some morgue by Hezbollah, because rigor mortis "subsid[es] to relaxation at about 36 hours."

And again, read what the survivors have to say [here], [here], and [here].