Lebanon: A Greater Folly Than '82 War: "August 24, 2006 by the Toronto Star / Canada | by Haroon Siddiqui
It has been said that Israel has made the same mistake in Lebanon as it did in 1982: using overwhelming military force to solve a political problem. It failed then and it has failed now.
In fact, this war is a greater political and moral disaster, even though it was shorter (34 days vs. three months), caused a lower Lebanese death toll (1,600 vs. 18,000) and ended without Israel occupying large swaths of Lebanon. Here's why. ..
In 1982, Israel had several Lebanese allies but this time it has none to do its bidding.
Whereas Israel has demonstrated, yet again, that it can cause death and destruction at will, its aura of invincibility has been punctured. Hence the talk in Israel of "the next round" to restore that image. On the other side, Arab/Muslim militants feel emboldened.
So, unlike the post-1982 lull in hostilities, "both sides will now be looking for an opportunity to advance their cause," says professor James Reilly, a University of Toronto expert on the Middle East. "That makes a renewal of conflict more likely, not less likely."
There are several other, less obvious, reasons why this war has left a greater impact on world consciousness.
#
While the North American media sanitized the horrors of this war, media elsewhere, especially in the Arab/Muslim world, showed the full impact of the indiscriminate bombing.
This is a repeat of the pattern we've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Israeli Occupied Territories; one version of events shown in North America and quite another elsewhere.
This inability to control the narrative enrages George W. Bush and other conservatives. They accuse the burgeoning, and increasingly free, Arab media of being biased and sensationalist — a ludicrous proposition coming from the fans of Fox-TV and CNN.
The recent reality TV coming out of Lebanon, along with the videos and reports circulating on the Internet, created such a public backlash in Europe and the Middle East that governments were forced to pressure the U.S. into dropping its opposition to a ceasefire.
Only Stephen Harper stayed firm in favour of letting Israel continue pummelling Lebanon, placing Canada in the odd position of welcoming a ceasefire he had so resolutely resisted.
#
Human rights advocates played a much more forceful role this time. Besides UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour raising the spectre of war crimes, the UN Human Rights Council condemned "the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of humanitarian law," and the "massive bombardments of civilian populations, especially the massacres in Qana, Marwaheen, Al Duweir, Al Bayadah, Al Qaa, Chiyah, Ghazieh and other towns, and the displacement of 1 million civilians."
For those who accuse the UN agency of anti-Israeli bias, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International also said Israel may have committed war crimes. Rights Watch condemned Israel's use of cluster bombs. The unexploded ones in people's homes and in fields now pose a danger to returning refugees, and may take a year or more to diffuse.
Yesterday, Amnesty said the destruction of thousands of homes, roads, bridges and water and fuel storage plants "was an integral part of Israel's military strategy, rather than `collateral damage' resulting from the lawful targeting of military objectives."
#
The Israeli-U.S. selectivity in insisting on implementing UN resolutions on Lebanon while ignoring earlier ones calling Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories is no longer lost on the world.
Nor is the hypocrisy of calling on Hezbollah to disarm while turning a blind eye to scores of militias in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These double standards draw derision, including from those who favour disarming Hezbollah.
#
The Lebanon offensive coincided with the deadliest month in the Gaza Strip and Iraq, where the July death toll was reportedly 151 and 3,438 respectively.
The headlines coming out of all three were the same: Muslims being massacred — by Iraqi insurgents or by Israel and the United States.
That, combined with the rhetorical war over Iran's nuclear program, prompted American geo-strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski to say: "Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution on the Middle East."
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Every major political issue - Lebanon, Iraq, radicalism - links back to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Israel and the US are still focused on the wrong issues: "Every major political issue - Lebanon, Iraq, radicalism - links back to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict | Rami G Khouri | Monday August 21, 2006 | The Guardian
We have a very simple choice before us in the Middle East: we can get serious about working together to give the people of this region a chance to live normal lives in peace and security; or we can all act silly in the ways of provincial chieftains, as many public figures in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Israel and the US have done in recent days.
We have a very simple choice before us in the Middle East: we can get serious about working together to give the people of this region a chance to live normal lives in peace and security; or we can all act silly in the ways of provincial chieftains, as many public figures in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Israel and the US have done in recent days.
The chances of achieving a region-wide peace in the Middle East are slim to non existent right now, because the key non-Arab players are focusing on the wrong issues. They are trying to manage or eliminate the symptoms of our region's tensions instead of addressing the root causes. Hizbullah and Iran are among the best examples of this. ...
ompliant and subTelegraph | News | C"In many countries where I meet with leaders and private citizens there is an equating of American policy with UK
Telegraph | News | Compliant and subservient: Jimmy Carter's explosive critique of Tony Blair: "By John Preston and Melissa Kite | (Filed: 27/08/2006)
Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.
I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behaviour," he told The Sunday Telegraph.
Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.
I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behaviour," he told The Sunday Telegraph.
"I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington - and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq."
In an exclusive interview, President Carter made it plain that he sees Mr Blair's lack of leadership as being a key factor in the present crisis in Iraq, which followed the 2003 invasion - a pre-emptive move he said he would never have considered himself as president.
Mr Carter also said that the Iraq invasion had subverted the fight against terrorism and instead strengthened al-Qaeda and the recruitment of terrorists.
"In many countries where I meet with leaders and private citizens there is an equating of American policy with Great Britain - with Great Britain obviously playing the lesser role.
"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient." ...
Saturday, August 19, 2006
"American people, you are partners to these massacres ... After this, no Lebanese can trust an American."
Telegraph | News | Hizbollah links US to Qana killings: "By Adrian Blomfield in Qana | (Filed: 19/08/2006)
A senior Hizbollah official accused the American people of being complicit in the deaths of Lebanese civilians during a highly charged funeral yesterday for 26 people killed in an Israeli air strike on the town of Qana.
Relatives of the dead wept as Hizbollah pallbearers chanting 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' carried coffins covered with the Lebanese flag through the streets of the southern town.
...
"American people, you are partners to these massacres - you are partners in this war," he said. "No Lebanese citizen with any dignity will absolve America of this guilt. After this, no Lebanese can trust an American." His comments represented a departure in the movement's rhetoric and could be interpreted as the tacit sanctioning of attacks on US civilians. However, Hizbollah has eschewed attacks outside Israel since it was blamed for bombing Israeli and Jewish targets in Argentina in the 1990s.
...
The procession came to a halt near the ruined block, and the fighters, who had earlier buried four of their comrades, set the coffins down. All the while Israeli drones buzzed in the air. Weeping women kissed the coffins, half of which contained children, before the shrouded bodies were placed in shallow graves.
A senior Hizbollah official accused the American people of being complicit in the deaths of Lebanese civilians during a highly charged funeral yesterday for 26 people killed in an Israeli air strike on the town of Qana.
Relatives of the dead wept as Hizbollah pallbearers chanting 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' carried coffins covered with the Lebanese flag through the streets of the southern town.
...
"American people, you are partners to these massacres - you are partners in this war," he said. "No Lebanese citizen with any dignity will absolve America of this guilt. After this, no Lebanese can trust an American." His comments represented a departure in the movement's rhetoric and could be interpreted as the tacit sanctioning of attacks on US civilians. However, Hizbollah has eschewed attacks outside Israel since it was blamed for bombing Israeli and Jewish targets in Argentina in the 1990s.
...
The procession came to a halt near the ruined block, and the fighters, who had earlier buried four of their comrades, set the coffins down. All the while Israeli drones buzzed in the air. Weeping women kissed the coffins, half of which contained children, before the shrouded bodies were placed in shallow graves.
The story of the British liquid-bombers is quickly falling apart,: no passports, no bombs, tortured witness ?
America Duped on British Terror Plot: "
The story of the British liquid-bombers is quickly falling apart, not that the Times or the Post is taking any notice.
* * Always Read More at Times/WaPo Watch * *
The story of the British liquid-bombers is quickly falling apart, not that the Times or the Post is taking any notice.
- First comes the NBC report that many of the accused hijackers did not own passports, thus making them ineligible to board an international flight (Remember, Michael Chertoff said that "We were really getting quite close to the execution phase" of the plot);
- NBC also reports that the U.S. pressured Britain to arrest the plotters earlier than they had otherwise wanted;
- The only statement that the accused were planning to use liquid explosives on planes came from an accused murderer who was on the run in Pakistan and subsequently tortured;
- The explosive the plotters were supposed to be using was identified by government officials to be TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, which as Thomas C. Greene explains, is extremely volatile during preparation, requires carefully controlled conditions to properly mix, including refrigeration (difficult to do in "false-bottomed sports drink bottles") and would require an extremely large quantity in order to damage an aircraft. The idea that a) sufficient quantities of TATP precursors could be smuggled aboard and b) it could be successfully mixed without either blowing up or overcoming the would-be terrorist with its fumes is preposterous.
* * Always Read More at Times/WaPo Watch * *
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Why They Hate Us - Los Angeles Times
Why They Hate Us - Los Angeles Times : "By Julia E. Sweig, JULIA E. SWEIG is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Her most recent book is "Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century. |August 15, 2006
No, it's not our freedoms. Anti-Americanism isn't going away until the U.S. puts some fairness in its foreign policy.
AMERICA'S MORAL standing in the world has precipitously declined since 2001. For starters, blame the Bush administration's go-it-alone tough talk after 9/11, contempt for the Kyoto accord, war and then chaos in Iraq, secret prisons in Europe and alleged use of torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats would have you believe that a new team — theirs — in Washington would change all this. Not so fast.
Around the world, anti-Americanism is not simply the result of anger about President Bush's foreign policies. Rather, it is deeply entrenched antipathy accumulated over decades. It may take generations to undo.
Consider the causes:
• Cold War legacy: U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and covert attempts to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba, among others, ...
• Power and powerlessness: ... the United States has lost the ability to see its power from the perspective of those with less of it. In Latin America, for example, U.S. policies — whether on trade, aid, democracy, drugs or immigration — presumed that Latin Americans would automatically see U.S. interests as their own. ...
• Globalization: In the 1990s, our government, private sector and opinion makers sold globalization as virtually synonymous with Americanization. ... So where globalization hasn't delivered, the U.S. is blamed. ...
• What we stand for: ... the appeal of the U.S. model overseas is eroding as the gap between rich and poor widens, public education deteriorates, healthcare costs soar and pensions disappear. Most recently, the U.S. government's seeming indifference to its most vulnerable citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina further undercut belief in the American social contract...
No, it's not our freedoms. Anti-Americanism isn't going away until the U.S. puts some fairness in its foreign policy.
AMERICA'S MORAL standing in the world has precipitously declined since 2001. For starters, blame the Bush administration's go-it-alone tough talk after 9/11, contempt for the Kyoto accord, war and then chaos in Iraq, secret prisons in Europe and alleged use of torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats would have you believe that a new team — theirs — in Washington would change all this. Not so fast.
Around the world, anti-Americanism is not simply the result of anger about President Bush's foreign policies. Rather, it is deeply entrenched antipathy accumulated over decades. It may take generations to undo.
Consider the causes:
• Cold War legacy: U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and covert attempts to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba, among others, ...
• Power and powerlessness: ... the United States has lost the ability to see its power from the perspective of those with less of it. In Latin America, for example, U.S. policies — whether on trade, aid, democracy, drugs or immigration — presumed that Latin Americans would automatically see U.S. interests as their own. ...
• Globalization: In the 1990s, our government, private sector and opinion makers sold globalization as virtually synonymous with Americanization. ... So where globalization hasn't delivered, the U.S. is blamed. ...
• What we stand for: ... the appeal of the U.S. model overseas is eroding as the gap between rich and poor widens, public education deteriorates, healthcare costs soar and pensions disappear. Most recently, the U.S. government's seeming indifference to its most vulnerable citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina further undercut belief in the American social contract...
Church body condemns Israel: "We came back from Lebanon sharing the impression that this destruction was planned.
Aljazeera.Net - Church body condemns Israel: "Wednesday 16 August 2006, 21:20 Makka Time, 18:20 GMT
Israel's assault on Lebanon was planned before Hezbollah attacked and was aimed at driving a wedge between the different faiths in the country, a delegation from the World Council of Churches says.
"We came back from Lebanon sharing the impression that this destruction was planned. And if the action by Hezbollah was the trigger, this was a planned operation all ready to go," Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the Conference of European Churches, said in Geneva on the delegation's return from a visit to Beirut and Jerusalem.
...
"It is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not the role and actions of Hezbollah that is at the heart of the present crisis," the council's statement said. ...
Israel's assault on Lebanon was planned before Hezbollah attacked and was aimed at driving a wedge between the different faiths in the country, a delegation from the World Council of Churches says.
"We came back from Lebanon sharing the impression that this destruction was planned. And if the action by Hezbollah was the trigger, this was a planned operation all ready to go," Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the Conference of European Churches, said in Geneva on the delegation's return from a visit to Beirut and Jerusalem.
...
"It is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not the role and actions of Hezbollah that is at the heart of the present crisis," the council's statement said. ...
Opium hits record in Afghanistan - [... repeating the benefits of US-imposed democracy and a market economy?!]
CNN.com - Opium hits record in Afghanistan - Aug 16, 2006: "Officials: Cultivation hits new levels despite anti-narcotics money | Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 7:20 p.m. EDT (23:20 GMT)
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Opium cultivation in Afghanistan has hit record levels -- up by more than 40 percent from 2005 -- despite hundreds of millions in counternarcotics money, Western officials told The Associated Press.
The increase could have serious repercussions for an already grave security situation, with drug lords joining the Taliban-led fight against Afghan and international forces.
...
"It is a significant increase from last year ... unfortunately, it is a record year," said a senior U.S. government official based in Kabul, who like the other Western officials would speak only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive topic. ...
Huck Finn: 1898: "Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?" ... "Certainly; it's always been considered so."
CAMPAIGN FOLLIES: "Mark Twain Had It Right About the Holy Land 112 Years Ago."
"A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."
"Which Holy Land?"
"Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."
"What do we want of it?"
"Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's our duty to take it away from them."
"How did we come to let them git hold of it?"
"We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."
"Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"
"Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"
I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way. I says:
"It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"
"Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn. It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them."
"Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now, if I had a farm and another person --"
"Don't I tell you it hasn't got anything to do with farming? Farming is business, just common low-down business: that's all it is, it's all you can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally different."
"Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?"
"Certainly; it's always been considered so."
"A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."
"Which Holy Land?"
"Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."
"What do we want of it?"
"Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's our duty to take it away from them."
"How did we come to let them git hold of it?"
"We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."
"Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"
"Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"
I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way. I says:
"It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"
"Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn. It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them."
"Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now, if I had a farm and another person --"
"Don't I tell you it hasn't got anything to do with farming? Farming is business, just common low-down business: that's all it is, it's all you can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally different."
"Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?"
"Certainly; it's always been considered so."
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure [on May 23]: urged Israel to attack Syria
AxisofLogic/ Middle East: "Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War | By Robert Parry | Aug 13, 2006, 17:14
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an “existential” threat to Israel." ...
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an “existential” threat to Israel." ...
Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure [on May 23]: urged Israel to attack Syria
AxisofLogic/ Middle East: "Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War | By Robert Parry | Aug 13, 2006, 17:14
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an “existential” threat to Israel." ...
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an “existential” threat to Israel." ...
Carter: What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, ...
"The US and Israel Stand Alone": "'The US and Israel Stand Alone' | Spiegel Interview With Jimmy Carter
08/15/06 'Spiegel' -- -- Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?"
Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
...
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. ...
08/15/06 'Spiegel' -- -- Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?"
Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
...
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. ...
UK Deputy PM: Bush is 'crap', 'cowboy' ... only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map.
Independent Online Edition > UK Politics: "16 August 2006 20:50 | Bush is crap, says Prescott | By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor | Published: 17 August 2006
Deputy PM criticises US handling of Middle East, condemning 'cowboy' President at private meeting
Deputy PM criticises US handling of Middle East, condemning 'cowboy' President at private meeting
John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap.
The Deputy Prime Minister's condemnation of President Bush and his approach to the Middle East could cause a diplomatic row but it will please Labour MPs who are furious about Tony Blair's backing of the United States over the bombing of Lebanon.
The remark is said to have been made at a private meeting in Mr Prescott's Whitehall office on Tuesday with Muslim MPs and other Labour MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities. Muslim MPs wanted to press home their objections to British foreign policy and discuss ways of improving relations with the Muslim communities.
Some of the MPs present said yesterday they could not remember Mr Prescott making the remark. He has been at pains to avoid breaking ranks with Mr Blair in public although he is believed to have raised concern about the bombing of Lebanon at a private meeting of the Cabinet. But Harry Cohen, the MP whose constituency includes Walthamstow, scene of some of the police raids in the alleged "terror plot" investigation, said Mr Prescott had definitely used the word "crap" about the Bush administration.
"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East. He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that ...Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese families streamed homeward toward their devastated villages
Lebanese Surge Back to South: "Residents Find Towns Devastated | By Edward Cody and Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A01
SRIFA, Lebanon, Aug. 14 -- Hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese families streamed homeward toward their devastated villages as soon as the shooting stopped Monday, navigating around destroyed bridges, fording the Litani River and creating monster traffic jams on bomb-pocked roads leading south along the Mediterranean.
...
Ali Hassan al-Khalil, a Shiite Muslim member of parliament, visited the southern suburbs along with the returning residents. "This savagery has changed the landmarks of this area," he said. "The only thing that has not changed is the will of the people to return in spite of all that has happened." ...
SRIFA, Lebanon, Aug. 14 -- Hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese families streamed homeward toward their devastated villages as soon as the shooting stopped Monday, navigating around destroyed bridges, fording the Litani River and creating monster traffic jams on bomb-pocked roads leading south along the Mediterranean.
...
Ali Hassan al-Khalil, a Shiite Muslim member of parliament, visited the southern suburbs along with the returning residents. "This savagery has changed the landmarks of this area," he said. "The only thing that has not changed is the will of the people to return in spite of all that has happened." ...
Monday, August 14, 2006
(1) deeply insulting to the profoundly religious (2) amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.
Jean Bricmont: The De-Zionization of the American Mind: "August 12 / 13, 2006 | How to Deal with The Lobby | By JEAN BRICMONT
...
Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.
...
Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.
Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
'New Middle East' Out Of Control ..."Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency,"
TomPaine.com - 'New Middle East' Out Of Control: " Jim Lobe | August 11, 2006
Jim Lobe is Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service. Reprinted with permission.
Alarms are definitely on the rise here.
And it's not just because the British police arrested 21 people who were allegedly plotting to bomb up to 10 jetliners between London and the United States in mid-flight over the Atlantic Ocean. Although that probably didn't help.
It's more the sense that the growing number of crises in the "new Middle East," proudly midwifed by the administration of President George W. Bush, is rapidly spinning out of control with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.
The ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah—not to imminent expansion of Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon if it does not get a United Nations Security Council resolution to its liking—has, by virtually all accounts, inflamed and radicalized the Islamic world and rendered a larger regional conflagration much more likely.
At the same time, Wednesday's report that an unprecedented 1,815 bodies, 90 percent victims of violence, were brought to the Baghdad's morgue last month—eclipsing the previous record established in June by some 250 corpses—appeared to confirm the increasingly widespread view here that Iraq is moving headlong towards civil war, if it isn't already in one, as many regional experts have contended for some time.
"Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency," noted Washington's former U.N. Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, in an uncharacteristically alarming column in Thursday's Washington Post. ...
Jim Lobe is Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service. Reprinted with permission.
Alarms are definitely on the rise here.
And it's not just because the British police arrested 21 people who were allegedly plotting to bomb up to 10 jetliners between London and the United States in mid-flight over the Atlantic Ocean. Although that probably didn't help.
It's more the sense that the growing number of crises in the "new Middle East," proudly midwifed by the administration of President George W. Bush, is rapidly spinning out of control with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.
The ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah—not to imminent expansion of Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon if it does not get a United Nations Security Council resolution to its liking—has, by virtually all accounts, inflamed and radicalized the Islamic world and rendered a larger regional conflagration much more likely.
At the same time, Wednesday's report that an unprecedented 1,815 bodies, 90 percent victims of violence, were brought to the Baghdad's morgue last month—eclipsing the previous record established in June by some 250 corpses—appeared to confirm the increasingly widespread view here that Iraq is moving headlong towards civil war, if it isn't already in one, as many regional experts have contended for some time.
"Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency," noted Washington's former U.N. Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, in an uncharacteristically alarming column in Thursday's Washington Post. ...
U.S. involved in Israeli plans to invade Lebanon
The Raw Story | Seymour Hersh: U.S. involved in Israeli plans to invade Lebanon: "Published: Sunday August 13, 2006
In an article for the New Yorker, renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh states that the Bush administration was closely involved in last month's invasion of Lebanon by Israel, RAW STORY has learned.
Hersh describes the administration's initial reaction to the invasion as 'strangely passive,' with George W. Bush saying on July 16, 'It’s a moment of clarification' and Condoleezza Rice stating two days later that a ceasefire should wait until 'the conditions are conducive.'
Hersh's intelligence and diplomatic sources tell him that the reason for this hands-off reaction was that George Bush and Dick Cheney already knew about Israeli plans for a bombing campaign against Hezbollah's underground missile complexes and were convinced that it could both increase Israel's security and serve as a prelude to a American pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
In an article for the New Yorker, renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh states that the Bush administration was closely involved in last month's invasion of Lebanon by Israel, RAW STORY has learned.
Hersh describes the administration's initial reaction to the invasion as 'strangely passive,' with George W. Bush saying on July 16, 'It’s a moment of clarification' and Condoleezza Rice stating two days later that a ceasefire should wait until 'the conditions are conducive.'
Hersh's intelligence and diplomatic sources tell him that the reason for this hands-off reaction was that George Bush and Dick Cheney already knew about Israeli plans for a bombing campaign against Hezbollah's underground missile complexes and were convinced that it could both increase Israel's security and serve as a prelude to a American pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
The White House also wanted Hezbollah stripped of the ability to retailiate against Israel in the wake of an American attack on Iran. As one U.S. government consultant told Hersh, "The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."
The White House and National Security Council have denied knowing in advance about Israel's plans. However, Hersh's sources made it clear that Israel shared its plans with the Americans this past spring and received strong encouragement. Israeli military and intelligence experts acknowledged the American support but insisted to Hersh that Israel had acted against Hezbollah solely on the basis of its own interests and not as an agent of American policy. ...
what distinguishes the US from every other Western country in its attitude to the conflict - is that it is presented as a foregone conclusion
Independent Online Edition > Americas: "America's one-eyed view of war: Stars, stripes, and the Star of David | Andrew Gumbel reports from Los Angeles | Published: 15 August 2006
There are two sides to every conflict - unless you rely on the US media for information about the battle in Lebanon. Viewers have been fed a diet of partisan coverage which treats Israel as the good guys and their Hizbollah enemy as the incarnation of evil.
...
There are two sides to every conflict - unless you rely on the US media for information about the battle in Lebanon. Viewers have been fed a diet of partisan coverage which treats Israel as the good guys and their Hizbollah enemy as the incarnation of evil.
...
On the Arab American side, many have expressed reluctance to stand up and be counted among the protesters for fear of being tinged by association with Hizbollah, which is on the United States' list of terrorist organisations. (As a result, the voices heard during the protests tend to be the more extreme ones.) They don't like to discuss their political views in any public forum, following the revelation a few months ago that the National Security Agency was wiretapping phone calls and e-mail exchanges as part of the Bush administration's war on terror.
They are even afraid to donate money to help the civilian victims of the war in Lebanon because of the intense scrutiny Islamic and Arab charities have been subjected to since the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration has denounced 40 charities worldwide as financiers of terrorism, and arrested and deported dozens of people associated with them. Consequently, while Jewish charities such as the United Jewish Communities are busy raising $300m to help families affected by the Katyusha rockets raining down on northern Israel, donations to the Lebanese victims have come in at no more than a trickle.
...
The media, more generally, has left little doubt in the minds of a majority of American news consumers that the Israelis are the good guys, the aggrieved victims, while Hizbollah is an incarnation of the same evil responsible for bringing down the World Trade Centre, a heartless and faceless organisation whose destruction is so important it can justify all the damage Israel is inflicting on Lebanon and its civilians.
The point is not that this viewpoint is necessarily wrong. The point - and this is what distinguishes the US from every other Western country in its attitude to the conflict - is that it is presented as a foregone conclusion. Not only is there next to no debate, but debate itself is considered unnecessary and suspect.
The 24-hour cable news stations are the worst offenders. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has had reporters running around northern Israel chronicling every rocket attack and every Israeli mobilisation, but has shown little or no interest in anything happening on the other side of the border. It is a rarity on any of the cable channels to see any Arab being tapped for expert opinion on the conflict. A startling amount of airtime, meanwhile, is given to the likes of Michael D Evans, an end-of-the-world Biblical "prophet" with no credentials in the complexities of Middle Eastern politics. He has shown up on MSNBC and Fox under the label "Middle East analyst". Fox's default analyst, on this and many other issues, has been the right-wing provocateur and best-selling author Ann Coulter, whose main credential is to have opined, days after 9/11, that what America should do to the Middle East is "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".
Often, the coverage has been hysterical and distasteful. In the days following the Israeli bombing of Qana, several pro-Israeli bloggers started spreading a hoax story that Hizbollah had engineered the event, or stage-managed it by placing dead babies in the rubble for the purpose of misleading reporters. Oliver North, the Reagan-era orchestrator of the Iran-Contra affair who is now a right-wing television and radio host, and Michelle Malkin, a sharp-tongued Bush administration cheerleader who runs her own weblog, appeared on Fox News to give credence to the hoax - before the Israeli army came forward to take responsibility and brought the matter to at least a partial close.
As the conflict has gone on, the media interpretation of it has only hardened. Essentially, the line touted by cable news hosts and their correspondents - closely adhering to the line adopted by the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters - is that Hizbollah is part of a giant anti-Israeli and anti-American terror network that also includes Hamas, al-Qa'ida, the governments of Syria and Iran, and the insurgents in Iraq. Little effort is made to distinguish between these groups, or explain what their goals might be. The conflict is presented as a straight fight between good and evil, in which US interests and Israeli interests intersect almost completely. Anyone who suggests otherwise is likely to be pounced on and ripped to shreds.
When John Dingell, a Democratic congressman from Michigan with a large Arab American population in his constituency, gave an interview suggesting it was wrong for the US to take sides instead of pushing for an end to violence, he was quickly - and loudly - accused of being a Hizbollah apologist. Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, accused him of failing to draw any moral distinction between Hizbollah and Israel. Rush Limbaugh, the popular conservative talk-show host, piled into him, as did the conservative newspaper The Washington Times. The Times was later forced to admit it had quoted Dingell out of context and reprinted his full words, including: "I condemn Hizbollah, as does everyone else, for the violence." ...
a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.
Independent Online Edition > Middle East:Israel's verdict: we lost the war | By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel | Published: 15 August 2006
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.
Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.
Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.
The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border. ...
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.
Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.
Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.
The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border. ...
Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah
Excite News - Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah: "Aug 14, 9:42 PM (ET) | By DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.
Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.
The United States backed Israel in the war, and Bush made clear he was determined to help the Israelis in the post-fighting struggle of words about who wound up on top. ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.
Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.
The United States backed Israel in the war, and Bush made clear he was determined to help the Israelis in the post-fighting struggle of words about who wound up on top. ...
There is a deep irony here. Israel was created as a result of one of the worst racial atrocities in modern history: US Support may no longer be enough
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | American support may no longer be enough: "Martin Jacques | Monday August 14, 2006 | The Guardian
Israel's long-term future lies in connecting with its Arab neighbours, not a western superpower thousands of miles away
This has been a war that did not happen by accident. The kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah was merely the pretext, long since forgotten in the absurdly disproportionate response by the Israelis, and the death and destruction that their country has wrought on Lebanon. Israel has, throughout its short existence, lived by the sword, safe in the knowledge that its military power, as an honorary western nation, is far superior to that of its enemies. Israel has managed to justify this behaviour, in the eyes of the world (or at least the west), by two means: first, the insistence that its very survival always hangs by a thin thread; and second, the remorse felt by the west over the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust.
...
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the creation of the state of Israel, the reality today is that it is - by the manner of its creation, self-image and attitude towards its neighbours, and how it is regarded by the west - a western transplant sustained by an American life-support machine. Under such circumstances, the very idea that peace in the Middle East is in any meaningful sense possible is illusory. Israel has been the primary means by which the US has exercised its hegemony over the region. It has, using the classic imperial device of divide and rule, vested its means of control over the Middle East - as Amy Chua argues in her book World on Fire - in a small but privileged ethnic minority state, namely Israel. Whatever the recent rhetoric about democracy, such a mode of control means that western hegemony in the region has been primarily exercised by force. The Arab world has been rendered embittered, divided, resentful and politically frozen, in a manner that should surprise nobody. It is understandable that terrorism has become such a fixture in Arab politics: it is the weapon of the impotent, the disenfranchised and the unorganised in the face of profound grievance.
Israel's long-term future lies in connecting with its Arab neighbours, not a western superpower thousands of miles away
This has been a war that did not happen by accident. The kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah was merely the pretext, long since forgotten in the absurdly disproportionate response by the Israelis, and the death and destruction that their country has wrought on Lebanon. Israel has, throughout its short existence, lived by the sword, safe in the knowledge that its military power, as an honorary western nation, is far superior to that of its enemies. Israel has managed to justify this behaviour, in the eyes of the world (or at least the west), by two means: first, the insistence that its very survival always hangs by a thin thread; and second, the remorse felt by the west over the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust.
...
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the creation of the state of Israel, the reality today is that it is - by the manner of its creation, self-image and attitude towards its neighbours, and how it is regarded by the west - a western transplant sustained by an American life-support machine. Under such circumstances, the very idea that peace in the Middle East is in any meaningful sense possible is illusory. Israel has been the primary means by which the US has exercised its hegemony over the region. It has, using the classic imperial device of divide and rule, vested its means of control over the Middle East - as Amy Chua argues in her book World on Fire - in a small but privileged ethnic minority state, namely Israel. Whatever the recent rhetoric about democracy, such a mode of control means that western hegemony in the region has been primarily exercised by force. The Arab world has been rendered embittered, divided, resentful and politically frozen, in a manner that should surprise nobody. It is understandable that terrorism has become such a fixture in Arab politics: it is the weapon of the impotent, the disenfranchised and the unorganised in the face of profound grievance.
An enduring peace in the Middle East requires two things: first, that the Arab states accept Israel's right to exist; and second, that Israel must come to see itself as an integral part of the region. The latter requires the kind of transformation in Israeli - and western - attitudes that is not even conceived of, let alone discussed. Israelis typically regard themselves as superior to their neighbours, and the root cause of this mentality lies in their sense of racial superiority. Indeed it is impossible to explain Israel's attitude towards the west on the one hand and its Arab neighbours on the other without understanding its racial character and motivation. Israelis aspire to be treated on a par with westerners - that is, of course, white westerners; by the same token they have contempt for Arabs, including those who are citizens of Israel, whom they look down on as less civilised than themselves. Israel behaves in the manner of a settler colony whose people do not believe they are of the region but who none the less think they have every right to be there.
There is a deep irony here. Israel was created as a result of one of the worst racial atrocities in modern history. It was in part the sense of guilt and sympathy that persuaded the west that it must help the Jews create their own state. From the outset, two factors were always likely to haunt the project: first, it involved the annexation of land that was Arab; and second, it implied the foundation of an ethnic state, with all the exclusivist and racist attitudes that this potentially involved. ...
US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Bush 'helped Israelis attack on Lebanon': "Dan Glaister in Los Angeles | Monday August 14, 2006 | The Guardian
The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.
The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.
Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: 'Earlier this summer ... several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'.'
The Israeli action, current and former government officials told Hersh, chimed with the Bush administration's desire to reduce the threat of possible Hizbullah retaliation against Israel should the US launch a military strike against Iran.
'A successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign ... could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations,' sources told Hersh. ...
...
Hersh has a track record in breaking major stories. He was the first to write about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and has written extensively about the build-up to the war in Iraq. He made his name when he uncovered the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam war. Most recently he has written about US plans for Iran, alleging that US special forces had already been active inside the country.
The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.
The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.
Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: 'Earlier this summer ... several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'.'
The Israeli action, current and former government officials told Hersh, chimed with the Bush administration's desire to reduce the threat of possible Hizbullah retaliation against Israel should the US launch a military strike against Iran.
'A successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign ... could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations,' sources told Hersh. ...
...
Hersh has a track record in breaking major stories. He was the first to write about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and has written extensively about the build-up to the war in Iraq. He made his name when he uncovered the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam war. Most recently he has written about US plans for Iran, alleging that US special forces had already been active inside the country.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Israel Has already Lost This War .... it will be difficult - and lonely - to be a moderate voice in the Middle East
Israel Has already Lost This War: "August 11, 2006 by the Independent / UK | by Ghayth Armanazi
From now on it will be difficult - and lonely - to be a moderate voice in the Middle East
Israel's war in Lebanon may yet last for a while. But, for all intents and purposes, Israel has lost what the Arabic satellite station has coined the 'Sixth War', in reference to the list of major conflicts involving Israel that have erupted since the First war of 1948.
...
Not one of those leaders ever had the honesty to tell their people, as they hauled them from one "victorious" war to another, that all these pyrrhic victories can ever subdue a people fired with the rage of injustice, who have resolved that the wrong done unto them shall be righted - whatever it takes. None of those leaders ever came to terms with their own suppressed consciences, or relayed any traces of them to their public.
Because of this entrenched state of denial, Israel had always only one answer to those who defied its brutal tyranny: even more brutality and tyranny. That is at the heart of the logic that drives its war in Lebanon. It is an old logic that Israel's leaders use to deceive their people into believing that they are safe as long as they possess an awesome killing machine.
Today that supremacy is being challenged to deadly long-term effect. The Israeli people may be rallying round their government while its promise of "victory around the corner" still may hold sway. But that promise is increasingly wearing thin and will soon turn even the most die-hard Ehud Olmert supporter to despair of his tactics.
Yet the fate of Olmert and his government will only be a footnote when historians look back at this great turning point in the long narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Far more significant will be its lasting impact on the political, psychological and ultimately the military power balance in the area. The effect of the steadfast resistance of Hizbollah fighters to Israel's all-conquering army will be very powerful regardless of the details of the immediate settlement of the Lebanese conflict, which is likely to be as unstable as previous arrangements.
From now on it will be difficult - and lonely - to be a moderate voice in the Middle East
Israel's war in Lebanon may yet last for a while. But, for all intents and purposes, Israel has lost what the Arabic satellite station has coined the 'Sixth War', in reference to the list of major conflicts involving Israel that have erupted since the First war of 1948.
...
Not one of those leaders ever had the honesty to tell their people, as they hauled them from one "victorious" war to another, that all these pyrrhic victories can ever subdue a people fired with the rage of injustice, who have resolved that the wrong done unto them shall be righted - whatever it takes. None of those leaders ever came to terms with their own suppressed consciences, or relayed any traces of them to their public.
Because of this entrenched state of denial, Israel had always only one answer to those who defied its brutal tyranny: even more brutality and tyranny. That is at the heart of the logic that drives its war in Lebanon. It is an old logic that Israel's leaders use to deceive their people into believing that they are safe as long as they possess an awesome killing machine.
Today that supremacy is being challenged to deadly long-term effect. The Israeli people may be rallying round their government while its promise of "victory around the corner" still may hold sway. But that promise is increasingly wearing thin and will soon turn even the most die-hard Ehud Olmert supporter to despair of his tactics.
Yet the fate of Olmert and his government will only be a footnote when historians look back at this great turning point in the long narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Far more significant will be its lasting impact on the political, psychological and ultimately the military power balance in the area. The effect of the steadfast resistance of Hizbollah fighters to Israel's all-conquering army will be very powerful regardless of the details of the immediate settlement of the Lebanese conflict, which is likely to be as unstable as previous arrangements.
U.S. assures Israel it will not be forced to withdraw from Shaba - even if UN determines that they belong to Lebanon
U.S. assures Israel it will not be forced to withdraw from Shaba - Haaretz - Israel News: " 03:39 13/08/2006 | By Aluf Benn, Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi, and Agencies
An agreement reached between Israel and the United States on the disputed Shaba Farms area, located on Israel's border with Lebanon, enabled a breakthrough in reaching a cease-fire resolution at the United Nations on Friday.
In letters exchanged between U.S. and Israeli leaders, U.S. officials assured Israel that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be authorized to determine whether the area belongs to Lebanon or Syria, but that the future status of the territory would only be determined in negotiations between Israel and Farms' rightful owners.
A senior government source said that Israel would not be obligated to withdraw from Shaba Farms, even if Annan's investigation determines that they belong to Lebanon."
An agreement reached between Israel and the United States on the disputed Shaba Farms area, located on Israel's border with Lebanon, enabled a breakthrough in reaching a cease-fire resolution at the United Nations on Friday.
In letters exchanged between U.S. and Israeli leaders, U.S. officials assured Israel that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be authorized to determine whether the area belongs to Lebanon or Syria, but that the future status of the territory would only be determined in negotiations between Israel and Farms' rightful owners.
A senior government source said that Israel would not be obligated to withdraw from Shaba Farms, even if Annan's investigation determines that they belong to Lebanon."
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Bush creating a "New MIddle East": "receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,”
Consortiumnews.com: "Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War | By Robert Parry | August 13, 2006
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported. ...
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported. ...
Mideast Anger: "People were enraged collectively in Lebanon, everybody against the Israeli indiscriminate onslaught,"
Egeland: Mideast Anger Worst in 20 Years - Forbes.com: "By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS , 08.11.2006, 12:36 PM
U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said Friday the anger on all sides in the Middle East is the greatest he has seen in two decades of trying to help the troubled region make peace.
"I've never seen nations as polarized as during this recent visit," said Egeland, who was in Lebanon, Israel and the Gaza Strip at the end of July.
"People were enraged collectively in Lebanon, everybody against the Israeli indiscriminate onslaught," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "In Israel, they were a united front to support the strong military measures. In the Palestinian areas, I've never seen them as full of hatred collectively as now. It has to be defused." ...
U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said Friday the anger on all sides in the Middle East is the greatest he has seen in two decades of trying to help the troubled region make peace.
"I've never seen nations as polarized as during this recent visit," said Egeland, who was in Lebanon, Israel and the Gaza Strip at the end of July.
"People were enraged collectively in Lebanon, everybody against the Israeli indiscriminate onslaught," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "In Israel, they were a united front to support the strong military measures. In the Palestinian areas, I've never seen them as full of hatred collectively as now. It has to be defused." ...
Did US want Israel to attack Syria? | csmonitor.com
Did US want Israel to attack Syria? | csmonitor.com: "August 9, 2006 at 12:00 a.m. | US neocons hoped Israel would attack Syria | Israel considered expansion of conflict in Lebanon 'nuts.' | By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say Israel's 'leadership balked at the scheme.'
One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered 'nuts' by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.
After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hizbullah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.
In a July 30 story about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in response to its attacks in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post noted the White House interest.
The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] was also concerned about a possible Syrian attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack.
Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria." ...
The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say Israel's 'leadership balked at the scheme.'
One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered 'nuts' by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.
After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hizbullah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.
In a July 30 story about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in response to its attacks in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post noted the White House interest.
The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] was also concerned about a possible Syrian attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack.
Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria." ...
anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Why Do They Hate Us?: "by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 9, 2006
You’ll recall that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials declared that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists’ hatred for America’s “freedom and values.” That refrain produced the “war on terrorism” and, more recently, the “war on radical Islamo-fascism.”
Nonsense, said libertarians. The anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Ending the U.S. government’s decades-old policy of empire and intervention would bring an end to the threat of terrorism (and radical Islamo-fascism) against the United States.
The argument of the “freedom and values” crowd boils down to this: “The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, which is now being used to kill people in Lebanon, and the U.S. government’s obeisance and submissiveness to the Israeli government, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States. Their anger and hatred is caused by America’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll.”
Therefore, the argument goes, the chants of “Death to Israel. Death to America” from hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching in Baghdad last week had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy but were motivated instead by hatred for American principles and lifestyles.
(Reflect for a moment on the utter perversity of it all: U.S. soldiers in Iraq are dying to bring “ freedom and democracy” to people who are screaming “Death to America” and whose radical Shiite government has aligned itself with Iran, which U.S. officials consider to be an arch-enemy of the United States.)
The same “freedom and values” argument was made with respect to more than a decade of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children — deaths that U.S. officials maintained were “worth it.” People in the Middle East were indifferent to those deaths, the argument goes. Their anger and hatred were caused by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the gambling casinos in Las Vegas." ...
You’ll recall that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials declared that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists’ hatred for America’s “freedom and values.” That refrain produced the “war on terrorism” and, more recently, the “war on radical Islamo-fascism.”
Nonsense, said libertarians. The anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Ending the U.S. government’s decades-old policy of empire and intervention would bring an end to the threat of terrorism (and radical Islamo-fascism) against the United States.
The argument of the “freedom and values” crowd boils down to this: “The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, which is now being used to kill people in Lebanon, and the U.S. government’s obeisance and submissiveness to the Israeli government, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States. Their anger and hatred is caused by America’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll.”
Therefore, the argument goes, the chants of “Death to Israel. Death to America” from hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching in Baghdad last week had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy but were motivated instead by hatred for American principles and lifestyles.
(Reflect for a moment on the utter perversity of it all: U.S. soldiers in Iraq are dying to bring “ freedom and democracy” to people who are screaming “Death to America” and whose radical Shiite government has aligned itself with Iran, which U.S. officials consider to be an arch-enemy of the United States.)
The same “freedom and values” argument was made with respect to more than a decade of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children — deaths that U.S. officials maintained were “worth it.” People in the Middle East were indifferent to those deaths, the argument goes. Their anger and hatred were caused by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the gambling casinos in Las Vegas." ...
Egypt: dismissed Washington’s talk of “new Middle East” ... the real problem - the collapse of attempts at peace between Israael and Palestine
Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Gulf/Arab World: "US, West losing their credibility in region: Mubarak
Published: Friday, 11 August, 2006, 01:26 PM Doha Time
CAIRO: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said the US and the West are losing credibility in the Middle East because they were dragging their feet on a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
In an interview with the Egyptian magazine October, released yesterday, Mubarak also said it would be impossible to implement quickly a UN resolution that requires Hezbollah to disarm - one of the steps Israel and the US want to see in a political settlement of the month-old conflict.
He dismissed Washington’s talk of “a new Middle East”, saying it ignored what he called the real problem - the collapse of attempts at peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
“Foot-dragging on a ceasefire and the continuation of the Israeli aggression detract from the credibility of the US and the West in the region,” Mubarak said." ...
Published: Friday, 11 August, 2006, 01:26 PM Doha Time
CAIRO: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said the US and the West are losing credibility in the Middle East because they were dragging their feet on a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
In an interview with the Egyptian magazine October, released yesterday, Mubarak also said it would be impossible to implement quickly a UN resolution that requires Hezbollah to disarm - one of the steps Israel and the US want to see in a political settlement of the month-old conflict.
He dismissed Washington’s talk of “a new Middle East”, saying it ignored what he called the real problem - the collapse of attempts at peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
“Foot-dragging on a ceasefire and the continuation of the Israeli aggression detract from the credibility of the US and the West in the region,” Mubarak said." ...
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Lebanese direct growing anger at US: "I beg Americans not to vote for another butcher and criminal like George Bush,"
Lebanese direct growing anger at US | csmonitor.com
While the US worked on a cease-fire agreement, Israeli warships fired on southern Beirut.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BEIRUT, LEBANON – With his arm raised and fist clenched, Sheikh Hussein furiously expressed a sentiment rapidly taking hold here. "We know who our first enemy is: America," he shouted before tearful mourners at a funeral Wednesday for 30 civilians killed by an Israeli airstrike on Monday. The white-turbaned sheikh led the crowd in a militant chant: "Death to America! Death to America!" ...
...
Even as Israel continues to pound Beirut's southern suburbs, and agreed Wednesday on plans to expand its four-week-old offensive as far as 18 miles into southern Lebanon, many here increasingly blame the US for its extensive military and political support for the Jewish state.
"Israel wants to stop the war, but America orders them to continue," the sheikh asserted later in an interview. "This is the American freedom?"
...
"I beg Americans not to vote for another butcher and criminal like George Bush," says Dirani, who works at the environment ministry. Tearfully, he says his small daughter, now entombed, had been sharing her excitement about her upcoming sixth birthday party next week; she wrote out an invitation list of 20 school friends. ...
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Pessimism on deal amid clashes at UN: Chirac breaks off holiday to vent fury at 'immoral' US stance
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pessimism on deal amid clashes at UN: "Oliver Burkeman in New York, Ewen MacAskill and Kim Willsher in Paris | Thursday August 10, 2006 | The Guardian
Chirac breaks off holiday to vent fury at 'immoral' US stance
America and France clashed openly yesterday over the proposed United Nations ceasefire plan which is opposed by Lebanon and other Arab states.
US and French teams at the UN headquarters in New York returned to the drawing board to devise a fresh draft resolution, but the mood among diplomats was pessimistic. One diplomat described the situation in Lebanon as 'intractable' and warned that there was no plan B if a resolution could not be thrashed out fast.
The French president, Jacques Chirac, broke from his holiday to deliver an implicit rebuke to Washington. Mr Chirac warned the Bush administration that an immediate ceasefire was the only solution to the conflict and said giving up on this was 'immoral'. He urged the US to speed up its response to Arab nations' demands for changes to the ceasefire plan.
'It appears today that the Americans have reservations about adopting this project, but I don't want to imagine there not being a solution.' He added: 'To accept the present situation and renounce an immediate ceasefire would be the most immoral of solutions.'
The difficulty of finding a diplomatic solution was also underscored when Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, in his first comments on the original UN draft, rejected it. 'The least we can describe this [draft resolution] is as unfair and unjust. It has given Israel more than it wanted and more than it was looking for,' he said."
Chirac breaks off holiday to vent fury at 'immoral' US stance
America and France clashed openly yesterday over the proposed United Nations ceasefire plan which is opposed by Lebanon and other Arab states.
US and French teams at the UN headquarters in New York returned to the drawing board to devise a fresh draft resolution, but the mood among diplomats was pessimistic. One diplomat described the situation in Lebanon as 'intractable' and warned that there was no plan B if a resolution could not be thrashed out fast.
The French president, Jacques Chirac, broke from his holiday to deliver an implicit rebuke to Washington. Mr Chirac warned the Bush administration that an immediate ceasefire was the only solution to the conflict and said giving up on this was 'immoral'. He urged the US to speed up its response to Arab nations' demands for changes to the ceasefire plan.
'It appears today that the Americans have reservations about adopting this project, but I don't want to imagine there not being a solution.' He added: 'To accept the present situation and renounce an immediate ceasefire would be the most immoral of solutions.'
The difficulty of finding a diplomatic solution was also underscored when Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, in his first comments on the original UN draft, rejected it. 'The least we can describe this [draft resolution] is as unfair and unjust. It has given Israel more than it wanted and more than it was looking for,' he said."
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power plant has triggered the Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe,
Independent Online Edition > Environment: "Beirut oil slick devastates the Mediterranean | By Anne Penketh | Published: 08 August 2006
The Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power plant has triggered the Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe, with up to 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spewing out into the sea and the sludge-covered bodies of dead fish littering the once pristine beaches.
The marine damage in the Mediterranean, according to a spokeswoman for a UN agency that hopes to help clean up the mess once the bombing of Lebanon stops, could last for 'up to a century'.
Fuel tanks at the power plant at Jieh, located on the coastline 19 miles south of Beirut, have been on fire since the facility was hit on 13 July by Israeli warplanes. Two days later it was hit again. The fuel that did not catch fire spilled into the sea, causing a huge slick which has spread 50 miles up the coast of Lebanon and six miles along the coastline of neighbouring Syria. Many Lebanese accuse Israel of deliberating trying to sabotage the economy and the country's fragile tourist industry. Yassin Jaber, a prominent Lebanese MP who is a former minister, yesterday said: 'This is part of a sequence of the war of envy and hatred. Why hit the factories, destroying its economic backbone? There's no other explanation.'
The Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power plant has triggered the Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe, with up to 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spewing out into the sea and the sludge-covered bodies of dead fish littering the once pristine beaches.
The marine damage in the Mediterranean, according to a spokeswoman for a UN agency that hopes to help clean up the mess once the bombing of Lebanon stops, could last for 'up to a century'."
The Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power plant has triggered the Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe, with up to 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spewing out into the sea and the sludge-covered bodies of dead fish littering the once pristine beaches.
The marine damage in the Mediterranean, according to a spokeswoman for a UN agency that hopes to help clean up the mess once the bombing of Lebanon stops, could last for 'up to a century'.
Fuel tanks at the power plant at Jieh, located on the coastline 19 miles south of Beirut, have been on fire since the facility was hit on 13 July by Israeli warplanes. Two days later it was hit again. The fuel that did not catch fire spilled into the sea, causing a huge slick which has spread 50 miles up the coast of Lebanon and six miles along the coastline of neighbouring Syria. Many Lebanese accuse Israel of deliberating trying to sabotage the economy and the country's fragile tourist industry. Yassin Jaber, a prominent Lebanese MP who is a former minister, yesterday said: 'This is part of a sequence of the war of envy and hatred. Why hit the factories, destroying its economic backbone? There's no other explanation.'
The Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power plant has triggered the Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe, with up to 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spewing out into the sea and the sludge-covered bodies of dead fish littering the once pristine beaches.
The marine damage in the Mediterranean, according to a spokeswoman for a UN agency that hopes to help clean up the mess once the bombing of Lebanon stops, could last for 'up to a century'."
How the US fired Jack Straw - Foreign Secretary spoke his mind on the Middle East — and became a target in Washington
How the US fired Jack Straw - Comment - Times Online: "August 07, 2006 | William Rees-Mogg
The Foreign Secretary spoke his mind on the Middle East — and became a target in Washington
WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.
Shortly before he was dismissed, Mr Straw went on his charming tour with Condoleezza Rice, in which they visited his Blackburn constituency. This had been given two explanations. One was that the US Secretary of State was hoping to protect Mr Straw, as a fellow foreign minister, against the undiplomatic attack from the Pentagon. She wanted to keep Mr Rumsfeld’s tanks off her turf. She had found Mr Straw competent and effective. If that were so, Dr Rice lost that battle in the Washington turf war.
The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw’s dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice’s visit to his constituency. It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn. At any rate, Irwin Stelzer’s account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.
The Foreign Secretary spoke his mind on the Middle East — and became a target in Washington
WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.
Shortly before he was dismissed, Mr Straw went on his charming tour with Condoleezza Rice, in which they visited his Blackburn constituency. This had been given two explanations. One was that the US Secretary of State was hoping to protect Mr Straw, as a fellow foreign minister, against the undiplomatic attack from the Pentagon. She wanted to keep Mr Rumsfeld’s tanks off her turf. She had found Mr Straw competent and effective. If that were so, Dr Rice lost that battle in the Washington turf war.
The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw’s dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice’s visit to his constituency. It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn. At any rate, Irwin Stelzer’s account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday went back for a second look at the story in the light of subsequent events, particularly the Israeli counter-attack on Lebanon. A US source told them that “Mr Straw’s views did not find favour in the White House and its concerns were passed on to the British Government”. That confirms that the Foreign Secretary was effectively dismissed by an American President. ...
Had Reagan done to Lebanon .. with 12 hostages ... what Israel did with 2 ...Conservatives would have begged him to ease up
Condi's 'New Middle East' - by Pat Buchanan: "August 8, 2006 | by Patrick J. Buchanan
...
In the ideology of "democratic fundamentalism" to which George W. Bush converted after 9/11, we are simply in a rough patch on the glory road to a democratic Middle East and "the end of tyranny on this earth."
...
In the ideology of "democratic fundamentalism" to which George W. Bush converted after 9/11, we are simply in a rough patch on the glory road to a democratic Middle East and "the end of tyranny on this earth."
In reality, our situation has never been more grim.
The successful experiment that featured the "freest, fairest elections ever held" in Palestine is dead. Over 125 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is a shambles. The terror wing of Hamas will have no trouble recruiting in the rubble.
The same is true of Lebanon. The "Cedar Revolution" was a Bush success, a beacon of hope. That Hezbollah won a dozen seats only seemed to prove that the elections had indeed been free, fair, and open to all.
Now Lebanon is in ruins. The 900 dead, thousands wounded, the million refugees, the smashed infrastructure, and the scores of thousands of Westerners who have fled means years before Lebanon recovers, if ever she does. Arab hatred of Israel and America is pandemic.
Hezbollah ignited the hostilities. But it was Israel that escalated to rain destruction on a people and nation that had not countenanced or condoned Hezbollah's provocation, but condemned it.
Think back. Had Reagan done to Lebanon, when half a dozen Americans were seized as hostages, what Israel has done, when two soldiers were taken hostage, Democrats would have denounced Reagan as a war criminal. Conservatives would have begged him to ease up.
Yet, almost to a man and woman, our politicians are falling all over one another to express their 100 percent support of what Israel has done to Lebanon. Even Israelis must feel a measure of contempt for this kind of groveling.
UN 'stands by' while Lebanese die: Arab League
Excite News: "UN 'stands by' while Lebanese die: Arab League
...
It is most saddening that the council stands idly by, crippled, unable to stop the blood bath which has become the bitter daily lot of the defenseless Lebanese people," the Qatari foreign minister told the council.
...
It is most saddening that the council stands idly by, crippled, unable to stop the blood bath which has become the bitter daily lot of the defenseless Lebanese people," the Qatari foreign minister told the council.
"What is happening will sow the seeds of hatred and extremism in the area and provide a pretext for those who feel that the international community is taking sides and lacks fairness as to this dispute," he said.
Lebanon's acting foreign minister, Tareq Mitri, said the draft resolution not only fell short of meeting many of his government's demands "but it may not bring about the results the international community wants."
He said Lebanon needed an immediate cease-fire and a quick withdrawal of Israeli forces and he also requested "the assistance of additional forces to enhance the United Nations force" in southern Lebanon.
"More than 900 lives ago, we asked for an immediate cease-fire," Mitri said. "More than 3,000 injured civilians ago, we asked for an immediate cease-fire." ...
Monday, August 07, 2006
Osama Has Won ... Thanks to policies .. and fervent support for Israel ... US is hated and despised to an almost unbelievable degree
Brian Cloughley: Osama Has Won: "August 4, 2006 | Hatred of the US is Now Universal | Osama Has Won | By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
Anyone who even attempts to defend the killing of the children in Qana by Israeli air strikes is criminally insane. There can be no justification for slaughtering children, in any circumstances, anywhere.
You feel revulsion when you see photographs of Israeli kids writing hate slogans on artillery shells that are going to be fired at Arab kids. In fact real human beings feel more than revulsion when seeing photographs of brainwashed hatred in the young: they experience utter despair because these kids are deliberately being taught to hate other who are different from them.
...
And Palestinian children hate, too. They hate Israelis because their grandparents had their lands stolen and occupied by a foreign power which has ignored countless UN resolutions to obey the law. It is only because of unremitting US support that Israel has been able to defy the entire world and trample over the basics of natural justice. These Palestinian children hate Israel because it is a brutal and bigoted occupying power that denies decency and human dignity to a race of people who differ from them in looks, religion and customs. In other parts of the world this is called racism.
Israel is supported root and branch by the President and Congress of United States of America. They unconditionally endorse the actions, no matter how barbaric or bizarre, of a racist, nuclear-armed country that willfully ignores UN resolutions and assassinates people as a matter of national policy. In the course of providing support Condoleezza Rice declared that "An immediate ceasefire [in Lebanon] without political conditions does not make sense", which gave the Israelis the green light to kill the Qana kids.
Rice declared last year that "Israel has no greater friend and no stronger supporter than the United States of America . . . . The United States and Israel share much in common. We both affirm the innate freedom and dignity of every human life, not as prizes that people confer to one another, but as divine gifts of the Almighty."
If Rice and Bush so greatly respect the dignity of human life they would have ordered Israel to cease its murderous onslaught on civilians. They could have done it in a nanosecond, make no mistake. But they chose to encourage Israel in its killing spree.
...
Osama bin Laden may not be alive, but this is irrelevant because countless millions of Muslims regard him as a hero, alive or dead. Their reasoning is that he has caused a dramatic and continuing amount of disruption to the western world's economic and social structure. He has hit us hard. And his ongoing success in disrupting our lives is helped by the weaknesses of Bush and his people. Their smugness, arrogance and casual savagery are some of bin Laden's most effective weapons.
Osama bin Laden need never do anything again to ensure permanency and prosperity of his legacy of hatred. Thanks to the imperious policies of the Bush administration and its fervent support for Israel the United States is hated and despised to an almost unbelievable degree. Osama has won.
Anyone who even attempts to defend the killing of the children in Qana by Israeli air strikes is criminally insane. There can be no justification for slaughtering children, in any circumstances, anywhere.
You feel revulsion when you see photographs of Israeli kids writing hate slogans on artillery shells that are going to be fired at Arab kids. In fact real human beings feel more than revulsion when seeing photographs of brainwashed hatred in the young: they experience utter despair because these kids are deliberately being taught to hate other who are different from them.
...
And Palestinian children hate, too. They hate Israelis because their grandparents had their lands stolen and occupied by a foreign power which has ignored countless UN resolutions to obey the law. It is only because of unremitting US support that Israel has been able to defy the entire world and trample over the basics of natural justice. These Palestinian children hate Israel because it is a brutal and bigoted occupying power that denies decency and human dignity to a race of people who differ from them in looks, religion and customs. In other parts of the world this is called racism.
Israel is supported root and branch by the President and Congress of United States of America. They unconditionally endorse the actions, no matter how barbaric or bizarre, of a racist, nuclear-armed country that willfully ignores UN resolutions and assassinates people as a matter of national policy. In the course of providing support Condoleezza Rice declared that "An immediate ceasefire [in Lebanon] without political conditions does not make sense", which gave the Israelis the green light to kill the Qana kids.
Rice declared last year that "Israel has no greater friend and no stronger supporter than the United States of America . . . . The United States and Israel share much in common. We both affirm the innate freedom and dignity of every human life, not as prizes that people confer to one another, but as divine gifts of the Almighty."
If Rice and Bush so greatly respect the dignity of human life they would have ordered Israel to cease its murderous onslaught on civilians. They could have done it in a nanosecond, make no mistake. But they chose to encourage Israel in its killing spree.
...
Osama bin Laden may not be alive, but this is irrelevant because countless millions of Muslims regard him as a hero, alive or dead. Their reasoning is that he has caused a dramatic and continuing amount of disruption to the western world's economic and social structure. He has hit us hard. And his ongoing success in disrupting our lives is helped by the weaknesses of Bush and his people. Their smugness, arrogance and casual savagery are some of bin Laden's most effective weapons.
Osama bin Laden need never do anything again to ensure permanency and prosperity of his legacy of hatred. Thanks to the imperious policies of the Bush administration and its fervent support for Israel the United States is hated and despised to an almost unbelievable degree. Osama has won.
Oil has broken through $77 on shut down anxiety about Middle East
Telegraph | Money | Oil rises above $77 on BP shutdown: " (Filed: 07/08/2006)
Oil has broken through $77 a barrel after BP said it will shut down the biggest field in the US and anxiety about Middle East supply continued to run high.
...
BP officials said they did not know how long the Prudhoe Bay field would be off-line. Tom Williams, BP's senior tax and royalty counsel, said: "I don't even know how long it's going to take to shut it down."
Oil has broken through $77 a barrel after BP said it will shut down the biggest field in the US and anxiety about Middle East supply continued to run high.
...
BP officials said they did not know how long the Prudhoe Bay field would be off-line. Tom Williams, BP's senior tax and royalty counsel, said: "I don't even know how long it's going to take to shut it down."
The shutdown comes at an already worrying time for the oil industry, with supply concerns stemming both from the hurricane season and instability in the Middle East. There was some relief late last week after tropical storm Chris, which at one point looked like becoming the season's first hurricane, was downgraded to a tropical depression.
BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said in a statement: "We regret that it is necessary to take this action and we apologise to the nation and the state of Alaska for the adverse impacts it will cause." ...
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Excite News
Excite News: "London march urges end to Lebanon war | Aug 5, 5:22 PM (ET) | By Adrian Croft
LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands marched through London on Saturday to demand a halt to the Lebanon war and protest against the British government's failure to call for an immediate ceasefire.
Waving flags and banners, protesters booed and yelled 'Ceasefire now!' and 'Shame on you' as they passed the entrance to Downing Street, where British Prime Minister Tony Blair lives.
A pile of children's shoes was left at a nearby war memorial to symbolize children's lives lost in the 25-day-old war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas." ...
LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands marched through London on Saturday to demand a halt to the Lebanon war and protest against the British government's failure to call for an immediate ceasefire.
Waving flags and banners, protesters booed and yelled 'Ceasefire now!' and 'Shame on you' as they passed the entrance to Downing Street, where British Prime Minister Tony Blair lives.
A pile of children's shoes was left at a nearby war memorial to symbolize children's lives lost in the 25-day-old war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas." ...
Denounce terrorism, suicide bombers and anti-Semitism ... obsessed with brutal retaliation
Why Doesn't Israel Work For Peace?: "August 4, 2006 by the Long Island, New York Newsday | by Silvia Tennenbaum
Holocaust victims would decry the slaughter of innocent children during attacks on Hezbollah
As a Jew who escaped the Holocaust by moving with my family to America in 1938, I turn on the BBC at night. And what I see are clouds of black smoke, explosions; the dead and the dying - children crying bitterly, cities in ruins. Only yesterday, these piles of rubble in Lebanon were home to thousands. Now, the cars roll out onto the highways, white flags attached to the windshields and doors. More than half a million are homeless.
The Israelis told them to leave, but then strafed one convoy from a helicopter. The military people exert their force without pity. They win their wars proudly. They are the masters of force.
Using the most modern weapons the United States can supply to search out the Hezbollah guerrillas, the Israeli soldiers destroy Lebanon. They wreck all of Gaza, seeking to murder the leaders of Hamas.
Many American Jews gather proudly to cheer them on. The face of the American president remains blank. A patter of platitudes issues from his lips. He is not interested in peace. He is happy to see Israel do the dirty war for him. Diplomacy is a word not in his dictionary.
But lo and behold - even as the destruction builds and the war continues through its third week - it seems suddenly no longer such a lark. Success is hard to come by; Israel is no longer the perennial victor. But will it know what to do when faced with the need to talk with the enemy? It has always felt so invincible that discussion seemed the weapon of fools and weaklings, much like the way the earnest work of its principled and dedicated peace camp - Jewish to the core, in an 'old-fashioned' way - seemed pathetic and misguided.
But the peace camp knew that each and every Israeli atrocity nurtured another enemy, a potential terrorist, while every Palestinian home that the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions helped to rebuild, every olive tree it planted tenderly in occupied soil, brought another possible friend, another partner in dialogue.
Meanwhile, back at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, deep in the heart of the Jewish Lobby, the call to action is, as always, a call for solidarity, for good public relations. Denounce terrorism, suicide bombers and anti-Semitism in all its endless variations, which includes the 'self-hatred' of the misguided Jew who asks us to give some thought to where we - obsessed with brutal retaliation - may have gone wrong."
...
Three hundred British Jews took out an ad in the Times of London to ask the question, "What is Israel doing?" This question has now been taken up by Jewish Voice for Peace, and by Alan Sokal and Bruce Robbins who, some years back, placed an ad in The New York Times, that read, "Not in Our Name."
The time is long overdue for Jews to return to their role as the world's conscience, who come to the aid of the dispossessed, the wretched of the earth. Once again, we must join those who demand the end to unjust wars - in Iraq as well as Lebanon - and an unjust occupation in Gaza. We must honor the example of American civil rights workers Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, not that of the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir, killer of Yitzhak Rabin.
And perhaps the day will come that we will be counted - by Jew and Arab alike - as among the Just, perhaps even given a place at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, for the lives we helped to save in a lawless, savage time.
Holocaust victims would decry the slaughter of innocent children during attacks on Hezbollah
As a Jew who escaped the Holocaust by moving with my family to America in 1938, I turn on the BBC at night. And what I see are clouds of black smoke, explosions; the dead and the dying - children crying bitterly, cities in ruins. Only yesterday, these piles of rubble in Lebanon were home to thousands. Now, the cars roll out onto the highways, white flags attached to the windshields and doors. More than half a million are homeless.
The Israelis told them to leave, but then strafed one convoy from a helicopter. The military people exert their force without pity. They win their wars proudly. They are the masters of force.
Using the most modern weapons the United States can supply to search out the Hezbollah guerrillas, the Israeli soldiers destroy Lebanon. They wreck all of Gaza, seeking to murder the leaders of Hamas.
Many American Jews gather proudly to cheer them on. The face of the American president remains blank. A patter of platitudes issues from his lips. He is not interested in peace. He is happy to see Israel do the dirty war for him. Diplomacy is a word not in his dictionary.
But lo and behold - even as the destruction builds and the war continues through its third week - it seems suddenly no longer such a lark. Success is hard to come by; Israel is no longer the perennial victor. But will it know what to do when faced with the need to talk with the enemy? It has always felt so invincible that discussion seemed the weapon of fools and weaklings, much like the way the earnest work of its principled and dedicated peace camp - Jewish to the core, in an 'old-fashioned' way - seemed pathetic and misguided.
But the peace camp knew that each and every Israeli atrocity nurtured another enemy, a potential terrorist, while every Palestinian home that the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions helped to rebuild, every olive tree it planted tenderly in occupied soil, brought another possible friend, another partner in dialogue.
Meanwhile, back at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, deep in the heart of the Jewish Lobby, the call to action is, as always, a call for solidarity, for good public relations. Denounce terrorism, suicide bombers and anti-Semitism in all its endless variations, which includes the 'self-hatred' of the misguided Jew who asks us to give some thought to where we - obsessed with brutal retaliation - may have gone wrong."
...
Three hundred British Jews took out an ad in the Times of London to ask the question, "What is Israel doing?" This question has now been taken up by Jewish Voice for Peace, and by Alan Sokal and Bruce Robbins who, some years back, placed an ad in The New York Times, that read, "Not in Our Name."
The time is long overdue for Jews to return to their role as the world's conscience, who come to the aid of the dispossessed, the wretched of the earth. Once again, we must join those who demand the end to unjust wars - in Iraq as well as Lebanon - and an unjust occupation in Gaza. We must honor the example of American civil rights workers Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, not that of the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir, killer of Yitzhak Rabin.
And perhaps the day will come that we will be counted - by Jew and Arab alike - as among the Just, perhaps even given a place at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, for the lives we helped to save in a lawless, savage time.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. ... Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense.
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon | csmonitor.com: "August 01, 2006 edition | By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians. ...
...
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
The News - International
The News - International: "40 Lebanese dead in Israeli strikes"
BOURJ AL-MULOUK, Lebanon: Israel blasted at Hizbollah on Wednesday with 8,000 soldiers on the ground, heavy bombing and a daring commando raid, but the guerrilla group remained resilient — sending its biggest and deepest volley of rocket attacks ever into Israel. ...
BOURJ AL-MULOUK, Lebanon: Israel blasted at Hizbollah on Wednesday with 8,000 soldiers on the ground, heavy bombing and a daring commando raid, but the guerrilla group remained resilient — sending its biggest and deepest volley of rocket attacks ever into Israel. ...
Hizbollah kills 12 in deadliest day for Israel�|�News One�|�Reuters.com
Hizbollah kills 12 in deadliest day for Israel�|�News One�|�Reuters.com: "Thu Aug 3, 2006 4:53pm ET136 | By Andrew Marshall
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hizbollah guerrillas killed eight people in a rocket barrage on Israel and four Israeli soldiers in clashes in Lebanon on Thursday, the deadliest day of the war for Israel in 23 days of fighting. ...
Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes - by Jim Lobe
Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes - by Jim Lobe: "August 3, 2006 | by Jim Lobe
In systematically failing to distinguish between Hezbollah fighters and civilian population in its three-and-a-half-week-old military campaign in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have committed war crimes, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch Wednesday.
The 50-page report, 'Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,' detailed nearly two dozen cases of IDF attacks in which a total of 153 civilians, including 63 children, were killed in homes or motor vehicles.
In none of the cases did HRW researchers find evidence that there was a significant enough military objective to justify the attack, given the risks to civilian lives, while, in many cases, there was no identifiable military target. In still other cases cited in the report, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.
'By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets,' according to the report.
'The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes,' it concluded." ...
In systematically failing to distinguish between Hezbollah fighters and civilian population in its three-and-a-half-week-old military campaign in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have committed war crimes, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch Wednesday.
The 50-page report, 'Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,' detailed nearly two dozen cases of IDF attacks in which a total of 153 civilians, including 63 children, were killed in homes or motor vehicles.
In none of the cases did HRW researchers find evidence that there was a significant enough military objective to justify the attack, given the risks to civilian lives, while, in many cases, there was no identifiable military target. In still other cases cited in the report, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.
'By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets,' according to the report.
'The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes,' it concluded." ...
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
We cannot ascribe equal amounts of moral blame to all sides. Israel is the oppressor in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. America is the oppressor
Truthdig - Reports - Chris Hedges: Mutually Assured Destruction in the Middle East: "
Does anyone in the Israeli government really believe that attacking Lebanon and killing more than 60 Lebanese civilians will ensure the freedom of the two captured Israeli soldiers? There have been hostages, including Israeli hostages, taken captive in Lebanon before, and most have been freed through long and painful negotiations. If the Israelis do believe in this violence, it is a sad indication of how out of touch they are with the world that opposes them.
We cannot ascribe equal amounts of moral blame to all sides. Israel is the oppressor in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. America is the oppressor in Iraq. And there can be no hope for a peaceful resolution to these conflicts until Iraqis are freed from American occupation and Palestinians are allowed to build a viable state. It is the distorting and dehumanizing effects of occupation that made possible the proliferation of extremist groups that, albeit on a smaller scale, simply hand back to the occupier some of their own medicine. The numbers, after all, make clear that most of the victims are Palestinian, Iraqi and now Lebanese civilians, although the numbers game can also obscure the fact that the murder of any innocent by any group is indefensible.
This is the world of the apocalypse. It is the world where those on either extreme become indistinguishable. And if we do not find a new way to speak, and soon, there will be untold suffering—not only for many innocents in the Middle East but eventually innocents at home. It was the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that spawned and empowered Hezbollah. It was the decades-long occupation and humiliation of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank by Israel that spawned and empowered Hamas, and it is the brutal American occupation that has bred the legions of extremists in Iraq. And when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promises “open war” against Israel, as he did in an address shortly after his Beirut offices were bombed, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he won’t cease his attack until Israel is secure, it is time to run for cover, especially when George W. Bush is our best hope for peace." ...
Does anyone in the Israeli government really believe that attacking Lebanon and killing more than 60 Lebanese civilians will ensure the freedom of the two captured Israeli soldiers? There have been hostages, including Israeli hostages, taken captive in Lebanon before, and most have been freed through long and painful negotiations. If the Israelis do believe in this violence, it is a sad indication of how out of touch they are with the world that opposes them.
We cannot ascribe equal amounts of moral blame to all sides. Israel is the oppressor in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. America is the oppressor in Iraq. And there can be no hope for a peaceful resolution to these conflicts until Iraqis are freed from American occupation and Palestinians are allowed to build a viable state. It is the distorting and dehumanizing effects of occupation that made possible the proliferation of extremist groups that, albeit on a smaller scale, simply hand back to the occupier some of their own medicine. The numbers, after all, make clear that most of the victims are Palestinian, Iraqi and now Lebanese civilians, although the numbers game can also obscure the fact that the murder of any innocent by any group is indefensible.
This is the world of the apocalypse. It is the world where those on either extreme become indistinguishable. And if we do not find a new way to speak, and soon, there will be untold suffering—not only for many innocents in the Middle East but eventually innocents at home. It was the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that spawned and empowered Hezbollah. It was the decades-long occupation and humiliation of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank by Israel that spawned and empowered Hamas, and it is the brutal American occupation that has bred the legions of extremists in Iraq. And when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promises “open war” against Israel, as he did in an address shortly after his Beirut offices were bombed, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he won’t cease his attack until Israel is secure, it is time to run for cover, especially when George W. Bush is our best hope for peace." ...
Is Israel's 'accidental' violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber ... ?
Los Angeles Times: 'Oops, Sorry' Doesn't Let Israel Off the Hook: "'By Adam Shatz | ADAM SHATZ is literary editor of the Nation. | August 1, 2006
Israel claims Hezbollah tactics are responsible for civilian deaths in Lebanon. We should expect better.
IN THE WEST, Qana, a small Lebanese village southeast of Tyre, is believed by some to be the place where Jesus performed his first miracle, turning water into wine. In Lebanon and throughout the wider Arab and Muslim world, however, the village's name has for the last decade been synonymous with something else: the killing in April 1996 of more than 100 men, women and children who had taken refuge in a U.N. compound, hiding from Israeli shelling directed at Hezbollah. Over time, Qana has been sculpted by Hezbollah into a symbol of martyrdom, a Shiite version of Sabra and Shatila.
The Qana massacre, as it soon became baptized, sparked outrage throughout the Arab and Muslim world and raised the stature of Hezbollah. It also nourished the fury of Al Qaeda. 'The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon, are still fresh in our memory,' wrote Osama bin Laden in August 1996, in his first fatwa declaring war against the United States.
Although Israel expressed 'regret' for its 'mistake,' it justified the attack as a response to Hezbollah's firing of two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars from areas near the compound. The architect of Israel's 'Operation Grapes of Wrath,' Prime Minister Shimon Peres, argued that Hezbollah bore responsibility for the Qana disaster, claiming it cynically used civilians as human shields.
History repeated itself Sunday with grisly precision when Israel, in the midst of another war with Hezbollah, bombed a residential apartment building in Qana, killing as many as 56 civilians, 37 of them children. Once again, Israel insisted that it had made a 'mistake' for which Hezbollah was ultimately responsible because it was launching rockets toward Israel from the village of Qana.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in a speech Monday announcing that Israel would not adhere to the 48-hour cease-fire to which it had agreed under American pressure, said, 'I am sorry from the bottom of my heart for all deaths of children or women in Qana…. We did not search them out … they were not our enemies, and we did not look for them.'
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel did, in fact, make the same mistake twice in Qana — or, to take another recent example, in Gaza, where a family of eight spending an afternoon on the beach was killed by an errant Israeli shell in June. If Israeli assertions are true that these killings of scores of civilians were unintentional, does that mean that Israel can claim the high ground in its battle with Hezbollah and Hamas? Is Israel's 'accidental' violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber who steps into a pizzeria seeking to kill civilians? Or a Hezbollah guerrilla firing a Katyusha in the direction of a Haifa residential neighborhood? In short, do Israel's declared intentions make a difference?
To the victims in Qana and Gaza, the answer to these questions is obviously no. Nor will Olmert's 'condolences' be greeted with anything gentler than sarcasm in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly because Israel barely paused after Qana before resuming airstrikes against Lebanon." ...
Israel claims Hezbollah tactics are responsible for civilian deaths in Lebanon. We should expect better.
IN THE WEST, Qana, a small Lebanese village southeast of Tyre, is believed by some to be the place where Jesus performed his first miracle, turning water into wine. In Lebanon and throughout the wider Arab and Muslim world, however, the village's name has for the last decade been synonymous with something else: the killing in April 1996 of more than 100 men, women and children who had taken refuge in a U.N. compound, hiding from Israeli shelling directed at Hezbollah. Over time, Qana has been sculpted by Hezbollah into a symbol of martyrdom, a Shiite version of Sabra and Shatila.
The Qana massacre, as it soon became baptized, sparked outrage throughout the Arab and Muslim world and raised the stature of Hezbollah. It also nourished the fury of Al Qaeda. 'The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon, are still fresh in our memory,' wrote Osama bin Laden in August 1996, in his first fatwa declaring war against the United States.
Although Israel expressed 'regret' for its 'mistake,' it justified the attack as a response to Hezbollah's firing of two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars from areas near the compound. The architect of Israel's 'Operation Grapes of Wrath,' Prime Minister Shimon Peres, argued that Hezbollah bore responsibility for the Qana disaster, claiming it cynically used civilians as human shields.
History repeated itself Sunday with grisly precision when Israel, in the midst of another war with Hezbollah, bombed a residential apartment building in Qana, killing as many as 56 civilians, 37 of them children. Once again, Israel insisted that it had made a 'mistake' for which Hezbollah was ultimately responsible because it was launching rockets toward Israel from the village of Qana.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in a speech Monday announcing that Israel would not adhere to the 48-hour cease-fire to which it had agreed under American pressure, said, 'I am sorry from the bottom of my heart for all deaths of children or women in Qana…. We did not search them out … they were not our enemies, and we did not look for them.'
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel did, in fact, make the same mistake twice in Qana — or, to take another recent example, in Gaza, where a family of eight spending an afternoon on the beach was killed by an errant Israeli shell in June. If Israeli assertions are true that these killings of scores of civilians were unintentional, does that mean that Israel can claim the high ground in its battle with Hezbollah and Hamas? Is Israel's 'accidental' violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber who steps into a pizzeria seeking to kill civilians? Or a Hezbollah guerrilla firing a Katyusha in the direction of a Haifa residential neighborhood? In short, do Israel's declared intentions make a difference?
To the victims in Qana and Gaza, the answer to these questions is obviously no. Nor will Olmert's 'condolences' be greeted with anything gentler than sarcasm in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly because Israel barely paused after Qana before resuming airstrikes against Lebanon." ...
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has flouted for more than 50 years with protection from the US - and now Britain - that will stop this conflict
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The refugees' fury will be felt for generations to come: "Karma Nabulsi | Wednesday August 2, 2006 | The Guardian
Israel is seeking to cast itself as the victim even as it expels the people of Lebanon and Gaza from their homes
People walk the dusty, broken roads in scorching summer heat, taking shelter in the basements of empty buildings. In Gaza and Lebanon, in the refugee camps of Khan Younis, Rafah and Jabaliya, in Tyre and Beirut, in Nabatiyeh and Sidon, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children seek refuge. As they flee, they risk the indiscriminate wrath of an enemy driven by an existential mania that can not be assuaged, only stopped. Ambulances are struck, humanitarian relief convoys are struck, UN observers are struck. Warning leaflets are dropped from the sky urging people to abandon their homes, just as they were in 1996, 1982, 1978, 1967 and 1948. The ultimately impossible decision in Gaza and Lebanon today is: where does a refugee go?
In Beirut in July 1982, after surviving a bomb that destroyed a seven-floor apartment block next door to me, burying alive more than 40 people taking refuge in its cellar, some of us began to sleep on the roof; there is no refuge from this terror, there is only resistance. Fifteen of the 37 children killed in Qana on Sunday were disabled; their families could take them no further north, according to the Lebanese MP Bahia Hariri.
From June to August 1982, Israeli aircraft flying over Lebanon dropped 'smart bombs' on children's hospitals in Shatila camp, Gaza hospital, Acre hospital and 11 of the country's orphanages, killing dozens of disabled children. They had nowhere else to shelter. The roofs had been painted with huge white crosses visible from the sky.
That war did not give Israel the security it claims to seek, and nor will this one. In 1948 Palestinians fled after hearing news of the massacres in villages by Haganah forces and receiving leaflets dropped from the sky telling them to run for their lives. This week their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are being killed with impunity in the refugee camps of Gaza, where they are trapped. Last Friday alone more than 30 Palestinians were killed, with no international condemnation and barely a mention in the press. In Qana they were also trapped. 'We couldn't get out of our neighbourhood because there are only two roads leading out and the Israelis bombed them both several days ago,' said Mohammad Shalhoub, a disabled 41-year-old survivor.
The US and Britain are claiming that no ceasefire is possible until there is an international force that will implement United Nations resolution 1559. Yet the Lebanese prime minister issued a seven-point plan in Rome last week, consistent with international law and agreed by all elected parties in Lebanon (including Hizbullah), that had as its first requirement an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. It is implementation of the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has flouted for more than 50 years with protection from the US - and now from Britain - that will stop this conflict."
Israel is seeking to cast itself as the victim even as it expels the people of Lebanon and Gaza from their homes
People walk the dusty, broken roads in scorching summer heat, taking shelter in the basements of empty buildings. In Gaza and Lebanon, in the refugee camps of Khan Younis, Rafah and Jabaliya, in Tyre and Beirut, in Nabatiyeh and Sidon, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children seek refuge. As they flee, they risk the indiscriminate wrath of an enemy driven by an existential mania that can not be assuaged, only stopped. Ambulances are struck, humanitarian relief convoys are struck, UN observers are struck. Warning leaflets are dropped from the sky urging people to abandon their homes, just as they were in 1996, 1982, 1978, 1967 and 1948. The ultimately impossible decision in Gaza and Lebanon today is: where does a refugee go?
In Beirut in July 1982, after surviving a bomb that destroyed a seven-floor apartment block next door to me, burying alive more than 40 people taking refuge in its cellar, some of us began to sleep on the roof; there is no refuge from this terror, there is only resistance. Fifteen of the 37 children killed in Qana on Sunday were disabled; their families could take them no further north, according to the Lebanese MP Bahia Hariri.
From June to August 1982, Israeli aircraft flying over Lebanon dropped 'smart bombs' on children's hospitals in Shatila camp, Gaza hospital, Acre hospital and 11 of the country's orphanages, killing dozens of disabled children. They had nowhere else to shelter. The roofs had been painted with huge white crosses visible from the sky.
That war did not give Israel the security it claims to seek, and nor will this one. In 1948 Palestinians fled after hearing news of the massacres in villages by Haganah forces and receiving leaflets dropped from the sky telling them to run for their lives. This week their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are being killed with impunity in the refugee camps of Gaza, where they are trapped. Last Friday alone more than 30 Palestinians were killed, with no international condemnation and barely a mention in the press. In Qana they were also trapped. 'We couldn't get out of our neighbourhood because there are only two roads leading out and the Israelis bombed them both several days ago,' said Mohammad Shalhoub, a disabled 41-year-old survivor.
The US and Britain are claiming that no ceasefire is possible until there is an international force that will implement United Nations resolution 1559. Yet the Lebanese prime minister issued a seven-point plan in Rome last week, consistent with international law and agreed by all elected parties in Lebanon (including Hizbullah), that had as its first requirement an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. It is implementation of the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has flouted for more than 50 years with protection from the US - and now from Britain - that will stop this conflict."