Kanika, I have no words to describe the sadness of my heart. Zena el-Khalil, I send you my love and I shall pray for every one who is in Lebanon undergoing the torture you describe. Shame on government of Israel, and government of USA.

Dear God please give every one in Lebanon, the strength to bear this. Please knock some sense into these politicians. Please end religious conflicts, devastation, wars, tangled hierarchy of fear, greed and terrorism.

Dear God give us all compassion, caring, love, sense of the sacred, peace of mind, enough sense to go for peaceful resolution of conflicts, empathy.

Kanika, thank you. God bless you.

Unspeakable horror's, not touching the rest of the world... and it should be.

Passing on the EM Kanika...

May peace prevail, and the escalation of this war, stopped!!

Before the Israel shamefest really begins to roll and it will, thought I'd present some context, since anyone reading this would think Israel is a total crazed monster:

From Dennis Prager:

The Middle East conflict is difficult to solve, but it is among the simplest conflicts in history to understand.

The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary.

Those who deny this and ascribe the conflict to other reasons, such as "Israeli occupation," "Jewish settlements," a "cycle of violence," "the Zionist lobby" and the like, do so despite the fact that Israel's enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict. The Iranian regime, Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians -- in their public opinion polls, in their anti-Semitic school curricula and media, in their election of Hamas, in their support for terror against Israeli civilians in pre-1967 borders -- as well as their Muslim supporters around the world, all want the Jewish state annihilated.

In 1947-48, the Arab states tried to destroy the tiny Jewish state formed by the United Nations partition plan. In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to destroy Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War. All of this took place before Israel occupied one millimeter of Palestinian land and before there was a single Jewish settler in the West Bank.

Two months after the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, the Arab countries convened in Khartoum, Sudan, and announced on Sept. 1, 1967, their famous "Three NOs" to Israel: "No peace, No recognition, No negotiations."

Six years later, in 1973, Egypt invaded the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula, a war that ended in a boost in Egyptian morale from its initially successful surprise attack. Though nearly all of the Sinai remained in Israel's hands, the boost in Egyptian self-confidence enabled Egypt's visionary president, Anwar Sadat, four years later (November 1977), to do the unimaginable for an Arab leader: He visited Israel and addressed its parliament in Jerusalem. As a result, in 1978, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in return for which Israel gave all of the oil-rich Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.

Three years later, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslims, a killing welcomed by most Arabs, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Why welcomed? Because Sadat had done the unforgivable -- recognized Israel and made peace with it.

The lesson that Palestinians should have learned from the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was that if you make peace with Israel, you will not only get peace in return, you will also get all or nearly all of your land back. That is how much Israelis ache for peace.

Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docile.

As a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today."

Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land.

Which is exactly what Israel agreed to do in the last year of the Clinton administration. It offered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat about 97 percent of the West Bank and three percent of Israel's land in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel got its men, women and children routinely blown up and maimed by Palestinian terrorists after the Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David. Even President Clinton, desirous of being the honest broker and yearning to be history's Middle East peacemaker, blamed the ensuing violence entirely on the Palestinians.

Israel's Camp David offer of a Palestinian state for Palestinian peace was rejected because most Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters don't want a second state. They want Israel destroyed. They admit it. Only those who wish Israel's demise and the willfully naive do not.

If you don't believe this, ask almost anyone living in the Middle East why there is a Middle East War, preferably in Arabic. If you ask in English, they will assume you are either an academic, a Western news reporter, a diplomat or a "peace activist." And then, they will assume you are gullible and will tell you that it's because of "Israeli occupation" or "the Zionist lobby."

But they know it isn't. And it never was.

Amba

Dear Kanika,

I am truly sorry for Zena and the rest of the innocent Lebanese who are suffering, but the cause of your suffering is from the Hezbollah terrorists living and thriving at the borders. Yes, Israeli rockets are hitting your infrastructure and sending down rockets where the innocent are getting killed, but make no mistake, it was the HEZBOLLAH TERRORISTS who invited this barrage and continue to invite this horror on their fellow citizens. These terrorists KNEW EXCACTLY WHAT RESPONSE THE ISRAELI MILITARY WOULD TAKE TO DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY AND THEY (THE HEZBOLLAH TERRORISTS) DID NOT CARE, AND THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT KIND OF SUFFERING THEY WERE PUTTING THE REST OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS THROUGH.

The Israeli's know the suffering they are FORCED to inflict on the Lebanese because they were attacked by these terrorists, and the terrorists know that they will get Israel to "play the bad guy to their "poor litte innocent victim." The World is catching on to this sick game the terrorists have been playing for years. It is not working anymore. The World is seeing who the "real bad guys are" and they are not as quick to run to their defense.

IT IS THE TERRORISTS THAT DO NOT CARE FOR YOUR SUFFERING AND IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE OF LEBANON TO INSIST THEY STOP.

"Lebanon is a peaceful country. We are the only country in the region in
which people of all religions co-exist peacefully."

...SOOOOO SO SORRY ZENA
We are praying for you and all the others who are caught up in this devastating situation.
Sending you loving healing comforting prayers to the Middle East, for hearts and minds to turn to peaceful ways and find solutions to problems by talking....sharing and caring for each other.

Thank you for sharing with us here, Kanika.

Blessing be,

Cinda

Amba -- thanks for balancing the viewpoint. Ruth, I have to agree with your viewpoint that this is exactly what Hezbollah wanted.

Unfortunately for Israel, I believe cutting Lebanon off from the rest of the world is only going to give Hezbollah a greater opportunity to come into power in a Lebanon that obviously won't trust its own leaders to protect them. Who knows, perhaps the Hezbollah strategy will backfire, but only time will tell....

Cinda, North & Geeta, I feel the same way you do about the innocent Lebanese who would not have done anything to have this brought upon themselves and who, unfortunately are sowing a strong resentment and hatred of Israel. Sigh...

Take care all,
Kanika

Amba,

Thanks for the history lesson. Two sides...

Kanika,

That was a very chilling letter from Zena.

I have never been thru anything like that.

Zena is a strong woman and stays true to her heart.

Thanks for the real news! Peace!

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

What is "Eretz Israel?

THIS is Eretz Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

When we hear the truth from horse mouth, who is this 'liberal critic' of Israel to guaratee a state tomorrow? Anyway, thanks Amba for the much needed joke.

dear Kanika

this gave me shivers. i am so ashamed of my country for doing nothing to stop this, at this point.

Dear Amba,

What I was trying to say is that there is venom spewing from both sides. Similarly, there are voices of sense from both the sides. It is utterly pointless to point to one side for all the crime.

What did you feel when you read my first post? Most probably, you have felt angry, since seemingly, the tone of my first post was to blame Israel for everything, though not intended so. Then you should mindlful that if you argue it is the Arabs, they will also feel similar anger.

Anger against anger. It will not solve any issue. Yes, out of anger, you can resort to war and crush the 'enemy' if you happen to have enough military power at this point of history and feel a sense of voctory. But the question is did you really win?

if you need to put a human face on the Lebanese suffering, please check the top photo here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/world/middleeast/20tyre.html

Dear Kanika,
My first thought just now, after reading your post .... "truth be told" ....

How this world turns, spinning on axis, in a galaxy among so many.
This planet, called Earth.
Among its inhabitants,
we fight about peace, piece by piece, in the name of - fill in the blank -

Heartbreaking, and yet,
until tolerance of differences prevails,

War goes on.

The promise of Peace - lies in the individual Realization - of Freedom, outside definitions and boundaries.

Thank you for posting this letter.

Love and Blessings to you,
to All
~ Kate

Dear Naj,

I will share a prayer that Jews all over the world say 3 times a day and at times when one mourns for the lose of a loved one, perhaps you know it as well, as it's well known:

O-seh shalom bim-ro-mav
Hu ya-a-seh shalom, a-ley-nu
v'-al kawl Yis-ra-eyl,
v'-im-ru a-meyn.

Translation:

He who makes peace in the heavens,
may He make peace upon us,
and upon all Israel, and let's us say:

Amen

That's it, we all pray for peace in our own way, one day it may come, for now we mourn and pray harder or around here have the intent.

No worries Naj, welcome to Intent,

Shalom and Salaam

Amba

Dear Kanika,

If someone keeps a rabid dog is his house who goes on biting the neighbours what do you expect. Of course the neighbours will stone the dog in his house and in the process might damage the house as well. kanika, people have to look from Israel's perespective as well. What does a nation do if it is plagued by islamic terrorists all over who have overwhelming support from the neighbouring countries. Graphic description of airplanes and bombs might evoke sympathy from people who lack GK and history espacially certain section of Americans. But the fact remains Hezbollah has kept on doing acts of terror with complete support of Lebnon and Iran. A man who lives by the sword has to die by it....no tears shed. But a single drop of blood of any innocent must be important. When a country harbours terrorists it automatically puts its populace in peril and suceptible to retaliatory action. Just like saddam putting millitary command centers on Bomb shelters, they are bound to get hit. I would like to know what small steps or acts have Zena and her likes done to prevent harbouring of terrorists in their country. It is easier for people, who do not live in the constant fear of sucide bombers, to comment and critsize acts of deterrence. But the fact remains all the actions on part of Israel are defensive. Israel does not want to wipe out the entire middleast, but most other countries want to wipe Israel.

regards

Amit

Bush obviously wants war on the home front before winter sets in. He has been antagonizing the whole world since his president-elect(twice, illegally) and people still trust him, to rule?

Bush is allowing the rape and pilleage of Iraq, FOR himself and his cronies.... we are allowing it to happen.

Now, it has spread, because MORE, want a piece of the wealth being plundered...

A sad, sad day for the whole world; a terrifying one for the Lebonese...

Dear Amit,

What if i am forced to keep rabid dogs in my house becoz of those very neighbours?

The Philistines and the Jews have been fighting almost since the time of Christ. Biblical hitory is a long litany of tribal wars in the middle east.

Bush the Decider is just another American President who thinks he is going to solve it.

Perhaps Bush is smart enough to figure out that he can't solve it, but he can make money offit, and use it to fire up the fundamentalist Christians so they'll support his administration.

Also there's a big pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and some of these folks are right inthe middle of the neo-con group, working closely with Bush and Cheney and Rummy on Middle East policy.

For the Bushies, it's not about peace. It's about "How can we exploit this situation?"

The Middle east problem is deep and ancient, and the self-righteous and defensive stances of the players are deeply ingrained.

So Hezbollah is only abunch of psycho murderous terrorists? Then why didthe people of Lebanon vote for them? HezBollah, we are told, is not part of the Lebanese nation.

Do the Lebanese think so?

They seem to me a lot like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka - heroes and providers for their own people, and death-dealing terrorists to their enemies.

I can totally understand deciding personally to wage war on someone who bombs your family into oblivion when you have done nothing to harm anyone.

Since when is justice defined as killing people who did not commit the crime?

Exactly how is bombing Lebanon back to the stone age going to help matters?

Who is going to provide for the people of Lebanon? The USA? The UN?

Are you kidding? We all know who is going to be in the streets and in the homes and hospitals helping the Lebanese out.

That's right. Hezbollah.

When the Israelis have bombed your house and Hezbollah is the organization that is helping you recover, then who's your buddy? And who's the terrorist?

When the US Marines have shot your wife and kids and raped your teenage daughter, and the Mahdi Army is helping you get your life back together, then who's your ally? And who are the terrorists?

Hard questions that you won't see asked on CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, or CBS.

No this kind of news is left to Al-Jazeera.

And the West hates Al-Jazeera for telling the story.

But it is vital that these stories be heard.

Thank you for printing Zena's story. It should actually be headline news. American families should see what Lebanese and Iraqifamilies are living through. Then they might demand a halt to the insanity.

But as long as the media kowtows to the status quo and doesn't show what's actually happening, the public can be deceived just enough to keep the carnage going.

To me the middle East conflict has become one where I no longer understand the reason. I know in the beginning it was Arab hostility to a Jewish homeland in their proximity, to the people of Palestine it was a division of their nation. Then following the occupation of the Ghaza strip it was Palestine objecting that the Israelis had taken away a chunk of what was not originally ceded to Israel. Now after some progress in Ghaza, I am trying to understand what really is the issue. Both sides maintain that they are now resigned to the fact that both have a right to exist. Yet we have a war that is almost 10 days old now, foreigners being evacuated and I simply refuse to believe it is over the capture of three Israeli soldiers. Almost akin to the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand starting a World War. So is the reason simply an unabated hostility on both sides which refuses to die? Both sides looking for any excuse simply to keep on bashing at each other and decimating innocent people? Or is it just being fanned?

Thank you Kanika for this heartbreaking story.
In our country (Holland) the media did show the desperate situation the Lebanese people are finding themselves in, exactly as your friend wrote to you.

Rest assured that many people are aware of the situation and try to help wherever this is possible.

The root cause still is of course the decision of the United Nations after World War II to give Israel that piece of land and more or less forcing all the other countries involved to accept it. It has caused a lot of hatred between all parties involved and all escalations that have arisen from it. It still is the responsibility of the United Nations to solve this in a proper way.

The only way for us as individuals i guess is to be constantly be aware of both sides of the medal and try to be at peace with it inside.

Praying for all concerned.....

Let there be Peace throughout life and not only at Christmas time....

Meike,

I think its logical to say that the United Nations should solve the issue, having created it in the first place. However, can the UNO, as it is configured, really go about doing it?

Interestingly, about a year ago while checking out the UN site I took a look at the veto breakdown, countrywise. It is an education in itself and if one looks at the issues where the veto has been cast by the 5 veto carrying parties one can figure out why there is an urgent need to make drastic changes. For example, in the 1960s, the US, UK and France between themselves shot down a huge number of proposals that were directed against the then regime in S Africa. To-day these very guys talk of racial equality and accept that apartheid was a blatant distortion. Yet when they had the opportunity to do some thing they relentlessly struck it down on racial grounds and denied South Africans their very fundamental right of governing themselves. So how can one expect to break this deadlock. Put in a resolution even mildly critical of Israel and the US will say 'nay'. Condemn the other side and some one else will put up their hand and say "No".

If I recall correctly, when Bush put in his road map for peace in the middle East, he said that he was determined to devote as much time and effort to it as Blair did towards negotiating with the IRA. What happened? Every party has strong backers who have the power to throw out any suggestion which is not to their liking. I really feel at times that it is no longer a matter of whats right and what isn't, its all about how an issue effects them at home.

There is much talk about reform in the UN but look at the time frame they have set. Theres talk of it taking another 20 years or so and going about doing things gradually and after much thought and deliberations which by themselves go nowhere.

Dara, of course you are right and you seem to know a lot more about it than i know.

Guess i look at it from a different angle. Let´s say i compare it with my own life. I had an experience when i was 34 that took me straight to the root problem of my own life. I managed to solve it and from then on could live in peace with myself and hence with others.

I must admit that i too do not have a solution to the overall problem in the world only then trying myself in the best way possible to be a solution on my own.

In my heart i am for open borders everywhere in the world so that all people can live where they want and get a living. How can we manage that. We are already trying it on the Internet. Don´t you think it will take that much time? What is 20 year for the Universe? The more people become aware the faster it will go.

In my humbleness i guess this is what i can further add, constantly trying to educate and learn myself and radiate it to my surroundings.

Namaste :)

Hi Kanika,

Goodmorning Kanika -- since you have asked me to post my thoughts and since I sent you the information that sparked this important dialogue, I felt perhaps it was a good idea and will post what I wrote you last night. Still no word from some friends trapped with their children in Lebanon. ....I am getting daily reports as many of my friends from church (Our Lady of Lebanon Cathedral) are now trapped in Lebanon with their families and many children -- Lebanon's infrastructure is being completely destroyed (everything Rafik Hariri did to rebuild Lebanon is now dust and rubble) and Israeli aggression is using disproportionate force targeting the Lebanese and Palestinian infrastructure causing innocent civilian casualties and creating a humanitarian crisis in both countries. My friends told me they have no food or medicine beyond the next five days in Lebanon -- this is not hearsay -- it is from direct communication with close friends.

I took a look at your blog and it was interesting for sure -as it is a blog (I think this is a good thing your are doing here) -- and opinions -- everyone is entitled to their thoughts -- however I disagree with the individuals who thought they were giving a more balanced view of the situation and placing the blame soley on the Arabs -- It appears that their source of information is once again western media which is very biased, unfortunately, and often inaccurate -- this I can attest to from reading years and years of press releases at the UN -- and reading what the US wrote/broadcast vs. the rest of the world -- with the exact same raw material-- you would never think it was the same event .. if it was even covered at all...... Israel often speaks of a "greater Israel" which is what? Annexing Judea and Samaria (part of the intent) -- which is what? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_and_Samaria) Palestine -- I feel complicit in all this as our tax dollars have paid for the equipment and artillery that is now destroying my ancestors villages, what is left of our olive trees, land, and homes -- Is Israel truly a democracy? A country that does not treat all its citizens equally is not a "true" democracy Arab-Israelis are second class citizens. I'm sorry if I have gone on too much but I am so tired of hearing the same rhetoric here -- --

It is a complex history -- no --not easy to understand and conflict created with the birth of many false borders drawn up by the greed of European Imperialist Powers -- we suffer the consequences to this day -- who put and armed most of the dictators in the Mid East today? Do we remember Iran-Contra? Who gave Sadaam his WMD's?? I can go on and on but won't.....

There are three sides to every story --- the truth must come out -- don't just quote Thomas Friedman who has admitted in "from Beirut to Jerusalem" to having a bias, but look into the works and writings of Edward Said -- he managed to anger all sides and was not afraid to tell the truth -- he was a displaced Palestinian Christian who left behind a body of work that would put any Western journalist to shame including The New York Times' Thomas Friedman --

thanks for letting me have my say -- this is very close to my heart- my family has been displaced several times over the course of their lifetime because of these wars...

Salaam

nb: a few sites to check out which give out a more balanced view and reportage:

http://electronicIntifada.net
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258
http://www.punjabilok.com/palestine_underattack/israeli_democracy.htm
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/democracy_or_occupation.htm
http://electronicLebanon.net


FOR MORE INFORMATION

Nigel Parry/The Electronic Intifada
E-mail: info@electronicIntifada.net
Voicemail (leave callback number): +1-646-808-0416
Web: http://electronicIntifada.net

Dear Meike,

None of us really have solutions to every problem and we try to do the best we can within our own experiences. What I like here is that its by discussing them rationally and, may I add, peacefully amongst ourselves at least we get a better perspective. Like I said earlier, I'm still groping trying to figure out what exactly it is that has brought about this undeclared war. For the life of me Im lost on that one completely.

Sometimes it seems to me that those who can really make a difference and have the power to get things done, simply don't want to move on. They revel in their authority and power and take great pleasure in merely flaunting it. That is what causes anguish all over.

A protracted colonial war

With US support, Israel is hoping to isolate and topple Syria by holding sway over Lebanon

Tariq Ali
Thursday July 20, 2006
The Guardian

In his last interview - after the 1967 six-day war - the historian Isaac Deutscher, whose next-of-kin had died in the Nazi camps and whose surviving relations lived in Israel, said: "To justify or condone Israel's wars against the Arabs is to render Israel a very bad service indeed and harm its own long-term interest." Comparing Israel to Prussia, he issued a sombre warning: "The Germans have summed up their own experience in the bitter phrase 'Man kann sich totseigen!' 'You can triumph yourself to death'."

In Israel's actions today we can detect many of the elements of hubris: an imperial arrogance, a distortion of reality, an awareness of its military superiority, the self-righteousness with which it wrecks the social infrastructure of weaker states, and a belief in its racial superiority. The loss of many civilian lives in Gaza and Lebanon matters less than the capture or death of a single Israeli soldier. In this, Israeli actions are validated by the US.

The offensive against Gaza is designed to destroy Hamas for daring to win an election. The "international community" stood by as Gaza suffered collective punishment. Dozens of innocents continue to die. This meant nothing to the G8 leaders. Nothing was done.

Israeli recklessness is always green-lighted by Washington. In this case, their interests coincide. They want to isolate and topple the Syrian regime by securing Lebanon as an Israeli-American protectorate on the Jordanian model. They argue this was the original design of the country. Contemporary Lebanon, it is true, still remains in large measure the artificial creation of French colonialism it was at the outset - a coastal band of Greater Syria sliced off from its hinterland by Paris to form a regional client dominated by a Maronite minority.

The country's confessional chequerboard has never allowed an accurate census, for fear of revealing that a substantial Muslim - today perhaps even a Shia - majority is denied due representation in the political system. Sectarian tensions, over-determined by the plight of refugees from Palestine, exploded into civil war in the 1970s, providing for the entry of Syrian troops, with tacit US approval, and their establishment there - ostensibly as a buffer between the warring factions, and deterrent to an Israeli takeover, on the cards with the invasions of 1978 and 1982 (when Hizbullah did not exist).

The killing of Rafik Hariri provoked vast demonstrations by the middle class, demanding the expulsion of the Syrians, while western organisations arrived to assist the progress of a Cedar Revolution. Backed by threats from Washington and Paris, the momentum was sufficient to force a Syrian withdrawal and produce a weak government in Beirut.

But Lebanon's factions remained spread-eagled. Hizbullah had not disarmed, and Syria has not fallen. Washington had taken a pawn, but the castle had still to be captured. I was in Beirut in May, when the Israeli army entered and killed two "terrorists" from a Palestinian splinter group. The latter responded with rockets. Israeli warplanes punished Hizbullah by dropping over 50 bombs on its villages and headquarters near the border. The latest Israeli offensive is designed to take the castle. Will it succeed? A protracted colonial war lies ahead, since Hizbullah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation.

There are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli gulags. That is why Israeli soldiers are captured. Prisoner exchanges have occurred as a result. To blame Syria and Iran for Israel's latest offensive is frivolous. Until the question of Palestine is resolved and Iraq's occupation ended, there will be no peace in the region. A "UN" force to deter Hizbullah, but not Israel, is a nonsensical notion.

tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

· A demonstration against the Middle East war has been called by the Stop the War Coalition and others on Saturday http://www.stopwar.org.uk/.

Comments

AlexCleaver
July 20, 2006 01:15 AM
A truly brilliant piece. Masterly demolition of the silly myths being touted on the hand by Bush and Blair, and on the other by Robert Fisk and David Hirst. As Tariq Ali insists, the bigger, wider picture is the one that must be considered. We would be foolish not to pay heed to his words.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Bigmal
July 20, 2006 01:40 AM
Is the problem that Hizbollah may have miscalculated? Olmert is still too weak to be seen to give any kind of concession. Will the Lebanese take increasing bombardment while still supporting Hizbollah.
There's many gambles and judgement calls from both sides. At what point will Syria and Iran actually involved in the conflict. Will the US ever actually reign in Israel. We might vainly point to the anger of the muslim world, but they are effectively powerless.
Stopping oil is a suicide attack. It hurts the west, but hurts the country that engages in it far more. What do they have if they don't have oil?
It makes me recall an article I read a long time ago saying that while we bicker over the middle east, China can rise. China is completely absent from any discussions over the region's future even though it is trying to become a world player.
Apologies for the rambling thought dump

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Calgacus
July 20, 2006 04:05 AM
The Lebanese took over 20 years of Israeli occupation and civil war (1978-99) and Hizbollah is stronger now than it was then (it was the occupation and Israeli attacks that gave it mass support). In 20 years Israel couldn't defeat it. That hardly seems powerless to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hizbollah's rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are killing civilians and I condemn them just as much as the Israeli attacks which are killing much larger numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians but the idea that this entire war was caused by Hezbollah or that the Syrian President telling Hezbollah to stop is nonsense.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The first Hezbollah attack of this war was a response to the all out Israeli attack on the West Bank and Gaza. Hezbollah came in to support the Palestinians - and (before its current terrorism against civilians - similar to Israeli military terrorism) attacked Israeli soldiers.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bush and Blair may claim that if Hezbollah stopped its
rocket attacks and handed over the kidnapped soldiers the war would be over. That's patently untrue. Israel holds over 9,000 Palestinian prisoners as Tariq Ali points out (see the Mandela Institute's Human Rights Databank on Palestine also). Many haven't been tried, some are tortured. 500 are women or children. They are the reason Corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and the reason Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers - to exchange them for the freedom of those prisoners.---------------------------
Without those prisoners being freed by Israel;without Israeli recognition of the Palestinian authority's right to exist and its sovereignty; without direct negotiations that include Hamas and Hezbollah (as Hamas has so much support in Lebanon civil war would result otherwise); without negotiation over the Shebaa farms area and an Israeli ceasefire there will be no lasting peace.---------------
Hezbollah will have to recognise Israel's right to exist and the Palestinian Authority will have to repeat its recognition of Israel's right to exist which it gave before this war began - but it is pointless nonsense to pretend this war is all about Hezbollah's actions and nothing to do with the Israeli government's

Hello Kanika and Everyone,

Mallika, This President's behaviour at the G8, greatly disturbed me. I was truly embarrassed by him, and wondered how we could have put him in such a position of power. This is a man who knows he has no business, what so ever, being in such an important position, his body language screams the truth of his discomfort at being in a position that is well beyond his intellectual and emotional capacity.

If the World really wanted to stop the seeds of terrorism it would focus on what the terrorists do to nurture their cause, not on what their victims do to respond to their actions. As long as the focus is NOT on the terrorists actions, they have won another follower. For instance, what are terrorists doing in crowded civilian neighboorhoods, hiding their weapons, shooting their weapons, what about the cartoons they are showing on Iranian tv to little children, teaching them about suicide bombing.

I am sorry to disagree, but the responsibilty of creating terrorists is totally on the terrorists themselves and when you place it otherwise you have totally underestimated the savy of the terrorist organizations that we face in today's world.

The hatred of Israel is there, always at the ready, whether they leave the GAZA or bomb an airport in Lebanon. The only thing that would stop the seeds of terrorism in the MIDEAST would be the destruction of Israel and I am afraid that would last about five minutes then they would find another object for their hate because they too need to survive and the only thing that keeps a terrorists organization alive is the hate they can instigate towards another and away from themselves.

Dear Naj,

You are forgetting history. Today you might feel the force Israel is using against lebnon is overhelming. What about the six day war.......do you know what was the force used against Israel at that point and to what extent. Israel is surgically targeting hezbollah holdings in lebnon while as a rouge state with such overwhelming power can wipe out lebnon in a matter of hours. Why were the scuds raining in Israel during the Iraq war if Iraq was fighting America?????????
Why don't we have jewish terrorists blowing themselves in Islamic countries killing women and children.

Perhaps you can reconsider the decesion of keeping rabid dogs for the benefit of the neighbourhood.

Thank you Dara for your comment :) I agree with you that those who can make a difference do a lousy job up till now.

Reading the other comments here it adds a whole lot again to my understanding of it all.

Thanks for that :)

Hopefully praying for all and peace to all nevertheless.

Everyone - please visit this site. There are images our media will not show and there are good suggetions for action we can take individually. I will attend the demonstration in London, for what it's worth.

Everyone - please visit this site. There are images our media will not show and there are good suggetions for action we can take individually. I will attend the demonstration in London, for what it's worth.

Sorry, this site. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/.

July 17, 2006

"The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel"

Atrocities in the Promised Land

By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
former CIA analyst

Words fail; ordinary terms are inadequate to describe the horrors Israel daily perpetrates, and has perpetrated for years, against the Palestinians. The tragedy of Gaza has been described a hundred times over, as have the tragedies of 1948, of Qibya, of Sabra and Shatila, of Jenin -- 60 years of atrocity perpetrated in the name of Judaism. But the horror generally falls on deaf ears in most of Israel, in the U.S. political arena, in the mainstream U.S. media. Those who are horrified -- and there are many -- cannot penetrate the shield of impassivity that protects the political and media elite in Israel, even more so in the U.S., and increasingly now in Canada and Europe, from seeing, from caring.

But it needs to be said now, loudly: those who devise and carry out Israeli policies have made Israel into a monster, and it has come time for all of us -- all Israelis, all Jews who allow Israel to speak for them, all Americans who do nothing to end U.S. support for Israel and its murderous policies -- to recognize that we stain ourselves morally by continuing to sit by while Israel carries out its atrocities against the Palestinians.

A nation that mandates the primacy of one ethnicity or religion over all others will eventually become psychologically dysfunctional. Narcissistically obsessed with its own image, it must strive to maintain its racial superiority at all costs and will inevitably come to view any resistance to this imagined superiority as an existential threat. Indeed, any other people automatically becomes an existential threat simply by virtue of its own existence. As it seeks to protect itself against phantom threats, the racist state becomes increasingly paranoid, its society closed and insular, intellectually limited. Setbacks enrage it; humiliations madden it. The state lashes out in a crazed effort, lacking any sense of proportion, to reassure itself of its strength.

The pattern played out in Nazi Germany as it sought to maintain a mythical Aryan superiority. It is playing out now in Israel. “This society no longer recognizes any boundaries, geographical or moral,” wrote Israeli intellectual and anti-Zionist activist Michel Warschawski in his 2004 book Towards an Open Tomb: The Crisis of Israeli Society. Israel knows no limits and is lashing out as it finds that its attempt to beat the Palestinians into submission and swallow Palestine whole is being thwarted by a resilient, dignified Palestinian people who refuse to submit quietly and give up resisting Israel’s arrogance.

We in the United States have become inured to tragedy inflicted by Israel, and we easily fall for the spin that automatically, by some trick of the imagination, converts

Israeli atrocities to examples of how Israel is victimized. But a military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a residential apartment building in the middle of the night and kills 14 sleeping civilians, as happened in Gaza four years ago, is not a military that operates by civilized rules.

A military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a house in the middle of the night and kills a man and his wife and seven of their children, as happened in Gaza four days ago, is not the military of a moral country.

A society that can brush off as unimportant an army officer’s brutal murder of a 13-year-old girl on the claim that she threatened soldiers at a military post -- one of nearly 700 Palestinian children murdered by Israelis since the intifada began -- is not a society with a conscience.

A government that imprisons a 15-year-old girl -- one of several hundred children in Israeli detention -- for the crime of pushing and running away from a male soldier trying to do a body search as she entered a mosque is not a government with any moral bearings. (This story, not the kind that ever appears in the U.S. media, was reported in the London Sunday Times. The girl was shot three times as she ran away and was convicted to 18 months in prison after she came out of a coma.)

Critics of Israel note increasingly that Israel is self-destructing, nearing a catastrophe of its own making. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy talks of a society in “moral collapse.”

Michel Warschawski writes of an “Israeli madness” and “insane brutality,” a “putrefaction” of civilized society, that have set Israel on a suicidal course. He foresees the end of the Zionist enterprise; Israel is a “gang of hoodlums,” he says, a state “that makes a mockery of legality and of civil morality. A state run in contempt of justice loses the strength to survive.”

As Warschawski notes bitterly, Israel no longer knows any moral boundaries -- if it ever did. Those who continue to support Israel, who make excuses for it as it descends into corruption, have lost their moral compass.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession. She can be reached at kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.

Taomaster, your link didn't work, because you put a . at the end of the /

so, anyone using it, just take out the . and the link works..

good article, btw!!

This part could apply in equal measure to a number of countries, especially the US:

"Narcissistically obsessed with its own image, it must strive to maintain its racial superiority at all costs and will inevitably come to view any resistance to this imagined superiority as an existential threat. Indeed, any other people automatically becomes an existential threat simply by virtue of its own existence. As it seeks to protect itself against phantom threats, the racist state becomes increasingly paranoid, its society closed and insular, intellectually limited. Setbacks enrage it; humiliations madden it. The state lashes out in a crazed effort, lacking any sense of proportion, to reassure itself of its strength."

Namaste'

Dear toastmaster,

I can see you are very, very aware of the insane brutality of the State of Israel, now, how about filling us in on the insane brutality of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations.

And I hear Lennon chanting in the background, "all we are saying,

is give peace a chance . . ."

(
}
{
~~~~~
North
Mieke
Kate
Cinda
Susie

continuing to pray for peace...

Dear Amit,

No, I am not forgetting the history. I am only worried about the repeat of it. At this point of time, Israel has the power, so it kills. At another point of time, somebody else may have it and they will too kill. Tell me now, what are we achieving?

You say Israel is targetting Hizbulla only. But the latest new at Yahoo has this caption" Israel hints at a full-scale invasion "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_258;_ylt=AgvydkqVZOqLzlzSMjJiSccUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Oops, sorry for that too long link...

Taomaster,

Thanks for the article. Here is another article, a rather long one, by the same author. It debunks the myth about Cap David and its purported generous offer:

A few months ago, nearly five years after the collapse of the July 2000 Camp David summit at which President Bill Clinton expected to forge an historic Middle East peace agreement, a leading member of Clinton's negotiating team publicly acknowledged that rather than serve as a true mediator in peace negotiations, successive U.S. administrations including Clinton's have acted as "Israel's attorney." Writing on the Washington Post op-ed page in May 2005, Aaron David Miller admitted that Clinton and company followed Israel's lead "without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations." The Clinton team's practice of running everything past Israel first "stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. Far too often . . . our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel." The result was utter failure; in these circumstances, no agreement could possibly meet Palestinian as well as Israeli needs.

Miller is a rarity among generations of senior policymakers who have been unable or unwilling to look back at their own policies and actions with frank honesty. Not surprisingly, the memoirs thus far published by the other policymakers involved in the Camp David collapse exhibit none of Miller's honesty. One should never, of course, take at face value the testimony of those who oversaw a years-long policy that ended in tatters, but these particular retrospectives are remarkably disingenuous. It is obviously difficult for anyone to acknowledge that a policy so patently misguided was enthusiastically pursued through Clinton's two terms (and, in the case of people like Miller and senior negotiator Dennis Ross, through three terms, going back to George H.W. Bush). This is what makes Miller's exposé so telling.

What Miller essentially reveals, although he does not say this explicitly, is that because it could not separate itself from Israel's interests and Israel's demands, the Clinton administration is ultimately responsible not only for the collapse of the peace process at Camp David, but for setting in motion everything that has followed: the intifada that erupted two months later, the five years (so far) of Palestinian-Israeli violence since then, the atrocities of Ariel Sharon's governance of the occupied Palestinian territories, and the end of Palestinian national hopes for a long time to come. Beyond all this, the continuation of the set of policies on the Palestinian issue that Clinton and company put in place probably wipes out any real hope of reducing terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. Although U.S. and other Western policymakers refuse to acknowledge this, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, supported by the U.S., is a major cause of the hatred and resentment that spawned terror attacks such as September 11. As Israeli historian Avi Shlaim recently observed, "For most Arabs and Muslims the real issue in the Middle East is not Iraq, Iran or democracy but Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people and America's blind support for Israel." This perception intensified on Clinton's watch.

Clinton and his negotiators were so eager, in pursuit of Israel's interests and of Clinton's much-ballyhooed "legacy," to forge a peace agreement at all costs before the end of his term, and were so outraged when the Palestinians refused to relinquish their hope for true independence and sovereignty by complying with Israel's inadequate offer at Camp David, that they quite deliberately shifted the entire onus for failure onto the Palestinians. At a time when everyone, and certainly every policymaker, should have known that Palestinian frustration with the slow, unproductive pace of the seven-year-old peace process and the continued consolidation of Israel's occupation was near the point of explosion, Clinton's obvious effort to blame the Palestinians and side unreservedly with Israel when Israel did not get its way constituted an open invitation to violent upheaval.

The Myths

The myths about Camp David, and particularly about Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's supposedly "generous offer," have become part of an urban legend by now, particularly among those many commentators, friends of Israel, and instant experts who feel constrained to relieve Israel of any culpability for the Camp David collapse or the intifada that followed. Five years later, whenever the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict comes up in any public discussion or commentary, it is unfailingly asserted that the Palestinians, and specifically Yasir Arafat, acting out of pure cussedness or pure hatred for Jews, rejected an Israeli peace offer of unbelievable generosity, an offer that would have given the Palestinians a state on 90 -- or sometimes 95 or 97 -- percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of Gaza, with all the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem as a capital. Had it not been for the Palestinians' turn to violence, so the myth goes, we would not now have Ariel Sharon in office, there would be a satisfactory peace, there would be no killings, and so on.

What the myths ignore is, first and foremost, that Barak's offers both at Camp David and six months later at the final negotiating session at Taba, Egypt, were not generous by any objective measure. The offers went further than any previous Israeli proposal had, but, since Israel had never before put forth any proposals on the key, so-called final-status issues, this says nothing. In fact, what the supposedly generous offer would have given the Palestinians would have been a state in four pieces, three in the West Bank plus Gaza, with a capital made up of Palestinian neighborhoods not contiguous either to each other or to the rest of the state. The major Israeli settlements, housing fully 80 percent of the 200,000 West Bank settlers and 100 percent of the almost 200,000 additional settlers in East Jerusalem, would have remained in place; the 300-mile road network throughout the West Bank built to connect the settlements and accessible only to Israelis would have remained in place; the "state" left to the Palestinians would have been a mere colony of Israel -- non-viable and indefensible, without borders with any state but Israel, totally at Israel's mercy.

Jeff Halper, the Israeli anthropologist and activist who heads the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and has extensively studied all aspects of the occupation, frequently points out that territory does not equate to sovereignty and that even a prison gives 95 percent of its space to the prisoners, while the prison walls, the cell doors, and occasional towers and other points of control constitute the controlling five percent. Under Barak's offer, the five percent (or three or ten percent) remaining in Israel's control -- made up of settlements, Israeli-only roads separating Palestinian from each other, checkpoints impeding movement, all of what Halper calls a "matrix of control" -- would have given Israel continued dominance over Palestine.

The ability of Clinton and his negotiators to ignore these realities, at the time of Camp David and to this day, is striking evidence of the truth of Miller's indictment and stands as testimony to their refusal to view anything about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict except through an Israeli prism.

Another critical truth that the Camp David myths ignore is the abysmal condition in which Palestinians lived during the seven years preceding Camp David, beginning with the Oslo agreement of September 1993, when the peace process was supposed to be moving along smoothly. Israel expanded settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem throughout the Oslo years, nearly doubling the number of settlers, at a time when negotiations over Israel's withdrawal from these territories should have been in train. The entire system of limited access roads connecting the settlements was constructed in these years. Gazans were imprisoned behind an impenetrable fence built in the 1990s to surround that entire territory. A system of closure was imposed on the West Bank and Gaza that prevented Palestinians from working inside Israel and that consequently severely damaged the Palestinian economy. Israel allocated the West Bank's underground water resources so that Israeli settlers consumed six or seven times the water per capita that was allocated to Palestinians; Israeli settlements had swimming pools and gardens, while Palestinian villages often went without running water.

The West Bank was divided into a checkerboard of areas under varying types of partial Palestinian or full Israeli administrative and security control, designed primarily to protect Israeli settlements and limit Palestinians to small, non-contiguous segments of land. As a result, Israeli military checkpoints were set up throughout the West Bank, severely impeding the movement of people and goods from one Palestinian town and village to another. Whereas before the Oslo agreement Israel had imposed what one Ha'aretz analyst characterizes as a "hovering occupation" in which the Israeli military and civil administration controlled the external borders of the occupied territories but minimized interference in Palestinian daily lives, when peace became more nearly a real prospect, a relatively distant military occupation turned into an in-your-face reality for Palestinians, with checkpoints and observation towers, a computerized system of permits and movement controls, roadblocks, and Israeli tanks outside their towns. The result, this analyst has pointed out, is that "most Palestinians have not experienced Oslo as a peace process. Instead of hope, they received militaristic strangulation from Israel, a corrupt self-government that depends on Israel in a humiliating way, and prolonged poverty. The long and the short of it is that the Palestinian hope for peace and independence had collapsed long before September 2000," when the intifada broke out.

These facts put the lie to the Israeli and U.S. claims that the intifada was orchestrated by Arafat for political gain and was motivated by some kind of unfathomable culture of hatred for Jews rather than any legitimate grievance. In actuality, the intifada grew out of years of escalating oppression under Israel's occupation, along with utter frustration over what appeared after Camp David to be the end of any hope for peace and independence. The concerted U.S. campaign to blame Arafat and the Palestinians for rejecting what they were repeatedly told was "the best deal they would ever get" came as the final straw, convincing the Palestinians that peace with Israel and real independence were not on the horizon. In this atmosphere, Ariel Sharon's deliberately provocative visit to the site of the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam, two months after Camp David virtually guaranteed an explosion. The Clinton team's obliviousness to the facts of the Palestinian situation and to the impact of their campaign of blame is further confirmation that as Israel's lawyer they were blind to any but Israel's point of view.

The fact that the so-called "generous offer" of Ehud Barak is a blatant lie --one that constitutes one of the most serious distortions of the historical record in modern times, ranking at least as high in terms of geostrategic significance as the Bush administration's lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- goes blithely unnoticed in the mainstream media, among the general public, and in policymaking circles. But unlike the WMD lie, this myth persists, this lie grows like topsy. It comes up whenever a peace plan is put forth; it arises as Israel's excuse whenever harsh Israeli control measures in the occupied territories are publicized; it was rehashed ad nauseam when Arafat died in November 2004; it was re-rehashed when Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat two months later; and it has been used to propagate further myths, such as that the Palestinians seek Israel's destruction and, most damaging to prospects for peace, that first Arafat and now Abbas are not proper partners for peace.

The typical assertion about Camp David and its aftermath usually runs along the lines of a New York Times article several years later in which the correspondent (Ethan Bronner, a Times editor, later to become deputy foreign editor, who should know better) recounted a badly skewed "history" of supposed Palestinian hatred of Jews and concluded with what he thought was the "worst of all": "in 2000, when Israel offered Yasir Arafat more than 90 percent of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip for a Palestinian state, his rejection was accompanied by a terrorist war that shows no signs of stopping." Something like this line has also become a mantra for Times columnist Thomas Friedman and many others.

A Book of Truths

The truth of things, which comes clear only in bare outline from Aaron Miller's brief op-ed, becomes crystal clear in a remarkable book by a young graduate student who, with no vested interest in any particular version of the story, interviewed most of the principals involved in the peace process, as well as several lower ranking functionaries, and produced an account of U.S. policymaking that is strikingly honest and revealing. In The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process, Clayton E. Swisher demonstrates that asking the right questions -- something no one in the media has yet attempted to do -- can unearth the real story beneath the self-interested distortions of those involved and the hype put out by a media completely locked in to the Israeli perspective.

Swisher's story, covering the peace process during Barak's two years in office, with an emphasis on U.S. policymaking, is a tale of an incredibly ham-handed diplomatic effort. Clinton and his negotiating team come across as a kind of gang that couldn't shoot straight. Swisher describes turf squabbles between Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and most particularly between an egotistical Dennis Ross and, at one time or another, virtually everyone else. Albright, it comes clear repeatedly, knew virtually nothing about the issues; both Israelis and Palestinians, in fact, generally avoided her because she lacked mastery of the topic. Summit meetings, between Syrians and Israelis and later Palestinians and Israelis, are shown to be extremely poorly prepared. The U.S. mediators made little effort to narrow positions before the summits, and there was little of the give-and-take essential in negotiations. One State Department official tells Swisher that at Camp David everything was "very loosy-goosy," with no prepared texts and no detailed position papers, because "that's the way Dennis liked to run things."

Throughout the Camp David summit, no one ever presented a formalized, written proposal covering the major issues. Nor, incredibly, did the U.S. keep any written record of what went on during the two weeks of negotiations. When the Israelis asked Ross a month later for a reconstruction of what had occurred at the summit, Ross acknowledged that there was nothing in writing. Things got no better as the final months of Clinton's administration went on. Miller confesses to Swisher that the so-called "parameters" that Clinton finally presented in late December 2000 -- the first time the Clinton team had ventured to adopt a policy position -- were still being revised the very day they were presented, meaning that, as Miller notes, "we were not ready." This was less than a month before the end of eight years in office. Clinton and company lacked a clear strategy and "dithered" over what exactly the parameters were to define.

The dithering over its own position even months after Camp David and the poor preparation for the summit in the first place were entirely attributable to the utter reluctance of Clinton et al. to take any steps without Israel's approval. The ruinous effect on the peace process of this obeisance to Israel comes through loud and clear in Swisher's account, one interlocutor after another making it patently evident that the strong tilt toward Israel is what ultimately upended negotiations. Albright, in a rare mood of candor, all but apologizes several times for not having pressed Israel harder. She tells Swisher that when Barak first came to office in 1999, succeeding the very intransigent Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clinton people were so pleased to see him that they simply assumed he had "enough of a political strategic view" to move ahead on negotiations, but they were mistaken. She acknowledges that throughout the process "we should have been much harder" on Israel, particularly on Israeli settlements, which Barak was expanding at a faster rate than Netanhayu had.

The book is filled with statements by U.S. officials indicating an almost automatic deferral to Israel's demands. One unnamed senior White House official, asked why it took so many months after Camp David to release Clinton's parameters, tells Swisher, "There were certain proposals that Barak didn't want put forward because he didn't think he could sell them back home. Also, realize that the U.S. is pro-Israeli. Clinton was the first president who first reached out to Palestinians -- like no other -- but at the end of the day, Clinton was a pro-Israeli president. When push came to shove . . . if Barak said don't put this in front of him, [Clinton] wasn't going to."

This very neatly sums up the entire story of the Clinton administration's role in the peace process. Swisher himself concludes that the U.S. acted as "an extra negotiator for the Israelis and an apologist for Barak's plans to sustain the occupation." One State Department official who was present at Camp David says, "Look, you never go into a negotiation without knowing an endgame! We went in to the most high-stakes of negotiations not only not knowing the endgame; we didn't know what Israel's positions were. . . . We saw them unfolding in front of us."

At the most critical point in 50-plus years of dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States, in a breathtaking abdication of responsibility, allowed Israel alone to set the starting point, the pace, and the agenda of what was to have been an historic, conflict-ending peace agreement.

Probably most appalling in this story of a monumental U.S. policy failure is that the major U.S. players had virtually no understanding of the Palestinians, despite seven years of what can only be called intense dealings with them. Clinton's policymakers did not understand what the Palestinians were enduring under Israeli occupation; conveniently forgot the huge concession the Palestinians had made a dozen years earlier by recognizing Israel's existence in 78 percent of original Palestine; had no appreciation of the significance for Palestinians of the massive spread of Israeli settlements throughout the only territory remaining for a Palestinian state; did not understand the critical need from the Palestinian standpoint for a reasonable resolution to the refugee problem; and fathomed nothing of how totally impossible it was for Arafat or any Muslim or Arab leader to agree to Israel's demand for sovereignty over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. They simply did not "get it," and Swisher's interviews demonstrate that most of these U.S. movers and shakers, with the belated exception of Miller, still steadfastly refuse to recognize the reasons for their failure.

Even an Israeli negotiator laments that "The American team didn't know the substance. It is one thing to know the principles of an agreement, and another to master the details. If you don't have a rich, sophisticated understanding of the issue, when you are confronted by reality you are left paralyzed," without the breadth of knowledge to be creative or to be able to compromise. At Camp David, Swisher himself notes, even after seven years, "Ross was still nowhere near the most basic understanding of what the Palestinians would consider minimally acceptable regarding territory." Fundamentally, as Swisher points out but Ross has apparently never grasped, as the occupying power with total control over "the very thing the Palestinians wanted -- a state -- the Israelis would naturally have to be more forthcoming [than the Palestinian side]; this could only occur if the central mediator stood between both parties and demonstrated a willingness to 'swing elbows.'" But neither Ross nor any of his colleagues, including Clinton, saw the need to do this.

For most of the Americans, the basic issue came down to a mere mathematical one, and they lost themselves in a forest of percentages. Clinton used to boast that he knew the geography of the West Bank so well he could draw a map in his sleep, but in fact he only saw that map in two dimensions; neither he nor any of the others understood the territorial issue as it played out on the ground. Ross was fond of saying that in any negotiation, neither side could expect to gain 100 percent of what it wanted -- a statement intended pointedly to tell the Palestinians that they could never expect the return of all of the occupied territories, despite the fact that those territories constituted less than one-quarter of original Palestine and the Palestinians had long since conceded Israel's right to the other three-quarters.

Within this limiting parameter, the U.S. simply played around with percentages of territory. Even Miller failed to get it. One leading Palestinian negotiator tells Swisher that shortly before Camp David he had asked Miller how much of the occupied territories Miller thought the Palestinians could accept for a state and Miller responded, astoundingly, 70 percent. This would be 70 percent of the West Bank, which constituted only 22 percent of original Palestine. The Palestinian exploded angrily, telling Miller he was "miserably misinformed," that in fact the Palestinians could not accept anything less than 100 percent, plus or minus a few small parcels of land to be swapped on a one-for-one basis for parcels of Israeli territory. Miller was shocked, indicating an almost unbelievable level of ignorance after more than a decade in which he had personally been involved with the Palestinian issue. If the Americans had not all been operating from an Israeli perspective, they could not possibly have so badly misunderstood the Palestinians.

Perhaps this was the beginning of Miller's enlightenment, but the lesson did not take with any of the other senior members of Clinton's team. Whenever in the lead-up to Camp David the Israelis proposed to return 66 percent or 76 percent of the West Bank, the U.S. team, still failing to understand the Palestinian position, never objected and never attempted to narrow the huge gap. When the gap did narrow at Camp David -- a function of increased Israeli but not U.S. recognition of the possibilities -- the U.S. members were still merely dickering with numbers. At one point Albright considered it a simple matter just to split the difference between a Palestinian demand for 98 percent and an Israeli readiness to relinquish no more than 92 percent -- as if the mathematical mid-point of 95 percent, although not based on anything real on the ground, could somehow magically resolve all outstanding Palestinian territorial problems. Arbitrarily flipping off two or three or ten percent here or there does not make the territory remaining to the Palestinians contiguous or viable or defensible, does not address fundamental issues of control over territory, and does not make the Palestinians truly independent or sovereign in their own territory.

As has been evident since the day Camp David collapsed, Yasir Arafat became the focus and the easy scapegoat for all the Americans' frustrations over their own failures. Their excuses for the collapse of negotiations -- almost all adopted wholesale from Barak -- centered entirely on Arafat. He could not bring himself to end the conflict, he could not make the change from revolutionary to statesman, he wanted and indeed fostered turmoil and violence in order to improve his bargaining position, he rejected Barak's generous offer without offering any counterproposal, he rejected even Clinton's "parameters," and so on. According to Swisher, the Palestinians he spoke to, as well even as some Israelis and Americans, believed that putting the entire onus of blame on the Palestinians -- which Clinton had sworn before the summit he would not do and which left the Palestinians with virtually no hope of ever ending the occupation -- was the proximate cause of the intifada that erupted two months later.

The deliberate distortions and myths about supposed Palestinian intransigence have been repeated and perpetuated by each of the principals and picked up and made into legend by media commentators. Clinton spent Inauguration Day 2001, according to Swisher, telling the incoming Bush team about his disappointment with Arafat, who he said had torpedoed the peace process, and he urged Colin Powell not to invest any energy dealing with the Palestinian leader. Ross, who actually worked with an Israeli negotiator in the middle of the night before the summit collapsed to draft Clinton's "blame speech," casting Arafat as the bad guy and Barak as the courageous risk-taker, also briefed the Bush team. He spent four hours with Powell during the transition and reportedly told the incoming secretary of state not to believe a word Arafat said because he was "a con man."

Ross has continued to play the blame game ever since. In voluminous interviews (including with Swisher) and commentaries over the last several years, as well as in his own memoirs, Arafat always figures as the culprit and as Ross's central obsession. The obsession -- fed by Barak, shared to a great degree by Clinton, and magnified by an Israel-centric media in the U.S. -- became a comfortable retreat for Americans who could not acknowledge U.S. responsibility and would not acknowledge Israel's responsibility, so closely bound was the U.S. to Israel. Swisher ends his account with a semi-apology from Miller, who participated in Ross's four-hour briefing of Powell. "You don't want to give centrality to how you fucked up," Miller confessed. "Dennis could have never brought himself to do it, and neither could I."

The Roots of Failure

Because of its thorough examination of the thinking and the policy path followed by the Clinton negotiating team and, as noted, because he thought to ask the right questions about the policymakers' motivations, Swisher's book stands as probably the best and certainly the most revealing of several retrospectives on Camp David and the peace process. (One other book that also stands out as an honest and disinterested account is Shattered Dreams, by French journalist Charles Enderlin. Although it too is based on interviews with all the principals from the U.S., Israel, and Palestine, it does not focus as Swisher's account does on U.S. motivations. Among the myriad article-length recaps of Camp David, an August 2001 New York Review of Books piece co-authored by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, participants at Camp David on the U.S. and the Palestinian delegations respectively, provides a very well informed if brief assessment of the negotiations and is virtually the only one not written from a U.S.-Israeli perspective.)

The importance of Swisher's book is that it pieces together all the evidence necessary to demonstrate inescapably that Clinton and company's pronounced tilt toward Israel was the major, and perhaps the only, reason for the collapse of the peace process. A pro-Israeli tilt in U.S. policy was obviously not unique to the Clinton administration, but it was under Clinton that the Israel-centered mindset that had always determined U.S. policymaking finally ran up against a need for the kind of balanced approach that would have taken Palestinian concerns into account equally with Israeli concerns. The Clinton team was unable to overcome its biases and the blindness those biases produced long enough to function as a truly honest mediator between the two sides.

Clinton and company dropped all pretense of U.S. neutrality after Camp David. One of the most significant but least noted comments in the virulent U.S.-led campaign to paint Arafat as the culprit was Clinton's veiled accusation on Israeli television that Arafat had actively worked at the summit to thwart Israel's aspirations. "I kept telling the Palestinians," he said, "and I will say again to the world, that you cannot make an agreement over something as important as Jerusalem . . . if it is required of one side to say I completely defeated the interest of the other side." Clinton's attribution to Arafat of such malevolence, charging that his purpose was to "completely defeat" Israel's interests rather than advance a Palestinian interest in part of Jerusalem, was indicative of the kind of Israel-focused mindset that had long pervaded American thinking. (It was no doubt also indicative of Clinton's desire to boost the electoral prospects of his wife Hillary, then running for a Senate seat from New York, where pro-Israeli credentials are thought to be essential.) Because of this focus on the Israeli perspective to the exclusion of the Palestinian viewpoint, all Palestinian actions are viewed according to their impact on Israel, as if Palestinians always act only against Israel, never for themselves.

For the same reasons, the U.S. tends to take Israel's maximum position as the norm and the standard of reasonableness, and "progress" in negotiations is judged according to that maximum: any Israeli movement away from the maximum, however insignificant, is applauded; any Palestinian failure to accept Israel's position is condemned. Although he would undoubtedly not acknowledge that he was describing anything inappropriate, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman captured the Clinton attitude, and the general American attitude, a few days after Camp David when he observed that Clinton's criticism of Arafat had demonstrated that "there is in the U.S. view a level of Israeli compromise that is right and fair, and beyond which Israel should not be expected to go. It is not just a bottomless pit of give-aways." Israel's interests are supreme, in other words, both to Friedman and to Clinton, and Palestinians are judged according to how well they accommodate, or at least refrain from interfering with, those interests.

Given this general attitude, one can only assume that Clinton must have been totally dismissive, or perhaps mystified, when near the end of the summit Arafat responded to Clinton's anger, according to Swisher, by trying to put the situation in perspective. "You say the Israelis moved forward," Arafat said to Clinton, "but they are the occupiers. They are not being generous -- they are not giving from their pockets but from our land. I am only asking that UN Resolution 242 be implemented. I am speaking only about 22 percent of Palestine, Mr. President." (Emphasis added.)

Camp David was the culmination of a mindset that had been forming and molding itself for decades. Despite the understanding Clinton had exhibited for broad Palestinian concerns, when negotiations came down to the specifics of critical questions like Jerusalem and borders, he proved unable to shift his thinking away from a primary focus on Israel's needs and Israel's demands. Like many Americans, particularly in the Southern Baptist tradition, Clinton had grown up on myths about Israel. He writes in his 2004 memoir, My Life, that an old pastor and mentor had told him while he was governor of Arkansas that he would probably be president some day but that God would "never forgive you if you don't stand by Israel." The pastor did not argue that Israel had not mistreated the Palestinians, but he thought God intended the Jews "to be at home" in the Holy Land and that the Palestinians' problems could only be solved through peace and security for Israel.

Such notions of the priority of Israeli interests, taught early in life, inevitably find their way into policy. All of Clinton's principal negotiators, moreover, had what they all acknowledged was an emotional commitment to Israel. This conditioning and ingrained way of thinking is evident in the memoirs thus far published. Clinton's own memoir and others by Albright and Ross add up to an embarrassing collection of apologias for a badly misguided U.S. policy and provide striking evidence of how little the U.S., in its myopic attitude toward Israel, understood the Palestinian position.

Clinton's memoir is actually most notable for how little it says. For a man of such widely recognized analytical acumen, this much-heralded policy wonk writes a remarkably unwonkish memoir, a prosaic compendium of "who struck Johns" and "who said what to whoms" almost totally lacking in analysis. But he does manage to insert frequent snide asides about Arafat's failure to do as Clinton and the Israelis wanted and his inability to move forward as rapidly in negotiations as Clinton's time in office was receding. The memoirs reveal a president wholly dedicated to safeguarding Israel's interests and unable even to fathom the Palestinians' interests. Clinton's anger that Arafat would not take risks for Israel's security, or for Clinton's own legacy, is obvious.

Albright's memoir, Madam Secretary, is an even more abject statement of U.S. devotion to Israel's perspective. The Israelis gave "all they could" at Camp David, in Albright's view, whereas Arafat gave "no sign that his vision extended to anything more forward-looking than victory over Israel." When the intifada broke out, "Barak was personally involved in trying to calibrate the response in ways that would minimize loss of life" (an outrageous distortion after Israel fired more than a million rounds at Palestinian protesters in the first few days of the intifada, before any suicide bombings had occurred, and killed 117 Palestinians, one-quarter of them children, in the first month). In the end, she says, the "core failure was the Palestinians' obsessive focus not on how much could be gained but on the relatively little they would be required to give up." Palestinians could have had a state but instead they brought on the election of Ariel Sharon and they are left with "their legalisms, their misery, and their terror."

Barak and Sharon themselves could not have improved on this astounding anti-Palestinian catalog. Little wonder that the Palestinians got nowhere toward getting their point across at Camp David, to say nothing of advancing toward a just peace.

Clinton's and Albright's retrospectives are strikingly self-centered, even in their titles, but the prize for self-absorption goes to Dennis Ross, whose memoir, The Missing Peace, is an 800-page pat on his own back. Clinton is always asking Ross what to do, according to Ross's account, based almost entirely on his own notes over the years. He knew the parties better than anyone; he was always on the phone or in a private meeting with this or that leader; in the first Bush administration, "I persuaded [James] Baker and [George H.W.] Bush" to take various actions. Frequent comments like "knowing Rabin as I did" dot his pages; Rabin frequently "shared highly sensitive views with me." But far more important than his manifestations of ego are Ross's frank statements of the pro-Israeli perspective from which he was coming. Early in the book, he lays out his policy parameters: "Any effort at peacemaking must be premised on a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship. . . . Criticism was legitimate, but creating a breach in the relationship was not. . . . My approach to the peace process was shaped by the conviction that Israel must feel secure if it was to take risks for peace." If there were no other evidence of his extreme tilt toward Israel, this alone would stand out as an unmistakable clue to his devotion to Israel and whatever it demanded. One wonders why, as a supposed middleman in negotiations, Ross did not also operate under the conviction, to paraphrase what he says of Israel, "that the Palestinians must feel secure if they were to take risks for peace."

But the Palestinians received no such consideration. More's the pity, for a just, more or less equitable peace forged at Camp David would have prevented the intifada, which might then have headed off Osama bin Laden and prevented September 11, which would in turn have prevented the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The possibilities are intriguing to imagine; the consequences of a too-pronounced leaning toward Israel are frightening to dwell on.

Lost Hope

Although an honest Aaron Miller acknowledged to Swisher that none of the principal U.S. players in the negotiations was capable of giving a frank appraisal of what occurred because "the personal agenda and heat of the moment have colored it," the media and public opinion throughout the U.S. know only the distorted story as it emerged from these principal players when the summit collapsed. Clinton and company set the mood and cast the story in concrete on that day five years ago, and no amount of reappraisal, none of the second thoughts or reconsiderations, have made it through the media curtain that dropped across the Palestinian side of the story on that day. Like the old cliché about the correction to an erroneous but much-publicized newspaper story appearing only on page 30, buried deep inside the paper and never getting anything like the attention of the original story, the damage done by the U.S. at Camp David was done permanently the day Clinton gave the "blame speech." The Palestinians lost hope; the peace movement in Israel felt it had been betrayed by the Palestinians; the media in the U.S., ever eager to blame the Palestinians, picked up the message and have never since retracted or reassessed. Very few know, or are likely ever to know, the real story of how the Clinton administration undermined the Palestinians and undermined all prospects for peace.

Dear Phoenixrising,
I'm sorry your post (#23) wasn't approved earlier. I think the moderator wanted me to confirm who you were -- and I have!

As I wrote to you in a recent email, this situation is really driving me crazy. I can't say that I support Hezbollah one bit but I also don't think this is Israel simply "defending" itself, as some people seem to believe. They are obviously the main aggresors in this situation (and the American media I've seen, by the way, is portraying this too now), using the opportunity to suit their own needs.

I don't reallly understand why the US is so aligned with Israel (perhaps it all does come down to oil and economics), but for some reason, we do seem to share closer cultural ties to Israel than the Arabs in the Middle East. It is obvious that we like to wage the same wars that they do and it scares me that countries like India are moving towards this ideology as well.

From my (possibly one-sided analysis), I do believe that many fanatical Muslims would like to perpetuate the idea of a Christian-Jewish/American-Israeli coalition so that there is a clear cut enemy for Islamic fundamentalist to fight. Indians, by and large, have remained neutral, but I think that if enough Indians begin to support the brutal actions of the US and Israel as acts of "self-defense", propogandists could make this into a "Christian-Jewish-Hindu" coalition. Thank goodness the bombings in Mumbai have not yet sparked Indians to blindly attack Pakistan (perhaps the balance of power between those countries is too close, so they wouldn't dare...)

Anyways, I know it's probably more complicated that my entire scope of understanding at this point, but I am definitely signing and sending around the petition you sent yesterday. I only wish there was more we could do than sit and watch and blog....

Alright -- I have to respond to Amit, although I don't have enough time to get back to everyone. Here goes:

If my neighbor had a rabid dog (your analogy for Hezbollah, and perhaps Hamas, as well), and I had a big shotgun (come on, let's make this a fair analogy here...) I would not go shoot the dog, destroy my neighbor's house, and riddle my neighbor's family with bullets as well. I would probably rally up the rest of the neighbors and ask my neighbor to do something about the damn dog. If that didn't work, I'd haul my neighbor's ass to court and sue! (The good old American way, of course!) I think there are more diplomatic and effective ways of dealing with some situations. As we both know, it's not this simple though. And, of course, there will always be those who think violence is the answer. I simply don't.

Peace all. Thanks for writing.
K.

Dear Kanika,

You stated " don't reallly understand why the US is so aligned with Israel (perhaps it all does come down to oil and economics)

Israel has no oil, it gave up it's oil fields to Egypt in late 70's. The Alma oil field in the southern Sinai, discovered and developed by Israel, was transferred to Egypt in November 1979. When Israel gave up this field, it had become the country's largest single source of energy, supplying half the country's energy needs. Israel, which estimated the value of untapped reserves in the Alma field at $100 billion, had projected that continued development there would make the country self-sufficient in energy by 1990.

Whatever economic aid The US gives to Israel, it gives the same amount to Egypt.

You really need to study the history of the region Kanika, look deeper into the history of how Israel was formed, the role Churchill played, then you will have context and understand the relationships. Btw did you know India and Israel have close ties?

Amba

"May all people everywhere be happy and free."
My heart goes to all the people of Lebanon and to all the people of Israel. 'Peace is the way'.

Hello Kanika and Everyone,

I posted this question on Open Thread.

I was just wondering what would be a fair and just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

How about sharing your view in 300 words or less here or on OT?

I thought, the recognization the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace, for starters. Israel giving up lands so the Palestinians can create a viable State. Jerusalem being a shared city, and if a promise of safe passage is guaranteed the borders should be easy for both peoples to pass through. Sounds good to me.

at last, the UN is condemning Israel's action:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/world/20cnd-nations.html

Typical UN trying to appease everyone and end up with nothing:

"While Hezbollah’s actions are deplorable and Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned,” he (Kofi) said."

Ruth: Naj answered for me. Thanks Naj, I hope Ruth and Steve read it, but I doubt they would have absorbed it. Too much conditioning will mean they will continue to reference 50 years of unbroken and consistent propaganda as truth.

You cannot, Ruth, ask for a balanced view in a situation where there is no balance. Not what you mean by balanced, at least. Balance to me is reflecting the Truth, not distorting it to make both sides seem the same. That's a lie and is a conditioned conceit that has been instilled in you all your life. It is not dissimilar to the kind of conditioning that makes some ignorant Jews think of Arabs and Moslems as nothing more than rabid dogs. That says it all when it comes to balance doesn't it?

Steve:

Summary

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240

While it is true that the US has given about $50 billion to Egypt in the past 35 years, that's about half of what Israel has had, the comparison (an attempt to pretend at a balanced view) is disingenuous. Egypt is another US client state with an unpopular dictator being propped up by US military and financial aid, much as Saddam used to be. Both Egypt and Israel are servants of US foreign policy. A policy that has strangled all aid to Palestine since it democratically elected a legit Hammas government.

Also, these are only official US figures. Israel also gets considerable funding both corporate and private which amounts to much more than this from Jewish interests all over the world and from other "friendly" states.

Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world, and Israelis enjoy a per capita income higher than Ireland, Spain, or oil-rich Saudi Arabia - the Royal family excluded from calculations.

Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, despite not having any oil!

Since 28 September 2000, Israeli police, soldiers and settlers have killed more than 2,250 Palestinians -- the vast majority of them civilians -- in contravention of international law.

Essentially Israeli's and especially Israeli settlers, go to the ATM cash machines and withdraw US tax dollars every day to maintain this privileged charade.

You are not going to pull the wool over my eyes on this subject, and I will illumine the readers more and more as time goes by.

And this was before the intafada. US military aide to Israel since the first Gulf War has escalated considerably.

Wow Tao, using the term "Jewish interests", that's code isn't?

You have shown your hand oh one with Tao. My beef is with Hezbollah and Hamas, and yours is with all Jews isn't it?

TM , before you begin your anti-zionist tirade, please read this before commenting:

From Dennis Prager,

Imagine someone saying that he seeks the destruction of Italy because he regards Italian national identity as racist. Further, imagine that this person constantly denies being anti-Italian, because he does not hate all Italians, only Italy and all those who believe Italy should exist.
Now substitute "Jewish" for "Italian" and "Israel" for "Italy" and you understand the absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.

Among the many lies that permeate the modern world, none is greater -- or easier to refute -- than the claim that Zionism is not an integral part of Judaism or the claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to antisemitism.

In order to understand why, it is first necessary to explain Zionism and anti-Zionism.

A modern secular movement called Zionism was founded in the 19th century, but the belief that Jews belong in Zion (the biblical term for Jerusalem) is as old as the Jewish people. See Part One of this series, "Explaining Jews," for a discussion of why Jews are a people and not only a religion.

Starting in 586 B.C., with the destruction of the first Jewish state, Jews were already Zionists in that they fervently prayed to return to Zion. While the movement known by the specific name "Zionism" is modern, the movement of Jews returning to Zion is more than 2,500 years old. That is why the claim that Zionism -- the return of the Jewish people to Zion -- is not part of Judaism is a theological and historical lie.

Judaism has always consisted of three components: God, Torah and Israel, roughly translated as faith, practice and peoplehood. And this Jewish people was conceived of as living in the Jewish country called Israel. One can argue that the modern state of Israel was founded at the expense of Arabs living in the geographic area known as Palestine (there was never a country or a nation called Palestine); but that in no way negates the indisputable fact that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism. Nor does the fact that some Jews who have abandoned Judaism are opposed to Zionism, nor that a tiny sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews (Neturei Karta) believe that only the Messiah can found a Jewish state in Israel.

When anti-Israel Muslim students demonstrate on campus chanting, "Yes to Judaism, No to Zionism," they are inventing a new Judaism out of their hatred for Israel. It would be as if anti-Muslims marched around chanting, "Yes to Allah, No to the Quran." Just as Allah, Muhammad and the Quran are inextricable components of Islam, so God, Torah and Israel are of Judaism.

But, one might argue, even if Zionism is as much a part of Judaism as any other part of the Hebrew Bible, the modern Jewish state of Israel has no right to exist because it displaced many indigenous Arabs, known later as Palestinians.

Before responding to this, it is crucial to understand that this argument -- that Israel's founding was illegitimate -- is completely unrelated to anti-Zionism. An intellectually honest person who believes Israel's founding is illegitimate would still have to acknowledge that Zionism is an inseparable part of Judaism.

But the argument that Israel is illegitimate because its founding led to 600,000 to 700,000 Arab refugees is as anti-Jewish as is anti-Zionism. Virtually every country in the world was founded by displacing some of the people who had lived there, and many of those countries did far worse to far more people than Israel did. Therefore, anyone who calls only for Israel's destruction had better explain why, of all the states on earth whose founding was accompanied by the displacement of others, only the Jewish state is illegitimate.

Take Pakistan, for example. Unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which had existed twice before in history, there was never a country called Pakistan, nor was there ever any other independent Muslim country in the part of India that was carved out to create Pakistan. Moreover, if the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate because it created 700,000 Arab refugees, why isn't the Muslim state of Pakistan, which created more than eight million Hindu refugees, illegitimate?

The answer is obvious. When people isolate the one Jewish state in the world for sanctions, opprobrium and delegitimizing, they are doing so because it is the Jewish state. And that, quite simply, is why anti-Zionism is simply another form of Jew-hatred.

You can criticize Israel all you want. That does not make you an antisemite. But if you are an anti-Zionist or advocate the destruction of the Jewish state, then let's be clear: You are an enemy of the Jews and of Judaism, and the word for such a person is antisemite.

Hello Kanika and Everyone,

I would like, very much, for a peaceful conclusion and sharing of lands between these two peoples, but I guess that is just wishful thinking.

On another note. Personally, I would fire Kofi Annan. Actually, I would have fired him years ago and there are those at the UN who would agree, but the European Leaders just about took to their beds to protest. Kofi is popular and well liked, but that will never make him what he is not and that would be an effective, clear, strong and powerful leader of the United Nations. It is time for him to go.

Hello Kanika and Everyone,

If the United Nations were doing it's job, if the United Nations were even capable of doing it's job, Israel would not be forced to bomb one strip of land in Lebanon. Israel would not have to deal with a terrorist organization on it's borders. A peace deal would have already been brokered between Israel and Palestine. Make no mistake, this conflict is able to go on and on because the United Nations allows it by their inability to enforce it's own resolutions.

Hi,

I must say the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas give me the creeps. These are dangerous men, expert manipulators. When I was a kid, we had neighborhood fights, lots of them, one thing, 90 percent of the kids understood, was that you didn't "dirty fight." Dirty fighting was never explained, but simply understood, and, like I said, most kids never resorted to it. There was always the 10 percent who did and no one messed with them, for play or fight, they were simply ignored, banished to dirty figthing land, where ever that was. If the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas were in our neighborhood they would have been banished to "dirty fighting land" long ago. If only my neighborhood was running the UN!

Okay, I am done for the day. Blame it on the coffee and hot weather, but today it will cool off.

In all seriousness, the World is in a dangerous situation, my eyes are on the Light of the Peace that is sure to come.

O Amba,

"An intellectually honest person who believes Israel's founding is illegitimate would still have to acknowledge that Zionism is an inseparable part of Judaism."

Therefore, the Theodor Herzl led movement cannot be 'entirely' secularly motivated in that the entire movement is predicated up Judaism . . .

I have a hard time separating secular from sectarian when Israel is concerned.

"But the argument that Israel is illegitimate because its founding led to 600,000 to 700,000 Arab refugees is as anti-Jewish as is anti-Zionism"

Why so? Who says any of the Middle Eastern nations are legitimate? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Israel, all of these nations were 'made' with British and French, and American, funding, and armed forces, and all of the afore nations resorted to terrorism to combat their burdened white founders.

Who says the United States government is legitimate, the government does, and they love invoking St. Paul, and their overwhelming firepower, to legitimatize their argument; but that still does not make them 'legitimate.'

Any nation ever founded that utilized violent means to establish their nation is illegitimate! And that is why the American fundamentalists are so old-world, in that they think Jesus Christ himself will resort to violence when he founds his kingdom. In fact, do American ministers and priests even preach the Gospel of Jesus anymore, or are they too busy corrupting OT and Pauline Scripture to suit their greedy needs.

Utilizing violence and terror to found a nation is nothing new, using Scripture to exonerate oneself for all of ones' sins is nothing new, saying “I am apart of the predestinated Saints and so any and all violence I perpetrate is already forgiven,” is nothing new . . .

I believe the violent actions of Israel and the United States are motivated by the ideal of a greater Middle Eastern empire, actually, eventually, world empire, controlled by an Anglo-Jewish coalition (incorporate nonetheless!!), and in fact, as ‘we’ continue to expand our military operations, Russia, and China, and possibly India too, will have to take up arms just to survive, in that they too need oil (especially China and India);

and unless Israel just goes completely nuts and attacks the United States for whatever reason, or vice versa, for one never knows what the future exactly holds, the Middle East, one way or another will eventually expand into a global war

at least this is what many Christians, Muslims, and Jews seem to believe their respective Holy books say . . .

Yet, there are some passages in the Torah, OT, NT (and the Koran too as a matter of fact) that seem to indicate there will be an opportunity for us all to choose a different path, and I have been meaning to compile my thesis, or more appropriately perhaps, ‘my’ vision (inspired by the Lord even!!!!!!!!),

and I should be going into a thirty-day rehab anytime soon now, and then I will compile these verses (except all me books are in Seattle arrggghhhh) and we can compare notes . . .

What say you brother Amba, and you too Ruth?

(Dirty fighting? What is ‘dirty fighting’? Bringing a gun to a fistfight? Using a nuclear bomb to end a conventional war? Using jet planes against people with rocks and clubs? Napalm? Scatter bombs? ‘Secret’ torture camps?) Dirty fighting ? . . .

A world-wide heat wave huh, right before the East Coast hurricane season, and I hear rumors of war concerning many many nations, hmm . . .

peace

Steve: Huh? Your Italian scenario is naive and pathetic. We already have situations like this with the IRA in Britain, the Basque separatists in Spain, and there are other groups around the world in Kashmir, in Indonesia and india.

The difference of course is that none of the governments under threat, certainly in Europe, have ever launched an all out military air, land and sea assault on the cities of the offending terrorists. So think about this - can you even imagine Britain doing to Dublin what Israel is doing in Beirut and Palestine? It could never happen. Do you know why it can never happen? Because they are perceived as "one of us". The racism is not there. They are turf wars, and that's it.

The only reason Israel does what it does and the US and Europe allows them to get away with it is because the uS, Europe and Israel are racists of various degrees. To them an Arab life is next to worthless. An Arab child is simply seen as a potential terrorist or a "dog". So seven people are killed in Israel and it makes all the news items, it is shown in all its horror, it is disected and analised and roundly condemned, but 140 deaths of civilians women and more than a third children in Lebanon goes unreported or mentioned as an aside.

The death toll so far is about 20-1 and while the Israeli casualties are mainly military, those of the Lebanes and Palestine are nearly all civilian.

It was the same with Aparteid whites and South Africa. Margaret Thatcher was against the release of Nelson Mandella not many years ago. Could there be a more peaceable man? But for decades the media convinced the world that he was a "terrorist". It was easy for the white west to believe because he was just a black African nigger.

And so anyone who is able to defend the actions of Aparteid or Zionism is by defenition a racist and an extreme racist. Zionism has already made that clear with its claim that they are "God's chosen".

So you Steve, like so many white racists I have met who couldn't see how they were racist or elitist, are a scummy racist and your rather long winded charge of "antisemite" rings a little hollow in these enlightened ears.

As Kathleen Christison says in the article I posted earlier:

"A nation that mandates the primacy of one ethnicity or religion over all others will eventually become psychologically dysfunctional"

It is your disfunction which maddens me, because it is simply a result of lifelong brainwashing.

Wake up mate. We are all human beings.

Ruth: Of course! It is all the fault of the UN! Thank you for clarifying. I was so confused before. My mind is impoverished before your insights. My light dimmed by your brilliance.
That Kofi - baaaad maaaan.

And of course, using a fully armed modern military armed force by air land and sea against completely unarmed, defenseless women, children and civilian men, that's not dirty fighting!

Displacing a million civilians from their home using shells, missiles and indiscriminate shelling, that's not dirty fighting!

Cutting off all power, water and humanitarian aide and bombing red cross trucks, ambulances, civilian cars, buses and taxis and destroying the roads, bridges, airport and totally laying waste to a countries infrastructure using the states war machine, that's not dirty fighting either! That's just doing what Uncle Sam does.

Dirty fighting is daring to stand up aginst these odds for your right to live in your own land. That's filthy and cowardly, isn't it?

Congratulate yourself Ruth for enlightening me. Stand in front of the mirror, give yourself a big hug and announce to the world "I'm full of sh_it and I'm proud of it!"

Because you are and you deserve it.

The path to enlightenment is easy if you have no preferences and can see things as they really are.

Hey Ruth! I think TaoMaster should replace all the places he used Ruth to TaoMaster LOL

TaoMaster, you are a shame to the name/term Tao; but you make a great Master of Arrogance! WE know who you are, why not be a man, and use your real name, or are you only a coward in here?

TaoMaster, see yourself the way you are!

Rude, Crude, Arrogant, Bossy, Nosy, Non-Sociable, Know-it-All-that knows-nothing, articulate as a dictionary is, handy; and last but not least, very, very arrogant(oh I said that one already)

See yourself as you are TM-and you just might one day, transcend past your ego; and truly earn the title TaoMaster.

WindyCavern, you are a shame to the name/term Windy; but you make a great Cavern of Arrogance! WE know who you are, why not be a man, and use your real name, or are you only a coward in here?

WindyCavern, see yourself the way you are!

Rude, Crude, Arrogant, Bossy, Nosy, Non-Sociable, Know-it-All-that knows-nothing, articulate as a dictionary is, handy; and last but not least, very, very arrogant(oh I said that one already)

See yourself as you are W.C - and you just might one day, transcend past your ego; and truly earn the title WindyCavern.

ewwww what big games you play TaoMaster!! You must have small "ones" huh? gotta talk bit and tough, hoping people won't notice? LOL What a schitzo-social-psychopath you are-bit teeth, too!

so stupid is the great TaoMaster-that he/she has to resort to other's posts just to comment!!

big baby!!

WC - schitzo-social-psychopath?

Is that in the Jungian sense or the Freudian? Please try and be clear, I wouldn't want to misunderstand you.

Big baby!

Now sir, you go too far! I am crestfallen.

he/she? For someone who knows who I am, you sure seem confused.

appologise to ruth, and you just might get your crest-UP again!

oh sure, pick apart my rant!
Lets get technical!
meanie!

of course I am confused! Its windy in this cavern!

also reference: http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Thanks Kanika,

I appreciate your doing that and by the amount of posts -- u see how heated people are about the Mideast but there is so much misinformation being disseminated which, when people draw on that as irrefutable fact, I become upset beyond words.....also there is a big semantics game going on (The US and Israel) -- and these semantics need to be changed as they are so ingrained in the U.S. citizen's psyche that we could play a very sick game of word association and see what the "average US citizen or Israeli" will come up with -- the media here ALWAYS says "Israel retaliates" while "Palestine attacks" -- for example -- did anyone every note that Palestine is often attacked first or that Israel as an occupier is the one that provokes? That the illegal settlements harass the Palestinians on a daily basis -- spoiling their olive trees, farms, poisoning the land to make it unusable? "Just one example of a long standing semantics game-- there are little steps we can take -- we can't sit back and be quiet -- Many of the US's actions and attitudes, although not all for certain, stem from the messianic Christians (our very own Pres claims to be one of them) who have aligned themselves with the Zionists (which I separate from the Jewish faith despite what is being written on the blog) and are a very very dangerous group -- the messianic Christians are looking for the second coming of Christ -- and will do all in their power to make way for that according (or not so according as interpretation is often wrong) to the Bible we are waiting for the end of the world -- scary -- they believe they will also convert the Jews when the time is necessary -- but in the meantime both sides have formed an "unholy alliance of convenience" as I call it. I have read more article just today attesting to this Messianic (maniacal mission).

I have always looked to India as one of the voices of reason and was concerned after the Mumbai bombings -- Fomenters are everywhere --


here are a few small steps one can take --

ADC-NY http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=2557
The New York Chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
http://www.aaiusa.org/ Arab-American Institute often has "take action"pages as well as up to the date information

Salaam --


Take MORE Action! There are three things we are asking you do to help:

1 - Contact your Elected Representatives
2 - Respond to Biased Media Coverage
3 - Spread the Word

Contact your Elected Representatives:
How much of a difference will this make? Your representative will know that their constituency has a voice - that ALWAYS makes a difference.

Please take 15 minutes out of your day to make the following calls:
1 - NY Senator Shumer's Office: (212) 688-6262/ (202) 224-6542
2 - NY Senator Clinton's Office: (212) 486-4430/ (202) 224-4451
3 - NJ Senator Lautenburg's Office: (973) 639-8700/ (202) 224-3224
4 - NJ Senator Menendez's Office: (973) 645-3030/ (202) 224-4744
5 - Your other members of congress. To find out who your reps are, enter your zip code on the following link to identify your representatives in the House: http://capwiz.com/adc/dbq/officials/

For talking points, please see bottom of email.

Respond to Biased Media Coverage:
The mainstream media has been for the most part typically biased in their coverage of the crisis. When you see a biased story, on TV, radio or print write them an email or call - irresponsible media coverage must be addressed and held accountable to the truth.

To get an email address or phone number of almost any U.S media outlet please visit the following link: http://capwiz.com/arab/dbq/media/

Spread the Word:
Please forward this message to your friends and family. It is critical for our collective energy be channeled productively to respond to this tragedy.

Thank you,

The Network of Arab-American Professionals of New York
www.naaponline.org/ny | naap-ny@naaponline.org | 212.592.4052

Talking Points
These brief talking points have been extrapolated from multiple sources, including AAI and ADC alerts. Please use them as a guide.
· Balanced American intervention needed NOW: Balanced American involvement is needed more than ever to stop the violence and to protect the innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza from undue pain and suffering.
· Israeli aggression targets civilian infrastructure: Israel has killed over 300 innocent civilians, destroyed dozens of homes, demolished bridges, power stations, grain depots, highways and ports, for the stated purpose of freeing two Israeli soldiers captured in combat.
· This is yet another example of Israel’s use of collective punishment in violation of international law. Many of these Israeli attacks on civilian populations are with US weapons, in violation of the US Arms Export Control Act.
· The capture of 3 Israeli soldiers in Lebanon/Gaza does not justify the destruction of the infrastructure and the collective punishment of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians by Israel.
· It is important to note, that there are over 10,000 Arab political prisoners in Israeli jails who do not have the benefit of due process.
__________________________________________________

I just cannot remember that theme song from 'The Love Boat . . .'

'The love boat, do do, do do, do do do do,
the love boat, do do do, do do, do do . . .
the love boat . . .'

or what about that other grand old elevator song; 'love is in the air . . .'

O well, any way: BACK TO BUSINESS!

Here is a good article at counterpunch dot org: "The Economics of Creative Destruction: The Iraq War is a Huge Success" July, 21st, By ASEEM SHRIVASTAVA

Uh-huh! Evil war-mongering capitalists!!!!!!!!

(and Tao, you better be nice to Steve b/c he will empty out the local Masonic Temple on you man, o yeah: ar-rrrrrrrr) he-he

peace

That's why I love you Craig!!! I liked your ditti re: Thoragni, I'm telling you bro, you need to find youself a writing gig, it's too good.

Racist, well never been called that before.

Actually Taoster, what really gets me racist is spiritual arrogance. It just doesn't suit you. Stop it! You have such a thin skin, just relax a bit, have a laugh, I'm sure behind the Master Chang facade, you probably are a decent guy, just don't try so hard. OK?

And, I'll do the same.

Cheers and Craig, keep on truckin....

Steve

Hello Kanika and Everyone,

I mentioned earlier that as kids we had a lot of fights in our neighborhood. Really, we were only about 10, 11, 12years old at the time. When I talked about "dirty fighting" as something we instinctively understood to be wrong, what we were instivnctively picking up on was Hate. In our fighting (more like sparring) there was never any hate toward one another, hate was never an issue, but there were those, very few, who brought hate to the mix and they were always the ones who would hit to really hurt someone. Instinctively the group of kids knew not to mess with "hate." Hate was bigger than we were and we didn't know how to deal with it, so we simply didn't, we ignored it and it didn't hang around for long.

Now, I know folks are not going to like this statement but in the fighting between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah it is no longer about prisoners, land, occupation, and, really, it hasn't been for a very long time, what it is really about, is Hate. A hate that could have been resolved if it were not for the "manufacturing plants" of Islamic extremists. These manufacturing plants pay a good wage for any and all who work for them and the CEO's and CFO's of the plants are some of the most gifted manipulators in today's world. These men are to be feared, and if you do not realize that, you have your head in the clouds.

toastmaster, I will save you the trouble, I could very will be an ignorant loud mouth that is full of -hit. I hope I am.

This fight in Lebanon is between the forces of hate and the forces of tolerance, nothing else. It is easy to mistake the Israeli's military power for a symbol of hate, but, in this, you would be wrong. Yes, you can use military force and still be the force of tolerance. Contemplate that.

I am concerned, so many people are suffering, but what I am more concerned with- is the fact that HATE could be the victor in this fight while the World, once again, misses the point.

Hello Everyone,

Once more thing, sorry, I am such a nag.

Last night on Larry King, Kofi Annan made mention of the "excessive force" of the Israeli military in this situation. Israel was attacked by a terrorist organization that sits comfortably on it's borders, building it's arsenal of weapons that are on the ready to attack. Now, if any other Nations had this situation on it's borders, say France, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, this terrorist organiztion would have been disarmed out of existence by now, it would not have been able to sit comfortably, biding it's sweet time, but since it is Israel, which, the World thinks (by it's non-action towards Hamas and Hezbollah) is still up for grabs in the MIDEAST, it is okay, therefore, it is allowed.

Kofi seems like a fine distinquished human being who would do much better say, in France, holding diplomatic dinner parties for the "in crowd," those who speak quietly, dress impeccably and love discussing, and discussing, and discussing whatever, over lunch, then cocktails, then dinner.
Kofi needs to be replaced.

dear Ruth

it's my sense that Israel is overreacting to the provocation on its borders. i'm not on the ground, so perhaps i have no way to judge this accurately. but it's a fact that the damage being inflicted on Lebanon far exceeds that being inflicted on Israel. how do you explain that?

love, heather

Ruth,

Boaz is a gentle and loving lord I know, but kick his butt once in a while!

While I empathize with your allegiance to the Israelites, I also empathize with the Arabs . . .

You know, perhaps the most significant thing that has struck me the last few days, is that not only does the United States provide state of the art weaponry to Israel, we also sell Arabia weapons also;

to put it bluntly, 'ours' is a war economy, and while there are wars, the Rothschilds, the Cheneys', and the Boeings', make more money funding and supplying those wars;

all the while while protecting the diamond mines, gold mines, sugar plantations, and oil fields:

and the intense hatred Arabs and Jews seem to have for one another, is in no way mitigated by people continually providing new and improved weapon systems,

war will never make peace sister, and in this regard I truly believe we are all getting played . . .

In other words, there is no profit to be made with peace . . .

epitomizing the timeless adage, 'war is peace.'

May the Lord keep us all.

peace

Dear Heather,

Israel has a terrorist organization sitting on it's border with one purpose and that is to attack Israel whenever it chooses. It is not sitting there waiting to play patty-cake. Unfortunately, it has burrowed itself into the civilian population and uses this population as shields for it's insurgency activities. Israel must disarm this threat. I do not know how you do that gently.

One thing, if the Secretary General of the United Nations was truly concerned about the "excessive force" being used while trying to disarm these terrorists he should stand firm and help in the disarming, as should all the other Nations crying deep concern. I would say to them quit crying and do your jobs. Disarm terrorist organizations, enforce your resolutions, ACT RESONSIBILITY and save the lives of the innocent, becuase YOU DO have the power to do it. Quit making Israel the bad guy in these situations.

Love, Ruth

dear Ruth

going from end to start... i'm not making Israel the bad guy here, they are acting the bad guy here.

in the American Revolution, the highly-trained and equipped Brits were beaten by raggletaggle American revolutionaries because the Americans fought a guerilla war, in part. for the Brits to have won that one, they'd have needed to get within the population, and fight from within. same is true with US-Iraq now, with US now in the Brit role. heavy force against residential populations with imbedded terrorists or other fighters does not work unless one is willing to destroy the innocent residents, too, and this is the approach Israel is taking. does that make it right? nope.

what is the balance of a few rockets coming into Israel compared with the force Israel is using on innocents in Lebanon now? there are issues having to do with death counts that are valid. if the 2004 tsunami had killed 500 people (as the recent one did) would the world have felt such horror as it did? no. everyone knows some of us die every day, for whatever reason, and the reason is usually unfair to each person who dies. it is valid to count the number of deaths. there is a balance that needs to be looked at, and Israel is upsetting the balance right now.

here's a local metaphor: if you're picking up your child from school, and he lets go of your hand and is struck by a car in the street, you would be devastated and enraged, and it would be very very unfair, and you might have reason to prosecute the driver, depending on how the driver contributed to the accident. but if you and all your friends picked up all your children from school, and they all let go of all your hands, and all darted into the streets and were all struck by cars, the immensity of the tragedy would grow. each parent would be as hurt as you would be -- and all of you together would be hurt on behalf of all of you.

Israel is creating new, deep, painful, hard-to-heal wounds in the hearts and lives of many many innocents in Lebanon right now. the action is not necessary. and politically, it will be profoundly counter-productive.

sorry if this is not too lucid, i'm still very tired, and it's the best i can do right now with such a heavy subject.

love, heather

Hello everyone,
I have been following this blog for a while. Up till now I never felt like putting a comment (also as my english is maybe not that great).
All I wanted to tell you is that I've friends (all civilians) locked in these events on both ends - and I fear for them likewise in my heart.
But my mind is tells me the following :
on July 22nd - 22h Paris time
Casualties in Lebanon 350 including 340 civilians
Casualties in Israel 33 including 15 civilians
so statisticaly speaking my friends in Lebanon have more chances to get hurt than in Israel.
I don't care who is to blame on that situation - all I prey for is to have all my friends savely back round me. As well as wish for those who are living in situations like that, and who have to put up with whatever life brings them, have them back to their families and friends save.
Thank all of you to include them in your prayers

dear Ruth

Ida's comment says it all, for me. it's time for this action to stop, and human minds and good intentions to start the very hard work of making a real peace.

love, heather

Dear Ruth,

Why not make Israel agree to a palestine state which is contiguous, with water and economically and politically viable? We can all then call for the eradication of hizbullah - which itself was created as a reaction out of tion.

Alexander Cockburn writes: " You can say that Israel brought Hezbollah into the world. You can prove it too, though this too involves another frightening excursion into history.

This time we have to go far, almost unimaginably far, back into history. Back to 1982, before the dinosaurs, before CNN, before Fox TV, before O’Reilly and Limbaugh. But not before the neo-cons who at that time had already crawled from the primal slime and were doing exactly what they are doing now: advising an American president to give Israel the green light to “solve its security problems” by destroying Lebanon.

In 1982 Israel had a problem. Yasir Arafat, headquartered in Beirut, was making ready to announce that the PLO was prepared to sit down with Israel and embark on peaceful, good faith negotiations towards a two-state solution.

Israel didn’t want a two-state solution, which meant -- if UN resolutions were to be taken seriously -- a Palestinian state right next door, with water, and contiguous territory. So Israel decided chase the PLO right out of Lebanon. It announced that the Palestinian fighters had broken the year-long cease-fire by lobbing some shells into northern Israel.

Palestinians had done nothing of the sort. I remember this very well, because Brian Urquhart, at that time assistant secretary general of the United Nations, in charge of UN observers on Israel’s northern border, invited me to his office on the 38th floor of the UN hq in mid-Manhattan and showed me all the current reports from the zone. For over a year there’d been no shelling from north of the border. Israel was lying.

With or without a pretext Israel wanted to invade Lebanon. So it did, and rolled up to Beirut. It shelled Lebanese towns and villages and bombed them from the air. Sharon’s forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla.

The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times -- 2.42 and 3.38 -- of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine.

When the dust settled over the rubble, Israel bunkered down several miles inside Lebanese sovereign territory, which it illegally occupied, in defiance of all UN resolutions, for years, supervising a brutal local militia and running its own version of Abu Graibh, the torture center at the prison of Al-Khiam.

Occupy a country, torture its citizens and in the end you face resistance. In Israel’s case it was Hezbollah, and in the end Hezbollah ran Israel out of Lebanon, which is why a lot of Lebanese regard Hezbollah not as terrorists but as courageous liberators. "

Read this too (from the same article)

"Now Israel says it wants to wipe out Hezbollah. It wishes no harm to the people of Lebanon, just so long as they’re not supporters of Hezbollah, or standing anywhere in the neighborhood of a person or a house or a car or a truck or a road or a bus or a field, or a power station or a port that might, in the mind of an Israeli commander or pilot, have something to do with Hezbollah. In any of those eventualities all bets are off. You or your wife or your mother or your baby get fried.

Israel regrets… But no! As noted above, it doesn’t regret in the least. Neither does George Bush, nor Condoleezza Rice nor John Bolton who is the moral savage who brings shame on his country each day that he sits as America’s ambassador (unconfirmed) at the UN and who has just told the world that a dead Israel civilian is worth a whole more in terms of moral outrage than a Lebanese one. "

Now, now Ruth do you regret?

Ruth - You might be interested to read this too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are the “enemies of the Jewish state”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will damn America for all time in history." - By Paul Craig Roberts

Tell me Ruth, who (else) posses hate? Larry Kudlow , David Horowitz , Norman Podhoretz .....

Good Morning Everyone,

Do not have much time to write, but I think it is safe to say 90 percent of the World would like this conflict to end and for both sides to finally make a peace pact that would nurture all involved.

Just an aside, to me, there is no more excessive force, in the World today, than the manipulative skill of a mind that can persuade children,young men and women to don a vest of explosives in order for them to blow themselves up- in a reataurant, theater, shopping mall, bus, etc., this act, to me, just has no comparison, when it comes to excessive force.

Peace is sure to come.ruth

{{{{Naj}}}}

The only reason Steve and Ruth sidestep the argument is because they cannot win it.

Ignorant fools.

President Emile Lahoud speaks with CNN:

ROBERTSON: If you were to call on the army now to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, to stop Israel therefore attacking Lebanon. Would that divide the army along sectarian lines? Would the Shiites in the army go with Hezbollah?

LAHOUD: In the first place, I wouldn't give such an order. Believe me, Hezbollah has done a lot for Lebanon in liberating this land. ... Hezbollah is part of the government.

REad the full interview at http://us.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/cnna.lahoud/index.html

So to sum up your long winded position Naj,

you are pro-Hezbollah and
anti-Israel, yes or no?

Steve

Dear Steve,

It is not a case of pro or anti. To ask such a question is rather a simplification of the issue.

It is about the right of a people to exist. Their right to have a decent life. It is about palestine, it is about lebanon, it is about israel. It is about the people living in these teritories.

Have you read the interview fully? I will quote from that interview again, which articulate my position well:

"I hope ... that we solve this problem before it escalates and then we can't stop it. Believe me, violence brings violence, and it will be a cycle that no one will be able to get out of and everybody will lose. If Israel thinks it's going to win, it's very mistaken. You cannot solve things and have peace in the region with violence. It might be now they have all this weaponry. But what about the children and the people who have brothers and sisters now dying? Well, they're pushing them to, really, well, they don't have anything to lose. For them, their life is nothing, so whatever will do to them. In the future they will seek revenge. So the only way [is] to stop the firing right now for the good of everybody"

Let me ask you a few more simple question Naj:

What would happen if PLO,Hamas, and Hezbollah suddently stopped their rocket attacks and disarmed on their own, unilaterally?

or

What would happen if Isarel disarmed unilaterally?

What would happen if Hamas recognized Israel?

If Hamas and Hezbollah insist on the desire for a decent life, then why do they say that they love death more than israel loves life?

Isn't this a culture of death whose main goal is the destrucion of Isael Naz?

Otherwise why would they allow young chidren and women to carry out suicide missions,

Steve

Comments Naj?

MYTH

“Palestine was always an Arab country.”

FACT
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

Naj, why would the well known writer Mark Twain(pre-NeoCon) write something like this in 1867 which was still under Ottoman Empire rule , pre-Israel:

Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as: “...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere

Steve,

"What would happen if PLO,Hamas, and Hezbollah suddently stopped their rocket attacks and disarmed on their own, unilaterally?"

- If there is somebody who understand this gesture on the other side, peace will previal.

"What would happen if Isarel disarmed unilaterally?"

- Refer the answer above.

"What would happen if Hamas recognized Israel?"

- Not sure

"If Hamas and Hezbollah insist on the desire for a decent life, then why do they say that they love death more than israel loves life?"

- Becoz the see no light at the end of the tunnel. Proof: YOu can find such statements from the annals of history of those countries who fought for independence from its colonial rulers. Am I calling these terrorists freedom fighters ? What matters here is not mine or your opinion. It is the opinion of those who lived in such countries under such rulers. Read the President's statement.

" Isn't this a culture of death whose main goal is the destrucion of Isael Naz?"

- Israel as we know it now came to existence some 50 over years ago. Hizbullah was created in response to the invasion of lebanon on a false pretext, to emphasise, which is a lie. Why create a situation where people will protest with the available means and then cry aloud ?

"Otherwise why would they allow young chidren and women to carry out suicide missions"

- Let the President speak again. "Believe me, violence brings violence, and it will be a cycle that no one will be able to get out of and everybody will lose. If Israel thinks it's going to win, it's very mistaken. You cannot solve things and have peace in the region with violence. It might be now they have all this weaponry. But what about the children and the people who have brothers and sisters now dying? Well, they're pushing them to, really, well, they don't have anything to lose. For them, their life is nothing, so whatever will do to them. In the future they will seek revenge. "

dear Naj

the points you make in 90, esp. your last one, are very valid. your last point is the key to this conflict's continuing. unless Israel opens its mind to the suffering it's inflicted/inflicting, and the reactions the actions create, and then decides to back down, things will only get worse.

love, heather

Steve,

I did not get the intention of the other two posts. Are you saying that palestinians have no right to exist in the land, since it was not called Palestine before? There are many countries in the present world, which was part of some other coutries. YOu do not need examples, do you?

to update Ida's comment 77, this in the NY Times this afternoon, after minibus hit with 3 more civilians killed in Lebanon:

"...The deaths brought to at least 380 the official death toll provided by Lebanese authorities. Israel's death toll stands at 36, with 17 people killed by Hezbollah rockets and 19 soldiers killed in fighting..."

for those who can't count, that's 30 more deaths in Lebanon to 3 more in Israel. the imbalance continues to grow, by 10 to 1 today, the ratio is continuing the same as it has been: for each 1 Israeli killed, 10 Lebanese are killed.

So Heather,

Hezbollah doesn't need to open to the suffering it inflicts knowing that by hiding weapons in apartment buildings will surely cause innocent deaths? They have 10,000 rockets and surely intend to launch as many as they can, taking no care as to where they land.

No Naj, it's clear that you don't understand me and I don't understand you, especially since you think that if Hezbollah would understand Israel's gesture of unilateral disarmament, then this would lead to peace. This would be an open invitation to simply come in and destroy the country Naj, not the other way around. When Israel is not attacked , they don't bomb, period.

Let's see how this turns out, I pray it ends soon Naj, and I wish you all the best wherever you are, thanks for the back and forth, and hope we meet up again.

Shalom and Saalam

Steve

Shalom and salaam to you too, Steve.

Dear Heather,

Thanks. I firmly believe that only when we have courageous leaders on both sides who are able to break the current paradigm, we will have peace. There was some opportunity during Anwar Sadat's time. But he was assassinated by his own people, like Gandhi.

Steve, you seem to be implying that if a terrorist hides himself or weapons amoungst innocent people, it is ok for the Iraelis to kill them.

I have just watched the result of such action, young children dying with horrific wounds, some burnt from head to toe.

As for your comment that Isreal does not attack unless attacked, tell me why there are thousand of women and children held in israeli jails without trial. It seems that is is ok for Isreal to take thousands of prisoners with impuntiy but when hamas or hezbollah takes three, Israel lashes out killing many innocent people.

Is it ok that Israel justifies its actions saying that others should observe UN resolutions but yet it ignores the SCORES of UN resolutions against itself.

This war has killed approx 400 lebonese, the vast majority being innocent and almost a third were children under 12.

The Iraelis kill many more innocent palestinians
each year than are killed by suicide bombers in Israel. Three times as many.

The press in America tells you a very specific story. I have been watching both American news and European news for quite a while and the difference is just staggering. Your news is sanitized to bring about a certain agenda.

People outside the US are seeing a much more balanced view and the majority are horrified with the way the US and Israel are behaving in all of this.

I live in Ireland and grew up with this problem
The British and Irish governments brought the problem to a peaceful conclusion,without blowing hundreds of children to pieces. I KNOW there there is a different way that works. Perhaps we should open up to that.

Mary

Mary,

I listen to National Public Radio in the U.S.

and I too hear the ugly news.

They send brave reporters to the front lines and

do live interviews with people such as Zena.

The day they ordered evacuations, a family of 9

trying to leave town was blown to bits by a rocket

from a helicopter. They were talking to another family

who had left with them and were close behind at the time.

This lady was horrified and confused.

"They told us to leave and we were! Why this?"

It bothered me all throughout the day.

From her voice you could tell she was honest.

At least I believed her.

We can only hope they were not following an order.

We'll never know...

Hey Steve, are you "relaxed"? Having "a bit of a laugh". Good, then this should tickle you.

Firstly, there were no countries in Greater Arabia before the 1st World War. Greater Arabia was a vast expanse defined largely by its ethnicity which was Semite and Arab (they are the same you know - although you may not) but for the sake of argument, mainly Arab. The various regions in Greater Arabia had names and Palestine has been Palestine or Syria Palestinia for thousands of years. It was not a sovereign country, a state or a clearly demarcated kingdom, but it was a region. Much the same as the Champagne or Provencal regions of France, or the Lake District in Britain, or Kurdistan. Kurdistan is not a country but a historical region inhabited by Kurds.

Palestine is a historical region/area inhabited for the most part by Palestinian Arabs. What identifies them as Palestinian is that they are indigenous to the area/region, unlike most of the European and American Jews currently living on their land and in their homes.

Secondly, I am not sure if you are trying to justify the existence of Israel with your list of "Facts" or not. But if you are, let us use your own logic. This is the second "occupation" of the region by Jews. The first was back in your bible stories and lasted more than 400 years! and this recent one has been in existence for more than fifty years. So the question is, whose land was it for the other three or four thousand years? Are they not the rightful owners and inheritors? Using your argument, should the land not be rightfully given the Syrians?

Oh no, there's that small detail - God said you could have it.

Do you also believe in Adam and Eve and that the Earth was built in seven days?

The example of "terrorists on your doorstep" by you and Ruth don't wash because the British for example never handled the Irish and the IRA in this manner. The Indians do not bomb the crap out of Kashmir every time there is a separatist bombing. These are only labeled terrorists because it is morally and politically convenient for you to do so. Sharon was a "terrorist". Mandela was a "terrorist". These sorts of examples have been offered up to you and your inflexible mind time and again. It's b/s. These are legitimate groups with legitimate and serious grievances. What won the terrorist war with the IRA was dialogue not carpet bombing.

Hamas won the election because the people trust them to do good and not be corrupt. Not because Hamas hates Israel. That's a given but not a policy. A large and substantial number of the Scotts hate the English but they don't have a hostile aggressive government.

Also, Naj is quite correct. These massively provocative acts of terror by Israel always occur during times when the Palestinians are offering a reasonable deal, Israel then literally blows the deal out of the water.

As someone has already pointed out, all that has been achieved this past couple of weeks is that Israel has further sewn the seeds of war and hatred for generations to come.

Taomaster,

Thanks for opposite page of the history book.

Ambasteve is not mean-spirited!

I happen to believe he intends good-will to all.

As I believe you do, having read many of your posts.

The longer I live the more I have to remind myself,

that I'm not there, I am here.

I cannot therefore be a judge in the matter.

Nor do we allow judges to make decisions if they

have a personal stake in the outcome.

It is difficult, this detachment we speak of,

when the attachments are friends and relatives.

Nevertheless, we have a right to vote here and

many choose not to exercise that right.

For those of us who do, how shall we know the real Truth?

Kanika,

Your thinking and reaction of the analogy is correct. But you lack understanding the complexity of the situation and analogy. Gathering the neighbours and suing the dog's owner is history. Israel has crossed that stage 10 years back. India is about to cross that stage as well but the terror attacks will not stop.

Do you beleive that intervention of UN and other countries will put a halt to all the suicide bomber factories that operate across the global millitant islamic plethora. I have asked earlier as well, why don't we see Jewish suicide bombers blowing up women and children in Islamic countries. The reason is simple it is difficult to find one and reason him into doing such acts of terror. But on the other hand it is very easy to brainwash a muslim youth into doing such acts in the name of holy war. So kanika what in your terms would an international community do to prevent the brain/psyche of this youth to become a sucide bomber, and hate everything non-muslim.

Kanika look at Indian democracy.....what do we do with the terrorists. Has anyone been convicted so far......the answer is none. The person who shot dead 9 unarmed airforce officers in kashmir is roaming scottfree and globehopping. The terrorist who killed around 100 hindus in cold blood in kashmir is still on trial even after acknowledging on national television that he stopped counting after he killed 41. How do you change the psychology of such people, they have no fear and no deterrence. It has been proven that democracy and democratic set up cannot counter terrorism or wipe out terrorism. India pakistan talks have been going on for decades with all the international preassure on pakistan, yet you see people getting blown up to smithrens in trains. Please go into the history of the conflict and the history of hezbollah, and then tell me what has the international community done to prevent such acts since last decade. where does hezbollah get all the rockets it fires into haifa and other cities in Israel.

You have to remember that Israeli forces are targetting hezbollah millitary installations only which they have tactically built in civilian areas to cause a lot of collateral damage. And what is hezbollah doing, they are primarily targetting civilians, innocent people. This is not acceptable to the world, there has to be a stop somewhere.

You have to strike at the roots to create fear and deterrence. You cannot sue a person who doesn't beleive in law. You cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. So what do you do in such a situation when you are continously being wounded since 5 decades and face annihalition if you don't act in deterrence.

How many posts or blogs have been written against hezbollah since last ten years. Most people don't even fully know what it is all about and all its nefarious activities.

regards

Amit

The Islamic threat is greater than German and Soviet threats were
By Dennis Prager

Only four types of individuals can deny the threat to civilization posed by the violence-supporting segment of Islam: the willfully naive, America-haters, Jew-haters and those afraid to confront evil.
Anyone else sees the contemporary reality -- the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan; the widespread Muslim theological and emotional support for the killing of a Muslim who converts to another religion; the absence of freedom in Muslim-majority countries; the widespread support for Palestinians who randomly murder Israelis; the primitive state in which women are kept in many Muslim countries; the celebration of death; the "honor killings" of daughters; and so much else that is terrible in significant parts of the Muslim world -- knows that civilized humanity has a new evil to fight.

Just as previous generations had to fight Nazism, communism and fascism, our generation has to confront militant Islam.

And whereas there were unique aspects to those evils, there are two unique aspects to the evil emanating from the Islamic world that render this latest threat to humanity particularly difficult to overcome.

One is the number of people who believe in it. This is a new phenomenon among organized evils. Far fewer people believed in Nazism or in communism than believe in Islam generally or in authoritarian Islam specifically. There are one billion Muslims in the world. If just 10 percent believe in the Islam of Hamas, the Taliban, the Sudanese regime, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, bin Ladin, Islamic Jihad, the Finley Park Mosque in London or Hizbollah -- and it is inconceivable that only one of 10 Muslims supports any of these groups' ideologies -- that means a true believing enemy of at least 100 million people. Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism? Outside of Japan, who believed in Japanese imperialism and militarism? And outside of universities, the arts world or Hollywood, how many people believed in Soviet-style totalitarianism?

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones.

But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.

The existence of an unprecedentedly large number of people wishing to destroy decent civilization as we know it -- and who celebrate their own deaths -- poses a threat the likes of which no civilization in history has had to confront.

The evils committed by Nazism and Communism were, of course, greater than those committed by radical Islam. There has been no Muslim Gulag and no Muslim Auschwitz.

But the threat is far more serious.

Prager is just a wee little mad . . .

Mary has the right idea.

the real cost of Israel's present action is being born by innocent Lebanese.

at least in the US, the NY Times' reporting has not been sanitized. i haven't been watching TV much lately. i was shocked yesterday morning to catch a major US TV network world new broadcast with the same old Israeli-biased reporting. in the TV broadcast, everything was about Israel's goals and suffering, and nothing was mentioned of Lebanon but Hezbollah and terrorism.

i check the NY Times on the web several times a day. they're reporting with stunning (and often bloody) photos of what's happening in Lebanon, and stories that are telling the reality as it is, not as the US wants us to hear. if you live in the US and want to know the real story, NYTimes.com is one place to get started with it.

Well Keith, I believe I am unveiling the true ambasteve.

I go about my life, travelling freely to most contries inthe world. I shop. I eat. I enjoy the local entertainment and culture. I have never felt any threat from Islam anywhere. I am not Moslem. I am not Jewish. I am not of any denomination. I am white, blue eyed. Where is this terrible threat Steve?

Man, I have never read so much b/s in my life. Is that the media you subscribe to?

And you ask the question

"Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism?"

Take a look at your own source article for some clues.

Incredible!

Why do you post here, Steve? Did the Jewish lobby send you? Do you even know what Nazism means?

Amit

You ask "why don't we see Jewish suicide bombers blowing up women and children in Islamic countries".

They have so much to lose. Their life. Their potential. Their future. Their family and loved ones. The land they have seeded. The freedom and liberty they enjoy. The society that nurtures them. Their dignity. Their pride. Their sense of worth.

For the Palestinian suicide bomber all these things have been lost. He or she has lost their home, driven out by terror. They have lost their liberty and live in vertual detention camps. They have nearly always lost their dearest loved ones. They have no jobs, no prospects, no future other than more oppression and misery. They live in squalor and with total despair. There is nothing left to be lost and only one thing to be gained. Revenge.

Hatred is not something born out of ideology or race. It is manufactured through torment. The tormented comes to hate the tormentor and all who support and embrace the tormentor.

Israel is the oppressor, it has no need for self sacrifice when it so easily sacrifices the children of its enemy.

Palestine and now again Lebanon are the oppressed and tormented.

Thank you Israel and the USA for manufacturing so much hate in the world. No doubt it feeds and sustains your evil gods.

Keith:

"Nor do we allow judges to make decisions if they

have a personal stake in the outcome."

I have no stake in this outcome. If Israel were being attacked with the same indiscriminate barbarity by any state army and unable to defend itself, I would be equally outraged. I am seeing this for what it is. I achieved detachment a long time ago, spiritually. However, you should not confuse detachment with indifference or apathy.

I have a well informed mind Keith. I know the history, I know the Bible and the Koran, as well as other more worthy faiths, so I know where "right" is and can tell the difference between right and wrong without the distortions of allegiance.

Being squarely detached, I have eyes in my head and I can see what is happening.

It is not important that I win the argument. It is important to stop the criminal suffering imposed on innocent people. Period.

Nut case.

Heather,

You really should check out: http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

You won't find any Israeli bias there, enjoy.

"evil god" Taomaster, nope I'm not going away, no sir.

Enjoy your week, and the Jewish Lobby sends there regards :)

Bet you didn't know Craig that the Lobby pays me 500k a year to blog here, har har har! Mad !

Steve

Ruth,

The reality is that everyone that is involved is responsible, the Jews, the Isrealis, the Lebonese, the Palastinians, the US, the Syrians, etc and all of us who project our energy onto it.

We are all responsible. And until we stop blaming the other side it will not stop.

The victim cannot exist without the bully and the bully cannot exist without the victim.

So both bully and victim need so examine and own their own end of this. And those of us on the sidelines need to project some peace.

Shanti,

Mary

dear Steve

no, that's not for me, i look for less bias -- try the NYTimes.com reporting -- see what you see.

love, heather

Good Morning Taomaster,

Sorry for the mistake the other day, calling you toastmaster, really, I must have had food on the brain.

Nut case? Me?

Listen, I am not the one who is running an organization persuading my friends, neighbors, and children, of both, to "martyr" themselves for nothing. It is not my picture plastered all over bill boards, in every home, having people bow to my image, and calling myself the "leader of the party of God." I am not the one who came up with the idea of self-detonation as a means to an end, the complete, and, total end, not of an "occupation," but of a People.

I am just a blogger trying to persuade a change of perspective, and I haven't even called you a "not so nice" name in the process. Nuts? Me? I don't think so. Mistaken, maybe.

Mary, yes, in a larger sense we are all responsible, but in the immediate sense, Hezbollah, is responsible, and, really, it is important to be clear about this, if we ever want to end these kind of situations.

Peace everyone.ruth(god, I think my bullheadness is starting to get to, even, myself, but I do feel the importance of a clear perspective if you want to end needless suffering)

Tm,

Please come back and sound like one for one post,

just so we know you don't take your name in vain.

I know better than to get into political discussions.

It's jusMe, trying to keep the Peace right here!

You do yourself no justice with off-hand remarks.

I learned the hard way...

Where are you from?

I think some are assuming you are a U.S. citizen.

Clarify if it pleases you to do so.

It helps our perspective.

Nice to meet you!

Keith

do what?

Are you a school teacher? If you are, I don't believe I am your student.

And don't get so hung up on my handle. Clearly I don't. If I used "superman" would you think I sat at my keyboards in blue lycra and a red cape?

He who plays the part conforms to the role, the rules and the expectations. Call him Guru.
The true master does not need to conform, he does not need a following, therefore he does not need approval to do His Work.

If what is in front of you is obscure to you, what hope have you of discovering that which is concealed from you?

You don't keep the peace by getting everyone to fall into line, Keith. That is control, not peace; and that is your issue, not mine.

Ruth

Mistaken = without question

Deluded - Clearly

Nuts - Let me check with Keith if that is allowed.

Hi Heather,

I mainly like Thomas L. Friedman at the NYTimes.
Do you read blogs?

Yes, the world is as we are

Peace,

Steve

Tm,

I didn't think I sounded that fiesty.

I'm no teacher, although I do have two little kids.

You may say whatever you feel like saying.

You may call me names, too, if you must.

No big deal...I butted in, my bad.

Your name is secret, as is your residence.

No big deal...I asked too personal a question.

Now, who is going to believe anything you post?

Do you call yourself impartial for a reason?

You have no preferences? So long then...

#107 taomaster, you speakth the truth.

Friedman? The guy who's every word spits the hate and nothing but the hate?

ruth, you seem to have been captured by the enemy, the enemy within.

Lord have mercey.

Dear Taomaster,
Your thinking is grossly negative and pessimistic. God forbid if the world go as per your idealogy and thinking then.......the entire japanese populace should become suicide bombers against america. The entire jewish community should become suicide bombers against the germans. All the tutsi's should become suicide bombers against the hutu's and this will keep going on on and on. All i can say your thinking not only reflects lack of reason but is pure idiotic. We cannot continue living in the past, but have to look towards the future. AND TERRORISM IS NO WAY TO FIGHT A WAR. BLOWING UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN IS NO WAY TO FIGHT A WAR.
People with your kind of thinking are responsible for the crisis. Terrorism and terrorist activities have to be ended. People of this world cannot continue to live in fear of being blown up by islamic bombers.

regards

Amit

Amit

The one who is struggling with reason is not me. The nations you quote are all currently enjoying their liberty and freedom. They are not under occupation. They are not being oppressed.

That does not mean to say that some of them do not harbour ill feeling towards their old enemies. Neither does it mean that they will never vent their anger through terror or war on their old enemies.

All the problems in the Balkans are rooted in the the last world wars. All the problems in Iraq, Israel and Palestine are also rooted in the things the US and its allies did in carving up the Middle East without consulting the locals.

And the terrorist acts of 9/11 were not acted out in a vacume of hatred. They were motivated by the reaction to American foreign policy in the Middle East and especially in Saudi Arabia.

All of these conflicts were a reaction from peoples who perceive themselves as oppressed, occupied, victimised, brutalised.

My reasoning as you can see is quite sound. For you and your masters it is easier to simplify it as good v evil and ofcourse the personal always sees themselves as good. The ego can rarely have it any other way. So a violent man can argue that violence is good because he IS violent. And so it goes...

Ignorance is its own best friend.

Sorry I meant "vacuum".

I didn't call you any names, Keith. Did I?

I always speak my mind. People are dying and darkness is overtaking the globe. I am not too concerned about crossing my t's and dotting my I's in these circumstances. If you read the bible, Jesus was equally expressive towards the poisonous snakes of his time. Although, I don't recommend the bible. It is heavily distorted and augmented by the political agendas of its authors.

Amit:

Look in the mirror

"BLOWING UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN IS NO WAY TO FIGHT A WAR."

Your words and what I have been saying all along.

Finally you agree with me.

please improve yourself..

Taomaster,
by hiding behind an alias you cannot justify what these terrorists have been doing since decades. DO YOU JUSTIFY ALL THE BOMBINGS CARRIED OUT ON CIVILIANS IN ISRAEL AND AROUND THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF HOLY JEHAD.
And do you justify all the activities of Hezbollah till date, because if you do then you too are unreasonable.
Don't talk about history for it still stinks of people like Al husseni who carried out mass genocides in the region which today are forgotten for good.

There is no place for any organization in this humanity whose foreign policy is to kill innocent people.

Taomaster i don't have any masters and i don't have anything against any community or sect but truth is truth. How can people ignore the facts and truth. The fact remains that there has to be an end to terrorism and terror tactics.

Any civilian casualities happening are unfortunate and must be prevented at any cost. But by hiding in populated areas and firing rockets on the neighbours what can we expect.

We all must pray for peace so that the suffering of innocent people who have got nothing do with either side of the conflict comes to an end. May the lord give courage and hope to everyone.

Amit

Hello Everyone,

I hope this is it for me, on this subject. I am really tired.

The UN humanitarian spokesman stated that Israel's response to this attack was "DISPRPORTIONATE." and, it seems, many are agreeing.

My problem with this.

Never once, since the first child or young adult strapped on an explosive vest, at the request of Hamas or Hezbollah, has anyone called this atrocious act a "DISPROPORTIONATE" response to their oppression, or to fighting an "occupation." NOT ONCE. Maybe, just maybe, if they did, the kind of terrorism we are experiencing in the World, today, would never have had a chance to blossom into the powerhouse it is today.

Homicide bombing got the A-okay by the United Nations years ago when it never considered the act a "Disproportionate" response, and the terrorist organizations took that as the "green light" of acceptance. The United Nations is as responsible, as anyone, for the suffering and lives lost in Lebanon today..peace ruth

It seems more desperate than disproportionate to most sound thinking people. That clearly excludes you.

On the day that a UN peace keeping force was tabled to act as a buffer in Southern Lebanon, with the nod of agreement from Olmert of Israel, who even thought an Arab peace keeping force would be workable! an Israeli jet bombed and destroyed a UN observation post killing 4 UN observers.

I guess that sent out a clear message.

Any volunteers?

Ruth,

I fully agree with you. The UN or the free world what you call it, has never put adequate preassure on rouge nation states to stop terror tactics. In fact failure to act on part of UN and other nations have resulted in mushroomed growth of sucide bomber factories right from gulf to india to sudan. people have to understand and comprehend the need and urgency to put an end to the fear that is always at the back of the minds of innocent people. The fear of getting blown to bits suddenly for no apparent reason. The fear of loss of life of loved ones. It is still unclear who is opressed and who is constantly living in fear.

If a dog goes on biting en elephant continously for a long time. There will obviously be a limit to the elephants tolerance. And yes the response will always be disproportinate.

regards

Amit

Hello Amit,

Do you think this could be an accurate interpretation of the terrorists thinking process?

One thing to know about Hezbollah and Hamas is that when they conceived the perfect weapon, homicied bombing, they realized that they would never be have to be held hostage to a Peace agreement, with anyone. Peace is not an issue for them. With time and patience and continued terror attacks the land they covet will be theirs, they believe, and they have sold this to many. After all, their weapon fears nothing, death is their reward. They have all the time in the world to accomplish their goal and when they rejected the Peace Accords at Camp David they new this. Constant warring is really to their benefit.peace ruth

Why didn't Kofi give the order to evacuate Taomaster? Such sadness and such stupidity on the part of the UN leadership. Very quick to blame.

Haifa, Israel (CNSNews.com) - The four United Nations peacekeepers killed in an Israeli attack on their outpost were required to stay at that post “until they were ordered by the [U.N.] secretary general to withdraw,” said a member of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization on Wednesday.

But the peacekeepers apparently never received such an order, despite the fierce cross-border fighting that erupted in southern Lebanon two weeks ago.

Here is a link to a very interesting article on why the US supports Israel.

www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

From Mary's link,

Why America supports Israel? The Jewish lobby, and no one is stopping the anti-Israel, I mean the pro- Arab lobby, I guess their money goes to other pursuits....

"In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier."

Yeah, but why all of a sudden it seems that wheels are in motions? They are not. The lobby is doing whatever they do, for long, but we have this God incarnate president and his pious desciples who have been planning this thing for a while ...

Oh yes the secret Cabal,

I forgot, it's all about Halliburton,

I just got the secret memo, thanks

no it's not about Halliburton, that's just a label. It is all about that green thing which is universally called money. Remember, you got to have it or else you'd come to a point when you'd kill me. Ahh, and don't forget the power it brings, you got to have that as well.

Hello Ruth,

The basic problem is that most people who comment on this conflict comment based on the current scenario. What they see on CNN......they see Israeli planes bombarding cities in lebnon and their hearts swell up with sympathy for the lebanese and even hezbollah. All these people have little knowledge about lebnon and all the activities of hezbollah. I am sure no one in here knows the objectives of Hezbollah and Hamas, although the Israeli millitary objectives are shown 10 times a day on CNN with 10 million people commeting and critising it. Ask any muslim around this globe even if he is illitrate he will tell you that the enemy of Islam is Israel. Yes that is the truth......all these terrorist organizations are using Islam as the most efficient tool to wipe out Israel. This cocktail of religious extremism and terror tactics is actually a warning sign which the whole world is ignoring.

What is Jehad????? Most non muslims who support hezbollah and lebnon don't know that. Why is the war against Israel a holy war for muslims????? No one cares. All people care is switch on CNN for 5 minutes get on the comp and shout wolf wolf.

People have no idea to what kind of a misinformation campaign and propaganda goes inside the muslim world. A whole gneration has been brough up on propaganda and lies who is ready to strap on explosives and kill civilians. They are brainwashed to such an extent they don't even realize what is war and what is terrosism. They are made to beleive that by blowing up women and children who are non muslims they are fighting a religious war and serving God. And yes a man does not kill himself unless he beleives what he is doing.

So what does the world do with the millions brainwashed minds who beleive in acts of terror.
Israel has a billion people blogging against it for a sustained systematic millitary operation with clear objectives. While as Hezbollah and hamas have a clean chit for suicide bombings, hijacking and kidnapping.

All these small bombings, hijacks and kidnapping incidents don't have much recall at the time when people watch CNN now a days.

Lebnon has allowed hezbollah to flourish since last two decades with a seat in the government as well. What steps has lebnese govt taken against hezbollah to prevent rockets being fired into Israel. This is not the first time that rockets are being fired into Israel from lebnon. where is the accountability of Lebnon. Why is not it being held responsible for the activities that are being carried from its soil.

Perhaps ignorance is a bliss for some people.

Amit

Hello Amit,

I agree, especially, about the fact that Hezbollah has been allowed to build it's military fortress, undettered for six years, in the comfy confines of the Lebanese government. I hate the devastation on innocent Lebanese civilians but as I said before I hold Hezbollah completely responsible.peace ruth

Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs -I was not raised with the dogma of being trained to become a suicide bomber but I was raised to always reveal the truth and fairness which clearly is not happening here- issues are getting jumbled and agendas get in the way and the truth once again distorted-perhaps from fear -- perhaps from one's own personal negative experiences -- however -- abridged history lessons to call all us Arabs brainwashed seems to come from some place of fear rather than reason or truth -- not to say propaganda does not happen -- it takes place everywhere -- including the US and Israel --everyone is guilty -- we are all complicit in some way --

CCR CONDEMNS HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS IN THE CURRENT MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT & CALLS ON BUSH TO STOP ARMING ISRAEL IN VIOLATION OF AMERICAN LAW

CCR Condemns Attacks on Civilians and Calls on All Parties to Abide by International Law


July 27, 2006, NEW YORK – Today the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) called for all parties to respect international humanitarian law in the current Middle East conflict and urged President Bush to halt the supply of weapons to Israel in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). In a letter to President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, CCR noted that defense articles provided to Israel are not being used for internal security or self defense purposes, as required by the AECA, and demanded that the President comply with his legal obligation to immediately cease all sales and deliveries of weapons to Israel. (The entire letter is below.)

CCR also released the following statement today regarding the conflict and international law violations:

In its 40 year history CCR has been a leading advocate of international law, including humanitarian law, or the “laws of war”. The bedrock principle of humanitarian law is the obligation to distinguish between civilian and military objectives in the conduct of armed conflict. That principle is being shamelessly violated by all parties to the current conflict, including Israel, Hezbollah, and other groups. However, any objective assessment of the facts on the ground must lead to the conclusion that Israel’s conduct cannot be equated in any way with that of its enemies but is vastly superior in its catastrophic consequences.

In waging war against the civilian population of Lebanon and its infrastructure, Israel is violating not only the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets, but also the principle of necessity, which forbids action greater than that required to achieve a military objective, the principle of proportionality, which forbids action disproportionate to the antecedent provocation, as well as the prohibition of collective punishment.

The media report hundreds of civilian casualties, many of whom are women and children. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Five hundred thousand persons have been made homeless or fled whatever homes may still be standing. These are war crimes, for which those responsible should be held to account.

The Prime Minister of Lebanon, who has distanced himself from the actions of Hezbollah, says his country is being torn to shreds and is appealing to the international community to put an end to the slaughter and destruction. The failure of the United States to respond to this appeal, on the ground that “a cease fire would solve nothing”, is unconscionable and makes the United States an accessory to the daily massacres in Gaza and Lebanon.

CCR does believe that until a just and equitable solution to the problems dividing Israel from its Palestinian and other Arab neighbors is reached, violence will be endemic to the region. But this does not justify the United States in effect giving Israel a green light to continue its assault on Gaza and Lebanon, while piously deploring “civilian casualties”.


CCR is currently handling two cases involving previous violations of humanitarian law by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Last year CCR brought a case on behalf of the victims of the 1996 shelling of the U.N. compound in Qana, in the south of Lebanon, which killed over 100 civilians and wounded hundreds more. Approximately 800 displaced civilians had sought shelter there from the shelling of their villages by the IDF. (Belhas v. Ya’alon, D.D.C., 05 Civ. 02167). The attack on Qana has disturbing parallels with Tuesday’s attack on a U.N. observation post that killed four U.N. observers. Israel claimed both attacks were accidental, despite the fact that each U.N. compound was clearly marked and had been there for many years, and that U.N. officials had contacted the IDF to tell them to stop shelling the area prior to the fatal attacks. Another case was brought by CCR on behalf of the victims of the bombing of the Al-Daraj neighborhood in Gaza in 2002, an attack that killed eight children and seven adults, and injured over 150 civilians. (Matar v. Dichter, S.D.N.Y., 05 Civ. 10270).

CCR has a long and effective record of working for human rights and international law around the world, including pioneering the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 to represent victims of human rights crimes anywhere in the world.

The entire text of the letter to President Bush is below.

July 27, 2006

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520

Re: Supply of Weapons to Israel in Violation of Arms Export Control Act

Dear President Bush and Secretary Rice,

I am writing regarding the weapons our Government is supplying to Israel in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). I write on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a non-profit organization that for over 40 years has been dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Defense articles provided to Israel are not being used for internal security or legitimate self-defense, as required by the AECA. The AECA prohibits sales or deliveries to a country that is in substantial violation of these authorized purposes. Rather than stopping the supply of weapons toIsrael, as required by law, the United States Government is reportedly rushing additional weapons to Israel – an act that will result in further loss of innocent lives. CCR demands that you comply with your legal obligation to immediately cease all sales and deliveries of those items to Israel.

As you know, the U.S. provides Israel with billions of dollars in weapons and military aid annually. Israel is using U.S. supplied defense articles to attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, not for its internal security or legitimate self-defense. It is reported that Israel is attacking civilians using combat aircraft and weapons manufactured in and supplied by the United States, including Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, and M-109 self-propelled 155mm artillery. Israel’s recent military campaign in Lebanon has already killed over 350 civilians and wounded more than 1,000 – nearly a third of whom are children. A major humanitarian crisis has resulted from the displacement of more than 500,000 people from their homes and the destruction of transportation infrastructure, power plants, and food and fuel sources. Israel is also shelling civilian areas and infrastructure in Gaza, including targeting a university and destroyingGaza’s main electricity plant. At least 100 Palestinians have been killed and more than 500 have been injured since Israel launched military operations in Gaza on June 28th.

Under U.S. and international law, attacks on civilians are prohibited under all circumstances. Moreover, Israel failed to exhaust, or even attempt, alternative means to respond to the capture of its soldiers, and instead is using collective punishment against entire civilian populations. Upon receiving information that defense articles have not been used for internal security or legitimate self-defense, the President or Secretary of State must promptly report to Congress that a violation may have occurred. On three occasions, prior Presidents have determined that Israel may have violated its legal obligations to the United States as a result of its use of U.S. supplied weapons inLebanon. Indeed, after Israel bombarded Lebanon with cluster bombs in 1982, President Reagan banned the sale of such weapons to Israel, a ban that remained in place until 1988. It has been reported that Israel has recently attacked populated areas in Lebanon with artillery-fired cluster bombs, some of which have been supplied by theU.S. This Administration must enforce Israel’s compliance with its agreements to ensure that U.S. supplied defense articles are not used for unauthorized purposes.

In light of Israel’s unauthorized use of U.S. weapons, the Center for Constitutional Rights is particularly appalled by recent reports that the Administration is expediting a delivery of satellite and laser-guided bombs to Israel. Under the AECA, the United States must suspend arms transfers to Israel, not expedite them to be used in the slaughter of more civilians. Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on civilians are prohibited by international humanitarian law, and constitute war crimes. You should be aware that those parties who knowingly provide substantial assistance to the commission of such war crimes can also be held accountable. The U.S. Government must cease all sales and deliveries of defense articles to Israel.

CCR will continue to monitor these violations, advocate on behalf of civil and human rights, and fight for the consistent application of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

Sincerely,


Michael Ratner, President
Bill Goodman, Legal Director
Center for Constitutional Rights
About CCR

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights demonstrators in the South, CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. www.ccr-ny.org

# # #

Some more "words" for thought:

While Beirut Burns
By William Fisher

Friday 21 July 2006
As rockets rain down on Lebanon and Israel and the world stares into the abyss of a catastrophic Middle East conflagration, it was comforting to note last week that members of Congress refused to get depressed about the scary state of world affairs.
Instead, they busied themselves by concentrating their attention on some of the really crucial domestic issues facing our nation.
Like a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Even though the Senate resoundingly rejected action on this dangerous "values issue" - and even President Bush couldn't really work up much public enthusiasm for it - the House of Representatives persevered.
Or at least the God Squad wing of the Republican Party persevered.
"It's part of God's plan for the future of mankind," explained Rep. John Carter of Texas, while Rep. Bob Beauprez of Colorado found "the very hand of God" at work, adding, "We best not be messing with His plan." Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana weighed in with "It wasn't our idea, it was God's."
And Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia, apparently fresh from a personal conversation with the Higher Power, told his colleagues, "I think God has spoken very clearly on this issue." The gynecologist-legislator referred critics to the Holy Scriptures.
But other House members evidently weren't connected to Gingrey's conference call. They defeated the measure, 236 to 187.
The truly religious were more successful in their effort to strip those pesky activist federal judges from ever hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. These so-called social conservatives approved the measure, 260 to 167. It now faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," intoned Rep. Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.
Rep. Todd Akin, another Missourian and sponsor of the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."
Never mind those quaint notions of judicial independence and the rights of religious minorities.
From among the many ironies in the "under-God" debate came a cautionary note from conservative Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California. He said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. Congress, for example, could then prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.
Then there was the Mt. Soledad cross issue, to which learned authorities on foreign policy and geopolitics have devoted many hours.
The cross at issue is a concrete edifice that has stood on public land at the center of San Diego's Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial for more than 50 years. The American Civil Liberties Union, nemesis of social conservatism, has been challenging the constitutionality of the cross for more than twenty years.
In May, a US District Judge ordered San Diego to remove the cross by August 2 or face fines of $5,000 a day. But Rep. Duncan Hunter of California - the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who seems to moonlight as a spokesman for the haute cuisine and luxurious accommodations at Guantanamo Bay - came up with a solution. Congress would enact legislation transferring the cross from city management to the federal government, which would designate it a federal war memorial and thus prevent it from being removed.
"Removing this landmark would send a message to our nation's veterans that their service and sacrifice has gone unnoticed," Hunter said. "This is the wrong message, especially when so many of our brave men and women are committed to the operational theaters of the global war on terror."
What a no-brainer for Congress in an election year - an issue that wrapped religion inside patriotism inside the Global War on Terror.
Dutifully, 379 courageous members of the US House voted to approve Hunter's legislation. Only 74 demurred.
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, one of the groups that has defended the cross in court, said the overwhelming support for Hunter's bill demonstrates that "the liberal judges who support the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda" are out of touch with America.
"No doubt, the ACLU will return to its liberal judges to try to undo, once again, the democratic process and the will of the people," Thompson said. "However, an effective coalition of veterans' groups, political leaders and public-interest organizations is developing to stop them."
An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate by that stalwart champion of the Constitution Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, whose aim is to bring it to the Senate floor before the Congressional summer recess.
Needless to say, the White House strongly endorses Hunter's legislation.
Meanwhile, over at the White House, President Bush followed through with his threat to issue the first veto of his administration: the stem cell bill passed by Congress to expand federal funding for research on a greatly enlarged community of embryonic stem cells - cells due to be destroyed by fertility clinics as "medical waste."
Self-styled religious conservatives pulled out all the stops to defeat this legislation before it got to Mr. Bush's desk, but were defeated not so much by an agitated pro-choice lobby as by most of our most distinguished scientists and physicians.
When the religious right-wing is in full-throated opposition, it is highly effective in conveying the impression that it speaks for every religious soul. The white noise of its rhetoric tends to drown out all other points of view and maintains that other points of view don't exist at all.
Not so. Thankfully, there are thousands of religious leaders who believe that it is right-wing fundamentalism that dishonors God and science. They are still less visible and a lot less well-funded than the James Dobsons and Tony Perkinses of the world. But the more the Bush administration continues to pander to what it still calls its base, the more these other voices grow both in numbers and in influence.
One of the most articulate of these voices is Rev. Tim Simpson, who heads a relatively new organization known as The Christian Alliance. What he had to say about President Bush's stem cell veto is worth our attention.
The president's use of his veto authority, Rev. Simpson said, "will result in the early deaths and unnecessary suffering of millions of Americans. It is one of the most stunning, irrational decisions of an administration with a reputation for such and the most telling piece of evidence yet that America is under the sway of theocrats whose obsession for ideological purity outweighs their concern for America's, and the world's, sick and dying."
He continues: "The most illogical aspect of this debate is that the embryos which were to be used had the legislation passed will be thrown away! The twisted moral framework that would allow the embryos to be discarded rather than used to heal and save lives goes hand in glove with the pseudoscience that has become the hallmark of the Religious Right, to which this administration gives its highest loyalty."
And he asks, "How long will Christians in this country stand for such outrages?"
Rev. Simpson tells the story of Jesus the Healer in Mark 6. "The text says that Jesus had compassion for the crowd because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd.' Into the midst of the chaos of the people's lives, Jesus' compassion manifested itself in the healing of their bodies, as the crowds brought the sick to him to make them whole. Tens of thousands of American churches whose pastors follow the lectionary will hear this text this Lord's Day in congregations all across the country. How sad that this is to be the text in so-called Christian America, on the Sunday after the Christian President of the United States threw the sick under the bus. Talk about sheep without a shepherd."
Rev. Simpson assures us, "This is not a partisan issue. There isn't a Democrat, Republican or Independent who doesn't know someone who is suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, paralysis or a host of other diseases and ailments that could be ameliorated or cured through the use of stem cell therapies. Forget the Red State-Blue State clash. Polls indicate that better than 7 out of 10 Americans approve of federal funding for stem cell research. Even someone as conservative as Bill Frist, anxious to help mainstream America forget his embarrassing role in the Terri Schiavo affair, demonstrated that even he had not taken complete leave of his senses by supporting the bill. But the President threw a sop to the radical fringe in his party, so the entire nation has to suffer."
Throwing the sick under the bus is likely to be a big part of the "compassionate conservative" legacy of George W. Bush. And we will probably never know whether his veto was borne of genuine conviction, however misguided, or of Karl Rove's need to mobilize his flock to get to the polls in November.
But November is not an opportunity only for Mr. Rove. It is a chance for the nation's flock to show that it's a lot smarter than our president and our craven Congress thinks it is.
Let us pray.