Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE NEW MIDEAST CONFLICT
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
DWB04
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 1 2006, 09:27 AM)
DWB04

Absolutely right.

There is nothing wrong with offering carrots as well as sticks.

In fact, offering carrots can make the sticks look even more foreboding because not only am I getting the stick --- but I won't be getting the carrot as well.

Hammas was panicked after losing their aid and only started attacking Israel more aggressively when they were starting to hear complaints from their people --- so they engaged in a little wag the dog --- to get the people's minds off the problems and also put the blame on the international community.

If we had used a carrot/stick approach with North Korea we could have stopped them I believe...

We are finally starting to do that with Iran and hopefully it will work...

But Bush is insane in his belief that he can have his cake and eat it too --- that is --- compell nations to act against their self interest and continue to keep the regime change possibility out there...

It is unreal --- and that is why his foreign policy is in a shambles and will not improve unless he enters the real world.

Long ago we could have sat down with Palestine and said --- guess what --- we know you're in a tought position --- killing Jews is written in your mission statement...but hey --- do you want to be in power for decades to come? Do you want to lead a state?

You could be heroes to you people if you renoucne violence against Israel --- that's it --- we are not going to compell you to recognize them as a state --- that is up to you --- but we can tell you this economic/education/trade package we have for you --- well Israel has some of the wealthiest consumers in the region so it may be in your economic interest to open that door in the future --- but you decide...

They would get the idea --- because we could also say --- if you reject this deal --- we will isolate you like you have never been isolated --- if you continue to act as a terrorist state we will freeze bank accounts --- intercept arms and money from Iran -- treating you as a terrorist state --- etc.

One more thing --- by renoucning violence we mean also policing those who engage in violent attacks...prosecuting and convicting them...
*

I agree Taz.....there is one more important thing to consider....we need to divorce the antagonistic rhetoric from actual violent acts..........because there is definitely some angry rhetoric on both sides that indicates a disdain for the "other" as well as the violent acts committed by both...it's just as easy to see that both sides would like to drive each other into the sea! Since this wish might be unrealistic they just have to learn to live with one another don't you think?
Snuffysmith
The Globe and Mail
THE MIDEAST CONFLICT: THE SCENE
Farewell to arms for Hezbollah is unlikely, experts say

PATRICK MARTIN

BEIRUT -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday in
Jerusalem that the UN Security Council could reach a deal on a
sustainable ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict "this week." But
if Ms. Rice thinks that deal will include a provision to disarm the
militant Hezbollah group, she had better think again.

Flush from their apparent ability to survive Israeli attacks, and
basking in the adulation of a grateful country, Hezbollah would appear
to have little motive to do so.

"There's no way they'll disarm, at least not in the foreseeable
future," said Amal Saad Ghorayeb, a professor at Lebanese American
University and author of Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. "No one in
Lebanon even uses the term 'disarm,' " she said. "If anything, they
talk about 'arms management.' "

In truth, Hezbollah has reportedly discussed arms management as part
of a "national dialogue" roundtable that has been taking place among
Lebanon's political leaders for the past three months. While no one
outside the group has seen the document, Prof. Ghorayeb says Hezbollah
leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah sent a 600-page report offering
different options for Hezbollah to reduce its arms -- provided certain
conditions are met.

"The most important condition is that Lebanon have a viable defence
strategy," Prof. Ghorayeb said. "Until there's an alternative to
defending this country, they won't disarm," she said. "And they know
there won't be one for a long time."

That may be the case, but Israel, with the support of the United
States, launched its attack on Hezbollah three weeks ago with the
express aim of disabling Hezbollah. Neither Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert nor U.S. President George W. Bush appears interested in
settling for anything less. If that can't be achieved on the
battlefield, both leaders reason, then it should be dictated by the
Security Council.

The Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora is not in a position to force
Hezbollah to disarm. Not only are half the soldiers in the Lebanese
army Shiites, and probably unwilling to turn against the powerful Shia
Hezbollah, no one here wants to risk any kind of conflict; the memory
of Lebanon's bloody 15-year civil war is still fresh in people's
minds.

Besides, Mr. Nasrallah is seen in this country as the second coming of
Gamal Abdel Nasser, the charismatic Egyptian leader who preached Arab
nationalism. "There hasn't been anyone like him [Nasrallah] for a long
time," said Karim Makdisi, a professor of politics at the American
University of Beirut. "People are desperate for leadership," he said,
"and Nasrallah, in his calm, rational way, provides it."

"Of course, it helps that his militia has been able to defeat the
Israelis," Prof. Makdisi added.

Walid Jumblatt, the powerful leader of Lebanon's Druze, says that many
people are supporting Hezbollah simply because it's fighting the
Israelis.

Mr. Jumblatt, speaking from his palatial home looking out from the
Shouf Mountains in Lebanon's north, was a critic of Hezbollah's July
12 capture of two Israeli soldiers, the event that triggered this
conflict. He mocked the group's "excuse" of wanting to bargain for
their own prisoners in Israel. Given the devastation to Lebanon that
resulted from Israel's retaliation, he said, "these must be the most
expensive prisoners in the world."

But even Mr. Jumblatt, part of the so-called March 14 group that
questioned Hezbollah's right to continue to bear arms, acknowledges
that Hezbollah cannot now be forced to disarm. "Hezbollah is
victorious," he said. "The only question is what will they do with
this victory? Give it to Lebanon -- a sovereign, independent Lebanon?
Or give it to someone else [such as] Syria and Iran?"

Mr. Jumblatt, who once presided over his own powerful militia, hopes
Hezbollah will remain committed to a multicultural Lebanon. But, as
for disarming them, the best that can be hoped for, he said, is that
Hezbollah turn its militia over to the Lebanese army.

Prof. Makdisi, a Protestant Christian, believes Hezbollah is mainly a
national movement committed to a Lebanese agenda, not one dictated by
Iran or anyone else. "Nasrallah does not want to create some kind of
Islamic state," he said. "He has gone out of his way to reassure
Christians and Sunni Muslims, that his victory will be a victory for
all Lebanese, not just for Hezbollah."

Wouldn't Prof. Makdisi prefer to see Hezbollah disarmed? "Eventually,
of course," he said. "I don't care about Hezbollah one way or the
other," he added. "But as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict is hot,
Hezbollah is a very good card for us to have in our hand. Take it
away, and what clout would we have?"

Of course, the UN Security Council meeting this week might mandate an
international force to come in and try forcibly to disarm Hezbollah.
"I wouldn't advise it," Prof. Makdisi said. "The Americans and French
are still recovering from what happened to them when they came in here
in 1982."

Patrick Martin, The Globe's Comment editor, has returned to report
from the Middle East, where he was the paper's correspondent from 1991
to 1995.
Snuffysmith
Both National Review Online and the WSJ editorial page have been calling on Israel to get "tougher" and resist U.S. pressure on Lebanon (assuming that there is such pressure). As I noted on my blog recently, at the center of the neocon argument was the notion that the U.S. should become more like Israel in terms of dealing with security threats in general and in the Middle East in particular (because "the Arabs only understand force," etc.), that American foreign policy should be "Israelized." I think that Iraq and Lebanon are challenging that argument in a very big way. Leon
And here is an example from NRO.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q...DE5YjM0NDFjYmE=
August 01, 2006, 9:31 a.m.

Just Say “No”
Advice for Ehud Olmert.

By Judith Apter Klinghoffer


I have one bit of unpleasant advice for Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert: Just say “no.” Olmert can best help George W. Bush — and Israel — right now by saying “no” to Condoleezza Rice. President Bush has been insisting on Israel’s right to defend herself. He calls Israel an ally. But an ally must understand the rules of the game.

Since June 7, 1967, American influence in the Middle East has been based on the United States acting as Israel’s lawyer. That day Secretary of State Dean Rusk told the National Security Council: “If we do not make ourselves ‘attorneys for Israel’ we cannot recoup our losses in the Arab world.” The U.S. had to turn the new Israeli might into a bargaining chip; and so it had to make sure that the road to Israel would go through the U.S.

The more difficult the client, the more important the role of the lawyer; it is supposed to be difficult for a lawyer to force concessions on a difficult client — hence, the importance of a difficult client. As National Security Advisor Walt Rostow explained in a 1968 memo to Lyndon Johnson, a compliant Israel may not be in the best interest of the U.S: “We ought to look at that (applying pressure on Israel) pretty carefully because it would further fix the image of Israel as our stooge — an image we need to blur if we’re ever to persuade the Arabs that Israel won’t just do what we tell it.”

But, tragically for both Israel and the U.S., since the first Gulf War and the subsequent Oslo agreement, both Washington and Jerusalem seem to have forgotten the rules of the game. Since then, whenever the U.S. pushed, a no longer recalcitrant Israel succumbed. This left the U.S. exposed to ever increasing demands to force on Israel greater and greater disastrous concessions.

As could have been expected, each Israeli concession not only led to demands for additional concessions but even increased world hostility towards Israel. And a conflict that previously could be attributed to an Israeli refusal to throw away its territorial bargaining chips was revealed as the existential fight for Israeli survival it has been all along. Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon were wrong to believe that exposing that basic reality by unilateral withdrawals would end the vilification of Israel. It increased it. Moreover, the exposure of the real Arab intent led those reluctant to take on the Arab/Muslim world to seriously reconsider their commitment to the continued existence of the state of Israel. Thus, pressure on Israel to put up with terrorist entities committed to its demise replaced pressure on Israel to give up territorial “bargaining chips.”

Nor did Israeli concessions benefit the U.S. On the contrary, the U.S. shared Israel’s fate, since the world came to hold Washington responsible for every Israeli nay. Indeed, it confirmed long-held Arab belief that the road to Israeli destruction ran through Washington. The result? Increased Arab hatred and vilification of the U.S. And since the Europeans have based their relationship with the Arab world on being more accommodating to its anti-Israeli positions that the U.S., Washington’s appeasement forced them into ever growing concessions.

As the State Department has always been populated by Arabists, secretaries of State are under enormous internal pressure to prove their mettle by securing concessions from Israel. Secretary Rice has not escaped the predicament of her predecessors. Relying on notoriously unreliable polls (as polls taken in unfree places inevitably are), Foggy Bottom experts assured her that Hamas would never get more than 30 percent of the vote. Rice began to prove her worth to her department by pressuring Israel to agree to let Hamas participate in the Palestinian elections. If that was not bad enough, she insisted that Israel give up control of the Gaza-Egypt border. The result: While the world focused on another Palestinian “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, Hamas busied itself building up its military capabilities there. Deprived of many of its Gaza listening posts, the Israeli intelligence found itself “surprised” by the extent of Hamas’ success just as it was going to find itself “surprised” by Hezbollah capabilities a few weeks hence. And Rice? She discovered that her efforts provided Iran with an additional bargaining chip, Gaza.

Prior to the G-8 summit, Iran pulled out another bargaining chip — Hezbollah. At first, it seemed as if Olmert and Rice had learned their lesson. In the aftermath of Hezbollah’s attack on northern Israel, it was reported that Olmert made clear to Rice that Israel was not going to back down this time. Rice withstood pressure to rush to Israel, but when she finally showed up, instead of appearing to push for a premature end and getting rebuffed, she made no visible effort to challenge Olmert.

Exposed, she went to Rome where she successfully blocked a call for an immediate ceasefire. But by the time she reached Kuala Lumpur, the Europeans had resurrected their traditional role on the left of the U.S. The German foreign minister, among others, insisted that Europe, unlike the U.S., is supporting calls for an unconditional ceasefire. The Asians quickly followed in the European footsteps. Buckling under this pressure, Rice wanted to return immediately to Jerusalem. Bush delayed her departure by another day. He also got Blair to reject calls for immediate ceasefire by agreeing to hint that the U.S. will engage Syria.

The brilliantly manufactured Qana incident (the building collapsed seven hours after it was supposedly bombed) significantly increased the pressure on Rice. To withstand it, she needed Olmert to say “no.” He did not. Instead, he agreed to suspend the Israeli bombing for 48 hours. The result? France moved to outflank the U.S. and Germany by seeking to show that she can be even more “reasonable” than the U.S. Her foreign minister called Ahmadinejad’s Iran “ a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilizing role.”

Israel has only one way to stop this dangerous slippery slope towards the emergence of Nassralla as the new Middle Eastern Saladin. Olmert must provide Washington with a cover by saying a clear and loud “no.” “No” to providing Hezbollah fighters hiding amongst the population a free pass and “no” to ending the war prematurely. Saying otherwise would seriously undermine both Israeli long term security and America’s long term strategic position in the Middle East.

— Judith Apter Klinghoffer, Fulbright professor at Aarhus University, Denmark, is the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East: Unintended Consequences co-author of International Citizens' Tribunals: Mobilizing Public Opinion to Advance Human Rights, and History News Network blogger.
tazvil04
DWB04

Yes -- and that rhetoric is responsible for much of Iran's and North Korea's reluctance to trust the United States when the US President has a preference for regime change...rather than diplomacy...and much of the distrust in the Middle East for the US...
Snuffysmith
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080106L.shtml

Stop the Band-Aid Treatment
By Jimmy Carter
The Washington Post

Tuesday 01 August 2006

We need policies for a real, lasting Middle East peace.

The Middle East is a tinderbox, with some key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.

This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed this past weekend and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago. As before there were expressions of "deep regret," a promise of "immediate investigation" and the explanation that dropped leaflets had warned families in the region to leave their homes. The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners. Yet yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected a cease-fire.

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we in the international community owe them our strong leadership and support.

--------

Former president Carter is the founder of the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta.
Snuffysmith
http://www.alternet.org/story/39715/
Israel's Wall of Horrors

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted August 1, 2006.


Israel's security wall has ripped a mortal gash in the lives of Palestinians living in its shadow. Tools

The rage and extremism of the Islamic militants in Lebanon and the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza appear incomprehensible to the outside world. The wanton murder, the raw anti-Semitism, the callous disregard for human life, including the lives of children and other innocents, permit those on the outside to thrust these militant fighters in another moral universe, to certify them as incomprehensible.

But this branding of these militants as something less than human, as something that reasonable people cannot hope to understand, is possible only because we have ignored and disregarded the decades of repression, the crushing weight of occupation, the abject humiliation and violence, unleashed on Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel because of our silence and indifference. It is the Israeli penchant for violence and occupation that slowly created and formed these frightening groups.

The failure by the outside world to react to the years of brutal repression, the refusal by the United States to intercede on behalf of the occupied Lebanese and Palestinians, gradually formed and galvanized the radicals who now occupy the stage with Israel, answering death for death, atrocity for atrocity.

Those inside these zones of occupation pleaded over the years for help. We refused to listen. And once they burst through these barriers, enraged, bloodied, bent on revenge, we recoiled in horror, unable to see our complicity. We asked them to be quiet, to be reasonable, to calm down, and when they did not, their blood heated by years of abuse and neglect, we condemned them to their fate.

The barrier built by Israel in the West Bank is one of the most tangible and important symbols of this long humiliation, this strangulation of the Palestinians by Israel. To understand the role of this barrier is to begin to understand the rage it has now unleashed. Understanding is not excusing, but until we grasp that these militants do not come from another moral universe, until we face our own complicity in their creation and the awful violence now underway in Lebanon and the occupied territories, we cannot begin to understand the gross injustices that fuel these militant movements. It was, after all, the $10 billion in loan guarantees by the United States that made this barrier possible.

Ending the loan guarantees, as long as they were used to build settlements and seize even more Palestinian land, would have done more to blunt the rage and violence of militants than all the iron fragmentation bombs Israel has dropped on the hapless civilians in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.

But we react too late. We react to the manifestation of rage rather than the cause of rage. We are as morally compromised as those we condemn, as incomprehensible to them as they are to us. And until we become comprehensible to each other there will not be peace in the Middle East.

Massive, cold and alien

There is a 25-foot-high concrete wall in Mrs. Nuhayla Auynaf's front yard. The gray mass, punctuated by cylindrical guard towers with narrow window slits for Israeli soldiers, appears from her steps like the side of a docked ocean liner. It is massive, cold and alien. The dwarfed shrubs, bushes and stunted fruit trees seem to huddle before it in supplication. I struggle to make sense of it, the way I struggled to make sense of the smoldering rubble that was the World Trade Center a few hours after the planes hit.

We do not speak. Mrs. Auynaf lives with the wall. She is as drawn to it as she is repelled by it. It absorbs her. She goes out on her second-floor balcony every morning and looks at it. She implores it for answers, as if it is a Sphinx that will answer the riddle of her new existence. "My old life ended with the wall," she tells me.

The wall, built by Israel a year before, blocked her from the neighboring Israeli town of Kfar Saba where she used to shop. It cut her off from Israel. It made it hard to reach the rest of the West Bank. The lone Israeli checkpoint with its guard towers, floodlights, concrete barriers, dust, stench, crowds, special pass cards, intrusive searches, rude remarks by border police were more than she could bare. She tried to pass through once.

"I could not stand the humiliation," she says. "I turned back. I went home. Now I never leave."

The wall reduces her world to its ugly perimeter. Her five boys beg to go to the seaside. The wall makes this impossible. No one goes to the sea anymore. There are days when the checkpoint is sealed, days after suicide bombings or days when the Israeli soldiers shut it down abruptly without explanation. On those days she sometimes gathers up her children and walks the empty streets, wandering like prisoners in a circle. Other families do the same. It gives her a sense of movement. Families pass each other two, three, four times in an afternoon. All are thinking the same thoughts.

"The town would rent buses to go to the sea," she says. "We would go for the day. We would stand in the water. We would look at the rocks and the waves. This was before."

The house is pleasant. It was finished at the start of the uprising, when business was good and peace seemed possible. The floors are marble. The kitchen has a counter and white appliances. The sofa and chairs have muted blue and beige stripped fabric. We sit in the living room. A large window fan, set on the floor in front of the open door, provides a weak breeze. The door frame is filled with the expressionless gray face of the wall. It draws our eyes to it, the way a muted television screen distracts me during conversations. Sometimes we turn to look at it, as if it is a presence in the room, someone who should be offered sweet tea or a glass or water or asked to leave. We want it to speak to us.

Her son Ibrahim, 6, sits on her lap. He has a scar on his leg. He was shot two years ago by Israeli soldiers. It happened at dusk. The soldiers were firing at a group of Palestinian workers who were trying to slip into or out of Israel without proper work permits. He was watching from the front yard when a bullet went astray. He stays close to his mother, especially when he hears the sounds of gunshots. He does not like to leave home. The world frightens him.

The family was one of the wealthiest in Qalqiliya before the wall ruined them. They spent $200,000 on their home, with its sloping terra cotta tiled roof, its pleasant garden. It looks like the homes in the middle-class suburbs outside of Tel Aviv. Once the wall went up, the family's car parts business was wiped out. Mrs. Auynaf's husband makes less than 10% of what he once earned. He has trouble shipping car parts into the walled enclosure. He often cannot reach suppliers. Customers, those in Israel and those in other areas of the West Bank, can no longer get to his store. He does not have a permit to drive the family car through the checkpoint. He must stand in line, often for several hours, to go in and out. He is away now. He is trying to salvage his business, but it cannot go on like this. She hopes he will be home tonight. But she does not know. The lines are long. Sometimes the soldiers get tired or bored or surly and turn people away until the next morning.

"We talk about how we are going to survive, what we are going to do," she said.

She hangs laundry on the balcony. Her only view is the wall. The other morning she was hanging laundry to dry and she heard singing. The song was by Fadel Shaker, a popular Arab singer. The singer had a sweet voice.

"You who are far away, why do you forget those who love you?" the words go. "When I fall asleep I think only of your eyes. I think only of you."

Her five boys were in the yard. They began to sing. There was a chorus of voices, the sweet voice and the voices of the children. She peered up into the glaring sunlight to see the singer. She saw an Israeli soldier in his green uniform standing on top of the earthen mound on the Israeli side of the wall, the mound the army drives jeeps up to peer down on those below. He looked like an Olympian god. She thinks he was a Druze, the tiny, nominally Muslim sect that lives near the border with Syria and serves in the Israeli army and border police.

"He waved when the song finished," she says. "The children waved back. Then he disappeared behind the wall."

She was on the balcony a few days later. She was pinning up cloths on the line. The wooden shutters were open into the house. She looked up and saw a soldier watching her from the top of the mound. There was no singing. His raspy voice crackled over the megaphone mounted on the jeep. He ordered her to go inside and close the shutters. She obeyed. Her wet laundry lay behind in the basket.

"I live in a zoo," she says. "They come and watch me. I am a caged animal. They have the freedom to come and go, to look or not look, to be kind or cruel. I have no freedom."

She fears madness. She points to an elderly woman 200 feet away squatting under a fig tree.

"The wall was the end," she says. "When it was finished she went mad." We watch the woman. She is keening slightly. People are being destroyed by the serpent's teeth of the wall, springing up from the soil of the West Bank like the evil warriors sown by Cadmus. This for me is the story, not the amount of concrete or coils of razor wire or razed olive groves and villages, but what all this is doing to human souls.

A catastrophic blow

I walk down the road to the elderly woman. I kneel in the shade beside her. She is missing many teeth. Her dirty hair, platted and uncombed, is thick and white. Her name is Fatme Khalil al-Bas. She is 72. Her husband died a few years ago. Next to us are the shattered walls of an old stone house. It was her house. She was born in it and lived there until Israeli tanks blew it up in the 1967 war. She and her family continued to work the fields around the wreck of a home, never rebuilding. When the Israelis built the wall they seized her land. She was left with a small garden lot. Her fields, the ones where she worked as a girl, as a mother and a grandmother, are inaccessible. They are overgrown and untended on the other side of the wall. They belong to Israel now. She left her small apartment to sleep under the fig tree. She has built a shelter out of old boards placed across the branches. In the small patch of land she grows tomatoes and cucumbers.

Much of what she says is incoherent. She rails against her husband's second wife and than says softly, "He was a good man." She spits out the names of Ariel Sharon and George Bush and Yasir Arafat, hissing with anger. She vows to protect her little plot with her life, even though she says she is afraid at night, "afraid as a woman to sleep alone on the ground, afraid for my honor." I stand to leave. She looks at me with plaintive eyes. I turn and see Mrs. Auynaf watching us.

"I am a bird in a net," the old woman whispers.

A dying ghetto

Qalqiliya is a ghetto. It is completely surrounded by the wall. There is one Israeli military checkpoint to let people into the West Bank or back home again. Only those with special Israeli-issued permits can go in and out of Qalqiliya. It is not the Lodz ghetto or the Warsaw ghetto, but it is a ghetto that would be recognizable to the Jews who were herded into walled enclaves by Pope IV in 1555 and stranded there for generations. Qalqiliya, like all ghettos, is dying. And it is being joined by dozens of other ringed ghettos as the serpentine barrier snaking its way through up and down two sides of the West Bank gobbles up Palestinian land and lays down nooses around Palestinian cities, towns, villages and fields.

Construction began on the barrier in 2002 with the purported intent of safeguarding Israel from suicide bombers and other types of attacks. Although it nominally runs along the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice/Green Line that demarcates the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian-held West Bank, around 80 percent of the barrier actually cuts into Palestinian territories--at some points by as much as 20 kilometers.

If and when the barrier is completed, several years from now, it will see the West Bank cut up into three large enclaves and numerous small ringed ghettos. The three large enclaves will include in the south the Bethlehem/Hebron area and in the north the Jenin/Nablus and Ramallah areas.

B'tselem, a leading Israeli human rights organization that documents conditions in the occupied territories, recently estimated that the barrier will eventually stretch 703 miles around the West Bank, about 450 of which are already completed or under construction. (The Berlin Wall, for comparison, ran 96 miles.) B'tselem also estimates that 500,000 West Bank residents will be directly affected by the barrier (by virtue of residing in areas completely encircled by the wall; by virtue of residing west of the barrier and thus in de facto Israeli territory; or by virtue of residing in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians effectively cannot cross into West Jerusalem).

I stand on Qalqiliya's main street. There is little traffic. Shop after shop is shuttered and closed. The heavy metal doors are secured to the ground with thick padlocks. There are signs in Hebrew and Arabic, fading reminders of a time when commerce was possible. There were, before the wall was built, 42,000 people living here. Mayor Maa'rouf Zahran says at least 6,000 have left. Many more, with the unemployment rate close to 70%, will follow. Over the tip of the wall, in the distance, I can see the tops of the skyscrapers in Tel Aviv. It feels as if it is a plague town, quarantined. Israeli officials, after a few suicide bombers slipped into Israel from Qalqiliya, began to refer to the town as a "hotel for terrorists."

There are hundreds of acres of farmland on the other side of the wall, some of the best farmland in the West Bank, which is harder and harder to reach given the gates, checkpoints and closures. There are some 32 farming villages on the outskirts of Qalqiliya, cut off from their land, sinking into poverty and despair. Olive groves, with trees that are hundreds of years old, have been uprooted and bulldozed into the ground. The barrier is wiping out the middle class in the West Bank, the last bulwark in the West Bank against Islamic fundamentalism. It is plunging the West Bank into the squalor that defines life in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinians struggle to live on less than $ 2 a day. It is the Africanization of Palestinian land.

It is also ethnic cleansing, less overtly violent than that I watched carried out by the Serbs in Bosnia, but as effective. Thousands of Palestinians have left, never to return. Cities such as Bethlehem are emptying. This, Palestinians say, is the real goal, to make life impossible and force them to leave.

The Israelis, who have thought hard about making the project as linguistically benign as possible, call the barrier "the seam line." They insist it is not meant to be a border. They say it will make Israel more secure. They said that once Gaza was enclosed, suicide attacks from the Gaza Strip would end. They promise that once the West Bank is sealed off, terrorists will not be able to cross into Israel. The promise of security for the weary Israeli populace is like manna from heaven.

This assumes, of course, that the barrier will separate Palestinians from Jews. It ignores the 1 million Israeli Arabs living inside Israel, some of whom have already elected to use their bodies as weapons. It ignores the presence of Jewish settlers in some 200 settlements who often live within yards of Palestinians. But most ominously, it ignores the consequences of total enclosure. The West Bank, like Gaza, will erupt with high-octane rage.

Hamas was an insignificant group with little following in 1988 when I first reported from Gaza. The Islamic radicals are now the vanguard of the resistance. Every pillar of concrete driven into the soil of the West Bank will bring forth screeching bands of killers. It happened in Gaza. It will happen here. Security will never come with the barrier, but then security is not the point. What is happening is much more insidious.

If the barrier is being built for security, why is so much of the West Bank being confiscated by Israel? Why is the barrier plunging in deep loops into the West Bank to draw far-flung settlements into Israel? Why are thousands of acres of the most fertile farmland and much of the West Bank's aquifers being seized by Israel?

The barrier does not run along the old 1967 border or the 1949 armistice line between Israel and the Arab states, which, in the eyes of the United Nations, delineates Israel and the West Bank. It will contain at least 50% of the West Bank, including the whole of the western mountain aquifer, which supplies the West Bank Palestinians with over half their water. The barrier is the most catastrophic blow to the Palestinians since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

The barrier itself mocks any claim that it is temporary. It costs $ 1 million per mile and will run over $ 2 billion by the time it is completed. It will cut the entire 224-mile length of the West Bank off from Israel, but because of its diversions into the West Bank to incorporate Palestinian land it will be about 400 miles in length. A second barrier is being built on the Jordan River side of the West Bank. To look at a map of the barrier is to miss the point. The barrier interconnects with every other piece of Israeli-stolen real estate in Palestinian territory. And when all the pieces are in place the Israelis will no doubt offer up the little ringed puddles of poverty and despair and misery to the world as a Palestinian state.

Traveling the barrier

I traveled along the completed parts of the barrier for 10 days. It is being built in sections. When I go into and out of the West Bank, often passing through multiple Israeli checkpoints, it takes three or four hours. The northern sections were completed in July 2003, although the Israeli Defense Ministry was still razing houses and fields along the barrier in the north for a buffer zone when I visited. Bulldozers, trucks and backhoes belch diesel smoke and lumber across the landscape. Where there is no barrier there is often a wide dirt track being graded and smoothed for construction. On either side of the emerging barrier are the dynamited remains of markets or homes and the blackened stumps of destroyed olive groves. It is one of the most ambitious construction projects ever undertaken by the state, certainly one of the most costly.

The small town of Mas'ha lies in the path of the barrier. It has been in decline since the start of the uprising three years ago when Israel blocked the road leading from the town to Tel Aviv. The closure ended the businesses of the dozens of fruit and vegetable sellers who lined the road with shops and markets. The closure trapped most Palestinians inside the West Bank and because of this the barrier for Israelis is an abstraction. It does not slice through any Israeli land. It does not change Israeli life. It only solidifies the status quo.

The Baddya Market on either side of the small asphalt road is empty, the tin-roofed sheds and warehouses that once had piles of fruits and vegetables for sale abandoned. The town's population has fallen from 7,000 to 2,000 since the closure of the road.

I stand on top of one of the two dirt mounds that block the road to Tel Aviv. There is an army base on a hilltop in front of me. There is an electric fence that runs around a settlement a hundred yards up the road on my left. Two green Israeli army jeeps lie parked at an angle blocking the road a few feet beyond the second mound. The two dirt mounds and strip of empty road between them are filled with old cardboard boxes, broken bottles, empty wooden vegetable crates, cans, plastic Coke bottles, tires, shredded remnants of plastic bags, a broken chair and the twisted remains of a child's stroller.

A young boy is loading three cardboard boxes into a shopping cart. An elderly woman, standing on the mound a few feet from me, is helping him. When the cart is full the boy begins to push it to the other mound about 50 feet away. The woman follows. When they get to the other side he lifts out the boxes for her. She drops a silver shekel in his hand for payment. He goes back to the other mound to wait. He does this all day. It is the only way goods move up and down this road.

I walk into a small shed where a man is seated at a table. The shelves around him are bare. He has two boxes of tomatoes in front of him. There are cold drinks in a large refrigerated case with glass doors. A single light bulb hangs from a wire, casting a soft hue over the gray stubble on his face. Fat, languid flies buzz nosily. It is the only sound I hear. I ask him if he will speak to me. There is a long silence.

"Why?" he finally says. "It won't do any good."

I walk up the road, over the two mounds, and turn left to go up through the opening in a post fence with loops of barbed wire. A rainbow flag flies from a post planted in the ground along the fence. The dirt in the yard is pitted and gouged with tread marks from heavy earth-moving equipment. I hear the squelch, grunts and guttural moans of engines at work. I cannot see the machinery. The sky is clear, that searing crystal-like clearness that makes the light of the Middle East unforgiving and overpowering.

There are tarps in the yard in front of the house. Under the tarps are a collection of dirty mattresses and foam pads. Piled around the mattresses are backpacks, some with tickets from European airlines. A blue backpack has a tag with the letters SAS. There are plastic water coolers under the tarp. There are plastic cups scattered on the ground. Several young men and women, many in baggy cotton pants and sandals, lounge on the mattresses speaking quietly. Some are asleep.

I go to the door of the house. Munira Ibrahim Amer, who lives there, takes me upstairs to the flat roof where laundry is hanging and there is a large water tank. The heat on the roof is withering. I edge my way under a narrow eave to capture some shade. A young woman with short blond hair and glasses holds a video camera. She is wearing a green T-shirt and green cargo pants. She has a small pouch strapped around her waist. She says her name is Maria. She says she does not want to give me her last name.

"Thousands of us have been denied entry visas by the Israelis at the airport," she says with what I suspect is a German accent. "Many of us who get picked up are deported. If I give you my name I will be on their blacklist. They will not let me in. They will put a 'No Entry' stamp in my passport."

She has been in and out of Palestine, she says, for over a year. She was one of the first internationals to get into the Jenin refugee camp after the Israeli attack against armed militants that left scores dead and sections of the camp destroyed.

"I could not breathe because of the smell of the dead bodies," she says. "I saw children collect body parts of their parents. None of us could eat. It was terrible. And the world stood by and did nothing."

She was an Islamic studies major. She speaks Arabic. She became involved in protests in Italy against the occupation. She joined a group called International Women's Peace Service, which sends activists to protest the construction of what it terms "the apartheid wall." She lives in a house with other activists in the Palestinian village of Haras. She has been in and out of the West Bank and Gaza for over a year, surviving on the meager funds given to her by the organization.

Ten years of work, bulldozed

The activists surround the house when the bulldozer, belching smoke and groaning, lumbers through the yard on the way to grade the track on the hill below. Three activists chain themselves to a shed next to the house when they think the bulldozer might turn to attack. The shed next to the house, the family has been told, is about to be destroyed. When Maria speaks of the bulldozer it is as if it is a living object, some Leviathan rising out of the bowels of the earth to swallow up Palestine.

"When we do an action it is beautiful," she says. "It is what life is about, living together, not fighting simply for our own happiness. The real pursuit of happiness is not about making me happy. It is about living together and sharing."

There is something wistful in this, as if she knows much of human sadness, which I later find out she does. Activists, like aid workers and foreign correspondents and soldiers, are often orphans running away from home. I was one. They seek new families and new reasons to live, often messianic reasons that are intense enough to blot out the past and keep the darker clouds of memory at bay.

She wears a piece of silver jewelry around her neck. It comes from India. "I put my fingers around it and hold it when I am scared," she says, wrapping her fingers over it. "I have grown superstitious. I risked my life more than once last year. I understand why Palestinians believe in God. When you feel your own impotence in the face of Sharon and the United States you have to believe in something bigger. It is the only way to survive. I don't believe in God. I believe in this."

There is the sudden roar and screech of army jeeps. A dozen Israeli soldiers pile out of the vehicles in helmets and flak jackets. They spread out along the road, facing the activists, who now are rousted from their mattresses. Three men grab the chains and run for the shed. The soldiers cradle black M-16 assault rifles.

"Oh hell," she says quickly, pushing the start button on her camera and pointing down at the scene below us, "and another jeep is coming. I have to call the media office and alert them."

The ragged band of 45 activists spread out in the yard. The soldiers watch, silent, bemused, the way a child watches a line of ants he is about to crush. In a few moments the soldiers depart.

The activists wait in the sun for a few minutes and then go back under the tarps. Maria joins them from the roof. They begin to discuss tactics. Someone proposes singing "Give Peace a Chance" if the soldiers come again. Another suggests building a small model of a Palestinian village in the path of the bulldozer. They begin a heated discussion over what to write on their banners. When people agree, rather than clap, they raise their arms and flutter their fingers. A member of the group suggests they write condemnations of the wall uttered by world leaders including President Bush. The mention of the American president raises the temperature of the debate.

"I don't agree that we put phrases by George Bush on our banners," says a woman with an Israeli accent. "George Bush don't "expletive deleted"ing care about this, about anything. I really hate this man. I don't want any "expletive deleted"ing thing he said on any action I participate in."

There is a sea of fluttering fingers. I admire their commitment but find them too sanctimonious, infected with the fanatic's zeal that they know what is good for you, good for everyone. Their anger springs, in part, from the fact that no one will listen, as well as the damage, the damage many I suspect nurse internally and wish to heal.

I go into the house and sit with the family. The family lives surrounded by the madness. The bulldozer severed the water pipe to the house. They have spent the last few weeks carrying water into the house in plastic buckets. The children have turned one side of the house into an outdoor toilet. It sinks of human feces.

Munira Ibrahim Amer and her husband, Hani, have four boys and two girls. They scamper around the room, often shouting to be heard above the noise of the heavy machinery busily tearing up the earth outside. I feel I am in an Ionesco play.

"I spent 10 years working in Saudi Arabia to buy this land and start our nursery," says Hani. "In a few hours the Israelis bulldozed my greenhouses and my plants into the ground."

The family moved into the house in 1981. They made a decent living. They had many Israeli customers. They grew things.

"A year ago army jeeps appeared in the village and scattered leaflets around the mosque," he says. "Soldiers came to our house. They told us our house was in the way of the fence and would be demolished. They said they would compensate us."

But he does not believe them. He says the Israelis determine the worth of the land and property and he says other Palestinians tell him the Israelis usually never pay.

"They will build their wall and they will take revenge on me and my family for allowing these internationals to protect us. They will demolish my home." It is dusk. I leave. The activists, fearing a demolition, sleep under the tarps. I speak with Maria the next morning by phone. She tells me her real name. It is Maren Karlitzky. She is German. She reveals her name because she is sitting with the other activists in a police station in the Jewish settlement of Ariel. The Israelis have taken her passport. She is under arrest.

She tells me that at 7 a.m. about a hundred soldiers surrounded the house. They pushed the activists onto buses. The activists watched the bulldozer demolish the shed. The group was kept awake all night. Everyone was questioned.

"When I was called in for questioning they told me I could stay [in Israel] if I collaborated with them," she says. "I refused."

At 4 in the morning the police presented the group with typed Hebrew statements and told the activists to sign them. The statements said that none of them would again enter the West Bank or attempt to renew their visas. They signed the papers.

"It was a mistake," Maren said. "We were tired."

I ask her what she will do next. "Guess," she says.

Too much pressure

I often have to leave my car behind and walk to villages, villages that have not had access to roads for two or three years. Crude barriers of dirt, trenches or torn-up strips of asphalt make the roads impassible. Weeds grow up on either side of the roads. The crude barriers will be replaced soon by walls and fences and ditches and wire.

I am walking down an empty dirt road. It is covered with stones. I am walking to the farming hamlet of al-Nuaman. The farmers have been legally dispossessed, ethnic cleansing by administrative fiat. It was a specialty of the Bosnian Muslims, who did not want the ethnic Croats and Serbs to go back to their old apartments in Sarajevo. So they used the courts to strip them of their property.

There are tens of thousands of Palestinians whom Israeli courts have declared squatters in their own homes, homes they were born and raised in, homes which have been in the family for generations.

The cicadas sing out in a cacophonous chorus. The heat feels like the blast from a furnace. Olive groves, with rows of thick, gnarled trees, line the slope to the valley below me. The hilltops are rocky and gray. There are a few patches of light green.

The road to the hamlet was closed in 1995 by the Israelis. The bulldozers blocked it with dirt and scooped out a huge trench at the edge of the village, tossing the chunks of black asphalt to the side. The Israelis changed the name of the hamlet to Mazmouria, although no Israelis live here. I see the hamlet ahead of me. It is tiny, with 26 modest homes, all with flat roofs and stucco exteriors.

I walk down into the trench. Youssif Dara'wi, a large man with a heavy girth, is standing on the other side looking down at me. He helps me up. He is wearing sandals. He clutches a cellphone. There is a large ring of keys on a silver clasp fastened to his belt. I get into his car and we drive to his house. He has set out a dozen white plastic chairs under the one tree in his front yard. Older men, when they see us, come to introduce themselves and take a seat.

Youssif was born in the hamlet. As far as he can tell, his family has been here for 180 years, but probably longer. He owns about 100 acres of olive groves, making him one of the largest landowners here. The farmers in the village together have 1,000 acres. When they were occupied by Israeli troops in 1967 they were given Israeli identification cards. The cards said they were residents of the West Bank. They were incorporated into the Bethlehem municipality. "It all began to change after the start of the first Palestinian uprising in 1987," Youssif says.

Israeli officials forbade any new construction. When anyone tried to build a house or expand existing ones, Israeli bulldozers tore the structures down. After the Oslo peace agreement the pressure eased, only to come back in greater force with the latest uprising. The road was closed. The children in the village, who had gone to Jerusalem for their schooling, were barred from the city. The Israelis expanded the boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality. The farmers have become West Bank squatters illegally encamped inside Israel. It is a neat little legal trick. Members of the community pooled their money to hire an Israeli lawyer. But cases, even when they get to the Supreme Court, even when they result in a decision in favor of the Palestinians, can be immediately overruled by the state on grounds of national security. National security, as in my own country, is the god that is destroying us all.

"I am not allowed to be here or to meet you according to Israeli law," Youssif says. "I am not allowed to be on my own land."

The water to the hamlet was cut three years ago. Water comes now from wells and water trucks.

He pulls out a topographical map. It is marked with colored zones and colored lines to indicate settlements, the barrier under construction around Jerusalem, the land that has been confiscated, the land that will be confiscated and the new demarcation lines for the hamlet. The blue line, he explains, is the new boundary for Jerusalem. The hamlet is within the boundary. The yellow line is the barrier, which when we look up we can see being built down the hill in front of a new hilltop settlement with several hundred concrete apartment blocks. He traces his thick finger around the roads, the settlements and the barrier to show how the hamlet will be encircled, how he and his neighbors will soon lose nearly all their land and live illegally in a ghetto with no running water. I have seen this now many times.

Most Palestinians carry maps. They keep them tucked into their shirt pockets and pull them out at the slightest provocation. They spread them on the ground and chart for you the course of their own demise. It happens so often it gets boring, but I always listen and nod and pretend the information is new. The ritual is repeated over and over and seems to be part of the struggle to cope with the scale and horror of what is happening.

A group of Israeli soldiers appeared in the hamlet four months ago. They said Israel was willing to compensate farmers whose homes had been built before 1992. They told the farmer to submit compensation forms. The army would determine the price to be paid. The other homes, they said, would be demolished. If any home was built after 1992 the family would receive nothing. None of the farmers filed for compensation.

Then the physical harassment began. Soldiers arrived early one morning in July and roused six farmers from their beds and drove them to a nearby military outpost. They were told they would be released when they signed papers saying they would not enter Israeli territory. The farmers signed the papers. They spent the rest of the night walking home.

"I signed," Abid Ataya, 55, tells me as we sit in a half circle of chairs under a pine tree. "I didn't realize that according to them I live in an Israeli area." Soldiers come frequently to demand other signatures. They were there the night before, their jeeps roaring into the hamlet at 2:30 a.m.. The soldiers handcuffed 20 farmers and took them to the military outpost. All refused to sign. In the morning, after squatting all night outside the compound, they were released.

"The soldiers laughed at us," Mahmoud Ali Hussein, 43, says. "They told us when the wall was finished we would not be able to enter Israel or the West Bank. They told us we would have no land. They sent us home and told us to wait. They said our time is almost up."

The farmers sit, bewildered, trying to comprehend it all, the ability to declare reality to be one way when it is another, the ability to swiftly and irrevocably destroy their life, the only life they have known. I say nothing, so we sit like this for a long time.

"Does a condemned prisoner sign an agreement authorizing his own execution?" asks Mahmoud suddenly.

A boy with a tray holding glasses of lukewarm soda moves between us handing out drinks. We sip the soda. The farmers light cigarettes. Ribbons of thin bluish smoke waft toward the pine branches over our heads. Again we are silent, thinking about it all.

"Too much pressure makes explosions," my host says. "When you deny us education, medical care and work what do you think we will do? When you take our homes and our land from us, when we cannot feed our families, when you strip us of our dignity, how do you think we will behave? How can you ask us to be neighbors after this? What chance do you think there will be for peace?" The men nod.

"We are going to change the name of our village," he says. "We are going to call it Transfer 2004." No one laughs.

The good Israelis

And what of the good Israelis? Where are they? What are they doing? I found Allegra Pacheco mopping the floors of her small second-story apartment in Bethlehem. Her infant son is asleep. The furniture is upended in the corner of the living room. She is scrubbing away. The scent of ammonia from the tiled floor fills the room, even with the windows open.

"We will have to go outside," she says.

We sit on her balcony. We look out over the cramped and squalid hovels of the Deheisha refugee camp. The camp cascades, one hovel nearly on top of the next, down a slope. The pope used the camp as a backdrop in 2000 when he visited. He was there long enough for the press to get images and cover his kind beneficence. The camp exploded into rioting five minutes after the pope departed. The local police station was badly vandalized. There was never a coherent explanation for the rioting, other than the obvious, the frustration and rage of a people used once again as a stage prop and then forgotten.

Allegra is a Jew. She grew up in Long Island, where she was a member of a "Zionist-oriented family." She visited Israel as a teenager on one of the tours designed to get Americans to bond with the Jewish state. She went to Barnard and Columbia Law School. She began to ask questions, questions many around her refused to ask.

She read about the Middle East. The story of the Palestinians began to unsettle her. She began to see another side of Israel. She moved to Israel after a few years as a lawyer in New York. She studied for the Israeli bar. She looked to Lea Tsmel, the Israeli lawyer who has often defended Palestinians, as a mentor. She opened a law office in Bethlehem. She was the only Israeli ever to open a law office in Palestinian territory. She handled cases involving house demolitions, land confiscations, torture and prisoners who had been incarcerated without ever being charged. She documented some torture practices, at first denied by Israel, and took the case to the Supreme Court. Most of the practices were outlawed.

The second Palestinian uprising began as she had taken a break and was writing a book as a Peace Fellow at Harvard University. She dropped the manuscript and came back. The restrictions, however, were so draconian she often could not get through the checkpoints to her office. It was hard to see clients or make court appearances. She took over the case of a Palestinian human rights activist, Abed al-Rahman al-Ahmar, being held without charge in administrative detention.

"I met my husband Abed in 1996, when he was under interrogation and being tortured," she says. "He was then sent to two and a half years of administrative detention and I continued to represent him. When he was released, he helped me set up my law office and worked with me. That's how we fell in love."

They married. They spent their honeymoon trapped in their apartment under almost continuous curfew.

Twenty to a tent

She was eight months pregnant when Abed was arrested for the 13th time. He was sent to Ofra prison. The prisoners live 20 to a tent in the desert. They sleep on wooden pallets. The tents are sweltering in the summer and cold in the winter.

"Abed sleeps under 10 blankets in the winter," she said. "There is no heat." There is an open sewer nearby and swarms of mosquitoes. He is being held on secret evidence, which means he has not been told the charges against him. Abed has never been sentenced. His six-month military detention order had been extended for another six months in June. It too was done in secret. It can be renewed indefinitely. Amnesty International has adopted him as a prisoner of conscience.

His health is precarious. When he was 16 he was arrested for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. He was tied to a chair in contorted positions. His back and stomach were under tremendous pressure. He was in great pain. His head was covered with a bag soaked in urine. Allegra has sued the army for the torture he underwent in 1996. He was also tortured on three other occasions while in detention.

"They have told him he will be released if [we] drop the lawsuit," she says. "He will not."

She gave birth to their first child, Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, this spring. Abed has never seen his son. When Allegra asked for the address of the prison to mail her husband pictures of their child she was told there was no address.

"My husband has been banned from Jerusalem for 20 years, so we brought Jerusalem to us," she says.

She is an Israeli citizen, but because her husband is Palestinian, because of his ethnicity, he is refused citizenship. She was born in Long Island. He was born here. This is how it works in Israel. Israel is a democracy only for Jews. If she had married a Jew he would have a passport and citizenship.

"What democratic state builds its laws based on a person's ethnicity?" she asks. "The goal of the South African apartheid regime was to separate whites and blacks to preserve white privilege. How is this different from what is being done to the Palestinians?"

"Who is really being shut out by this wall?" she adds. "Who is being shut in? Israel will be a closed society when the wall is finished. It will even further shun reality."

Her son wakes up and begins to cry. She gets up and walks to his room. She comes back with the infant in her arms. She begins to breast-feed him. As she coos over her son she lets me read a notebook smuggled out of the prison. It has drawings by one of the prisoners for her child Quds with stories by her husband. On the cover of the ruled school notebook are the words "Quds Smart Notebook."

In one picture a small boy is feeding a bird. "This is Quds' bird," it says. "Quds feeds the bird. The bird loves Quds. The birds are playing in Quds' beautiful garden. They know Quds. They love him very much."

She slips her wedding ring off her finger so I can read the inscription on the band inside. It has two letter A's with a heart between them. The word "forever" is etched into the band. She cradles the child in her arms and whispers words of comfort to him. She looks up, weary and sad.

"In Israel, I'm considered radical because I advocate equal rights for all persons residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea," she says.

The noose tightens

It does not matter where I turn. I see the noose tightening. There is no escape. The barrier is closing in from every side, grinding and crushing everything in its path. I begin to feel the claustrophobia, the sense of inevitable doom, the awful fatalness of it all.

Palestinians cling to what they have like shipwrecked sailors clinging to the hull of a sinking boat. There is a mass migration. They are being forced from their homes. Some have moved into their fields. They have set up squalid little encampments in vegetable patches. It is their last stand.

I walk over the heavy earth on the Israeli side of the fence from the village of Jayyous. The village has some 2,200 acres, along with six wells and pumping stations. The fence has separated the farmers in the village from 73% of its irrigated farmland. About 300 families are losing their only source of income. My feet are covered with dirt. I see across the fields the sparks shooting up from numerous campfires. I hear voices, the idle chatter of children, women and men.

Suffian Youssef, 30, stands beside an old blue truck. His two brothers, his mother and his father are with him. It is nearly dark. They have set up a small tarp and a crude shack. It is where they sleep. There is a brass coffee pot on the brazier over the fire. I smell wood smoke.

"We began to sleep in our fields a month ago," he said. "We fear that if they close the gate we will not be able to get to our crop. We are having trouble getting our crop to market. We took the crates of potatoes up to the gate in the truck a few days ago. The Border Police told us to take the crates off the truck and load them back on the truck four times. When we took them off for the fourth time they dumped the potatoes on the ground and crushed them with their boots. They beat us with their rifle butts."

Crickets chirp softly. I see a half moon poking through the haze in the sky. The roadblocks and checkpoints mean that farmers cannot get their produce to urban areas in the West Bank. There are now Israeli suppliers, who can use the settler roads, who have taken over these markets. Prices, because vegetables are bottled up in agricultural areas, have plummeted.

"We may not have enough money next year to plant a crop," Youssef says. When I leave it is night. I stumble out of the fields. I know they will not be here next year.

Taste of death

It is late afternoon at Gate Number 542 in the farming village of Zita, north of Tulkarm. A sign on the electric fence that runs along the dirt track for as far as the eye can see reads: "Danger. Military Area. Anyone crossing or touching the fence does so at his own risk." It is in Hebrew, Arabic and English.

The iron gates are painted yellow. There are motion sensors and television cameras mounted along the fence. There is a smooth strip of sand to detect unauthorized footprints. There is a dirt service road. There is a trench about seven feet deep to stop vehicles from crashing through the barrier. There is a paved road for the army jeeps. There are coils of razor wire. The land on either side of the barrier, about 100 feet wide, is desolate. Blackened stumps from uprooted olive trees poke up from the dirt. All living things on or near the barrier have been killed. It tastes of death. This is what the barrier will look like in most places on the West Bank.

There are poles mounted with powerful floodlights along the barrier to turn night into day. The farmers who live on the edge of the wasteland, often once their farmland, cannot sleep because of the glare of the lights.

A dozen poor farmers and shepherds are clustered on the other side of the barrier. They have grazed their flocks or tended their plants on their land, land Israel has swallowed up. They have been there for an hour. The gate is supposed to be opened at 6 p.m. On some nights the border police come early. Other nights they come late. There are times they do not come at all. When they do not come the farmers and shepherds sleep on the ground near the gate until morning.

Jamal Hassouna, 43, a farmer, is standing with me. We are standing on land that once belonged to him but was taken without compensation to build the barrier.

"If anyone touches the fence, even a child, they are not allowed to pass," he says. "Every soldier is a little Ariel Sharon."

Two green armored jeeps from the border police roar down the asphalt strip enclosed by the two electric fences. They halt and five policemen climb out. They hold their M-16 assault rifles at an angle. They are wearing helmets. One soldier, watched by two others, goes to open the padlock on the gate on the other side. He swings the gate open and the motley crowd walks out into the empty space, across the tarred road and the dirt road to the yellow gate on my side. They show the police their special permits before they are allowed through the yellow gate.

The police are silent. Jamal says it is because I am present. On many nights, he says, farmers are insulted, cursed, made to lift their shirts or humiliated by being told they have to crawl through the gates. Wives and children no longer cross to spare themselves the harassment. There are many farmers who, although they are never told why, are no longer allowed to pass. Their fields are dying.

I walk to tomato fields covered by gauzy brown netting. Iyad Abu Hamdi, 27, is seated alone on the lip of a small drainage ditch next to the field of tomatoes. His land is on the other side of the barrier.

He was tending his crop of peppers a few days ago when a patrol of the border police arrived at his field. The two policemen began to make lewd remarks to his wife, who was working with him. They ordered her to make them coffee. She obeyed. They ordered her sister to bring them water. She refused. They threw their thermos at his brother and told him to fill it with water. He also refused. "They began to beat my brother," Hamdi says. "They tossed the coffee in our faces. They cursed us. They shouted at us. They confiscated our identification cards. The soldiers told my wife to accept their advances or they would ruin her reputation."

When he says "accept their advances" his voice quivers with emotion and he turns his head away to avoid my eyes.

The sun is dipping below the earth. There is a dim yellow glow across the fields. His voice is shaking. He bows his head between his knees and looks at the ground.

"This happened on Aug. 3," he begins again. "I have not been allowed to cross since. They slam the gate shut in my face. My crop is dying." The tears roll down his cheeks. They too are serpent's teeth.

Chris Hedges is the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning."
Snuffysmith
(London) Times Online
August 01, 2006

BLAIR TAKES BUSH TO TASK OVER FAILURE TO DELIVER ON PALESTINIANS

By Rosemary Bennett in Los Angeles and David Charter


Tony Blair is tonight calling for a total rethink of the approach to
the Middle East in a speech which admits that military action in Iraq
and Afghanistan had alienated moderate Muslims and undermined the War
on Terror.

The Prime Minister, seeming to break from the tough stance adopted with
President Bush four days ago, said that the wider problem of extremism
would never be conquered unless there was a lasting peace between
Israel and the Palestinians.

As soon as conflict in Lebanon ends, all efforts had to be focused on
resolving that dispute, Mr Blair believes.

His plea for the use of more "soft power" was immediately interpreted
as a rebuke to Mr Bush for failing to fully engage in the Middle East
peace process, despite repeated claims that it was a priority for his
administration, as well as an acknowledgement of the deep concerns over
his tactics in his own party.

Mr Blair's change of emphasis followed growing tensions within his
Cabinet over his tough approach to the Lebanon crisis. The Times
understands that Foreign Office officials pushed hard last week for Mr
Blair to exert pressure on Mr Bush to call for an immediate ceasefire,
but were rebuffed by No 10.

The move was understood to have been endorsed by Margaret Beckett, the
Foreign Secretary, who then demanded that Mr Blair show some sign that
he was not slavishly following Washington by banning from Britain US
flights re-arming Israel.

Again Downing Street resisted strongly and Mrs Beckett was forced to
accept a compromise brokered by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, that
the US planes would stop over in Britain but only at American bases.

Mrs Beckett is understood to have made it plain to Mr Blair not only
that a wide body of opinion in the Foreign Office but also in the
Labour Party were strongly opposed to his tactics. He seems belatedly
to have moved towards them in his San Francisco speech.

Mr Blair's speech in Los Angeles to the World Affairs Council, on the
same day that four British servicemen were killed on active duty, said
that the wider problem of extremism would never be conquered unless
there was a lasting peace in the Middle East.

His speech suggested that he had become frustrated with Mr Bush for
failing to fulfil his promise to fully engage on the peace process.
Aides described it as a challenge to the US, not a change of attitude.

As fierce fighting continued in Lebanon, Mr Blair said the immediate
priority was ending the conflict and he was still hopeful there would
be a UN resolution.

"We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once
that has happened we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of
our strategy to defeat those who threaten us," he said.

There was an "arc of extremism" now stretching across the Middle East
and reaching countries outside that region.

"To defeat it we need an alliance of moderation to paint a different
future in which Muslim and Christian, Arab and westerner, wealthy and
developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each
other," he said.

"My argument is we will not win the battle against this global
extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force,
unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in the applications of
those values to the world.

"At present we are far away from persuading those we need to persuade
that this is true.

"Unless we reappraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader
global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade and in respect of the
Middle East, bend every sinue of our will to making peace between
Palestine and Israel, we will not win and it is a battle we must win."

Officials said it was "nonsense" to suggest the speech showed Mr Blair
was having doubts about war in Iraq.

Mr Blair's plans for his summer holiday, due to start this weekend, are
now under review. The Prime Minister will decide on Thursday whether he
intends to change his arrangements.

Officials said that the Prime Minister believed as much effort should
have gone on resolving the Israel-Palestine dispute as had been spent
on military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"What we accept is that we haven't persuaded Arab and Muslim world that
we are committed to the same things they are, including peace in
between Palestine and Israel," his official spokesman said.

Other aides said Northern Ireland showed that resolving conflict
required effort "day in and day out", an approach that was now needed
for the Middle East.
Snuffysmith
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Olmert: Lebanon op already a success
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 1, 2006

With fighting still raging in the North, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
all but declared victory Tuesday night, saying the military operation
had already led to a dramatic change in the region.

If the fighting were to end today, Olmert said at a graduation
ceremony at the National Security College in Glilot, near Tel Aviv,
"it would be possible to say with certainty that the face of the
Middle East has changed as a result of this great Israeli
achievement."

It was the second nationally broadcast speech on the war that Olmert
has made in as many days.

He said that the decision to embark on this war showed Hizbullah and
its patrons that Israel was not willing to live under the threat of
missile attacks.

"Three weeks ago, Israel decided it would no longer live under this
cloud of threat, and would deal with it with courage and
determination," he said. "This very decision and the demonstration of
national unity and the country's determination and the courage of the
soldiers changed the face of things. And that change will leave its
imprint on the Middle East for many years."

With that, however, Olmert seemed to be lowering the country's
expectations as to the outcome of the war, saying that neither he,
Defense Minister Amir Peretz nor the IDF General Staff ever promised
that Israel would completely eradicate the missile threat from
Lebanon.

"Nobody could promise something like that," he said, adding that there
are missiles with a 2,500-km. range. "We never thought nor planned to
get to that range, nor to get to every point and position. And even if
we did it in Lebanon, there are states that neighbor Lebanon with
longer-range missiles."

But, Olmert said, it was now clear that those who fire the missiles
"will never dare to create the type of friction that would bring about
the kind of confrontation that would cause this type of fire," because
they know the high cost that will be extracted.

"Israel is succeeding in this battle, and is gaining unprecedented
achievements," he said.
Olmert, again deflecting criticism that the operation has not brought
about enough tangible achievements, repeated what he said a day
earlier about Hizbullah's capacity having been severely curtailed.

"Twenty-one days later that threat is not what it was," he said of
Hizbullah. "Never again will it be able to threaten this country that
it will fire rockets at it, because this people dealt with the
missiles and beat them. It is impossible to say to the Israeli public,
'Give up, surrender, bend down because, God forbid, someone will
threaten you with missiles.'"

Regarding the diplomatic process that has now moved to the UN, Olmert
said that it would in the end produce a cease-fire "under entirely
different conditions than before" and that it will include an
international force that will serve as a buffer between Israel and its
enemies to the north.

As to why he is not agreeing to an immediate cease-fire, Olmert said,
"Every additional day is one that erodes the power of this cruel
enemy. Every additional day, the Israeli army reduces their endurance,
their ability to fire and also their ability to strike in the future."

He said Israel would "agree to a cease-fire once we know with
certainty the conditions in the field will be different than those
that led to the eruption of this war."

This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Snuffysmith
EU: No intent yet to add Hizbullah to terror list

The European Union does not intend to place Hizbullah on its list of
terrorist organizations for the time being, EU President Finland said
on Tuesday.

"Given the sensitive situation, I don't think this is something we
will be acting on now," Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, told
a news conference following an emergency meeting of EU foreign
ministers in Brussels.

Tuomioja's comments were in response to a letter signed by 213 members
of the United States Congress sent to EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana asking that the EU add Hizbullah to its terrorist list.

Russia recently published a list of 17 groups it regards as terrorist
organizations and did not include the Palestinian movement Hamas or
Lebanon's Hizbullah group, both of which are regarded as terrorists in
Washington.

Groups on the list, published in the official daily Rossiiskaya
Gazeta, included al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as the
Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, a rebel group fighting for Kashmir's
independence from India, and Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Snuffysmith
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9453

August 1, 2006
The Moral Culpability for Qana

by Patrick J. Buchanan
"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah," roared Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on July 27.

"Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed," bellowed an Israeli general in a quote bannered by the nation's largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth.

The Israeli paper then summarized what the justice minister and general were saying: "In other words, a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire." That was Thursday.

Sunday, in Qana, 57 of Haim Ramon's "terrorists," 37 of them children, were massacred with precision-guided bombs. Apparently, Katyushas had been fired from Qana, near the destroyed building.

"One who goes to sleep with rockets shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't wake up in the morning," said Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman.

Today, we hear unctuous statements about how Israel takes pains to avoid civilian casualties, drops leaflets to warn civilians to flee target areas, and conforms to all the rules of civilized warfare.

But Israel's words and deeds contradict her propaganda. As the war began, Ehud Olmert accused Lebanon, which had condemned Hezbollah for the killing and capture of the Israeli soldiers, of an "act of war." Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz publicly threatened "to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years."

Gillerman, at a pro-Israel rally in New York, thundered, "[T]o those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You're damn right we are."

"His comments drew wild applause," said the Jerusalem Post.

Though Israel is dissembling now, Gillerman spoke the truth then. No sooner had Hezbollah taken the two Israeli soldiers hostage than Israel unleashed an air war – on Lebanon. The Beirut airport was bombed, its fuel storage tanks set ablaze. The coast was blockaded. Power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads, trucks, and buses were all hit with air strikes.

Within 48 hours, it was apparent Israel was exploiting Hezbollah's attack to execute a preconceived military plan to destroy Lebanon – i.e., the collective punishment of a people and nation for the crimes of a renegade militia they could not control. It was the moral equivalent of a municipal police going berserk, shooting, killing, and ravaging an African-American community, because Black Panthers had ambushed and killed cops.

If Israel is not in violation of the principle of proportionality, by which Christians are to judge the conduct of a just war, what can that term mean? There are 600 civilian dead in Lebanon, 19 in Israel, a ratio of 30-1, though Hezbollah is firing unguided rockets, while Israel is using precision-guided munitions.

Thousands of Lebanese civilians are injured. Perhaps 800,000 are homeless.

Yet, whatever one thinks of the morality of what Israel is doing, the stupidity is paralyzing. Instead of maintaining the moral and political high ground it had – when even Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan were condemning Hezbollah, and privately hoping Israel would inflict a humiliating defeat on Nasrallah – Israel launched an air war on an innocent people. Now, 87 percent of Lebanese back Hezbollah, and the entire Arab and Islamic world, Shia and Sunni alike, is rallying behind Nasrallah.

And how does one defend the behavior of the United States?

When Gillerman was exulting in the disproportionality of Israel's attack on Lebanon, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton was smiling smugly beside him. When the UN Security Council tabled a resolution condemning Hezbollah's igniting of the war and Katyusha attacks, but also the excesses of Israel's reprisals, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton vetoed it. When a few congressmen sought to moderate a pro-Israeli resolution by adding words urging "all sides to protect innocent life and infrastructure," GOP leader John Boehner ordered the words taken down.

Why? Because, says Zbigniew Brzezinski, AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, had prepared the resolution and wanted it passed the way they wrote it. Our Knesset complied. It sailed through the House 410-8.

For two weeks, Bush seemed unable to find a word of criticism for what our friends in Israel were doing to our friends in Lebanon. He publicly sent more bombs to Israel. He and Condi emphasized that America did not want a cease-fire – yet.

And because America provides Israel with the bombs it uses on Lebanon, and we refused to restrain the Israelis, and we opposed every effort for a cease-fire before Sunday, America shares full moral and political responsibility for the massacre at Qana.

Rubbing our noses in our own cravenness, "Bibi" Netanyahu took time out, a week ago, from his daily appearances on American television, denouncing terrorism, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the terror attack on the King David Hotel by Menachem Begin's Irgun, an attack that killed 92 people, among them British nurses.

This was not a terrorist act, Bibi explained, because Irgun telephoned a 15-minute warning to the hotel before the bombs went off. Right. And those children in that basement in Qana should not have ignored the Israeli leaflets warning them to clear out of southern Lebanon.

Our Israeli friends appear to be playing us for fools.
Snuffysmith
Sadly, the Plural of "Fiasco" Requires No "E"

By Ray McGovern

Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14321.htm

Sadly, the Plural of "Fiasco" Requires No "E"

By Ray McGovern

08/01/06 "t r u t h o u t " -- -- But the world desperately needs an "E" for EXIT from the march of folly toward a wider Middle East war that is increasingly likely to result from plural US foreign policy fiascos - in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, for starters; in Syria and Iran for the next stage. Fortunately, Webster's does allow the insertion of an "E" and that's precisely what we must now do. We need to make a prompt exit from the endless string of fiascoes that have the Middle East marching to calamity.

If we do not take a sober look beyond the carnage of the last few weeks and weigh the reaction of still others in and outside the region, I fear there will be no exit. Perhaps it would be wise to start with a brief review: Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?

Ideologues and Amateurs

Let's begin with the new people and policies that President George W. Bush brought in with him when he took office on January 20, 2001. Who urged on him what Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings calls "the huge mistake of giving Israel a blank check?" Who played the leading roles in encouraging Bush to let slip the dogs of war on Iraq?

Honors for the leading role in the category of fiasco goes, ex aequo, to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," as described by Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret.). At an award ceremony, the cabal no doubt would offer copious thanks to key members of the cast - first and foremost, ideologues Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The Oscar for best actress in a supporting role goes to Condoleezza Rice.

It was five and a half years ago that Rice was formally initiated into the neo-conservative brotherhood as an auxiliary. Her most important service was greasing the skids for the brothers to try to shoehorn into reality their ambitious but naive dreams of using war to ensure total US/Israeli domination of the Middle East. At the new administration's first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001, then-national security adviser Rice stage-managed formal approval of two profound changes in decades-long US policy toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Thanks to Paul O'Neill, confirmed as treasury secretary just hours before the NSC meeting, we have a first-hand account.

The neo-cons had already gotten to the new president, for he began with the abrupt announcement that he was ditching the policy of past presidents who tried to honestly broker an end to the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Rather, the president said the US would now tilt sharply toward Israel. Most importantly, Bush made it clear that he would let then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon resolve the conflict as he saw fit. The US would no longer "interfere."

Powell: Dead Man Walking

According to O'Neill, Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed "startled," and warned that US disengagement would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. Bush shrugged dismissively, adding, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things."

After his requiem for the decades of US sweat and blood expended on the effort to work out a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the president turned immediately to Iraq. Rice led off by reciting the received wisdom of the neo-cons (I still wonder how many of them actually believed it...) that, "Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region." Whereupon, at her request, then-CIA Director George Tenet displayed a grainy overhead image of a factory in Iraq that he happened to have with him. Tenet thought the factory "might" be associated with a chemical or biological weapons program, but that association could not be confirmed. No problem. The conversation immediately turned from this typically Tenet-ative "intelligence" to the question of which Iraqi targets to begin bombing.

O'Neill, just inducted into the cabinet but not into the neo-conservative brotherhood, was understandably nonplussed. He says he found it all quite curious and left the meeting convinced that, for reasons never fully explained, "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus."

The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neo-conservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the January 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (#3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush

Dr. Rice Becomes Dr. No

There is a certain poetic justice in the fact that Rice, now secretary of state, is reaping the whirlwind. She has been trapped in the extremely awkward position of having to say "No" to a cease-fire to stop the burgeoning violence, and then being mocked by the Israelis who openly violated the cease-fire they had promised her.

Still an innocent abroad, Rice has loyally played piano accompaniment for the neo-con hit song, "Reshaping the Entire Region." She has, for example, described the violence in Lebanon and Israel as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." On Friday, President Bush declared, "This is a moment of intense conflict ... yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."

Bush's remark elicited uncharacteristically acerbic ridicule from Richard Haass, who served under Bush as head of policy planning at the State Department. (Yes, this is the same Haass who in July 2002 begged Rice for an appointment with the president, whom he wanted to warn of the folly of invading Iraq. Rice reportedly told him, "The decision's been made; don't waste your breath.") Referring to Bush's remarks on Friday, Haass, now head of the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's optimism, according to a report by Peter Baker in yesterday's Washington Post. "That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time," said Haass. "If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"

It is far from funny. Rather, it is amateur-hour again at the White House, with Rice acting as the president's personal secretary under instruction to do what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons tell her to do. The results have been entirely predictable. Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has US stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing US setback from which it will take decades to recover. The ramifications are region-wide; but looking at Lebanon alone, one of my former CIA colleagues observed:

"The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes for the former are being dashed."

Meanwhile Back in Baghdad - More "Last Throes"

In terms of those killed, Iraq was even more violent than Lebanon over the past week, but Western media put Iraqi developments on the back burner.

-Last Tuesday, President Bush told the press, "Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops." Bush observed that: "Conditions change inside a country. And the question is: Are we going to be facile enough (sic) to change with [them]." Some 4,000 US troops are being sent from elsewhere in Iraq to reinforce Baghdad. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted on July 28 that this "reverses last month's decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad ... and represents a dramatic setback for the US and the Iraqi government." Highly respected military analyst Anthony Cordesman has expressed the same view.

Secretary Rumsfeld approved General George Casey's request to extend the Iraq tour of a 3,700-strong Stryker brigade, which had been scheduled to return to the US this summer. And the Pentagon announced that the number of US troops in Iraq rose last week to 132,000 - the highest level since May. In a command performance in June, General Casey reportedly gave Bush a plan for withdrawing 7,000 troops before the mid-term elections - a plan that may now be overtaken by events.

Whether he intended to or not, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, also fielding questions from the press, virtually redefined the mission of US troops. Addressing what he called the "new challenge," Hadley said, "This isn't about insurgency. This isn't about terror. This is about sectarian violence." The number of sectarian killings has doubled since the start of the year. Press reports indicate that many Sunnis are even afraid to go out to retrieve the bodies of relatives in Baghdad's overflowing morgues, lest they too become prey to Shia militia. The very large unanswered question: Is that why our troops lie exposed in the middle - to stop Iraqis from killing one another?

Richard Armitage, who was Secretary Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department, warned that bringing in more troops at this late stage may prove to be "too little too late, and that the US will turn into a bystander in an Iraqi civil war it does not have sufficient resources to prevent." Western press reports suggest that this may already be the case; with virtually everyone below the rank of general admitting that lack of troops is a major problem. At the same time, it is universally recognized that requesting more troops would sound the death knell for one's career.

One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional US forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with US troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IUDs. US officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the US green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Colonel Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of US supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area.

Former adviser to the US occupation authority in Iraq, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, has said, "The Shia-led Interior Ministry is out of control." There is a strong move afoot in the Iraqi Parliament to replace the interior minister. Otherwise, all is going according to plan - or so the Bush administration and FOX News Channel would have us believe. It has become increasingly difficult to put a positive spin on all this. Now and again, out of desperation, a PR person will reach for the all-too-familiar chestnut: "We have not once been defeated in battle."

Many years ago, Army Colonel Harry Summers learned the hard way not to use this one. At the end of the war in Vietnam, Summers received orders to negotiate with North Vietnamese Army Colonel Tu the terms of the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam. Summers could not resist reminding Tu, "You know you never beat us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu paused for a moment: "That may be so," he said. "But also irrelevant."

Many of us in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been writing and shouting for 33 months that this war is UNWINNABLE. It is now time for Americans interested in justice, sanity and peace to draw the appropriate conclusions and summon the courage to stick our necks out. For it is simply not right to ask our troops in Iraq to play referee between factions and "stay the course" for us, on the off chance we might get lucky and "reshape the entire region."

Ray McGovern is on the Steering Group of VIPS. He draws on his experience as an Army infantry and intelligence officer and a 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.

This article was first published at t r u t h o u t
Snuffysmith
Bush's fondness for fundamentalism is courting disaster at home and abroad :

Affinity with the Christian right has led to banning stem cell research and turning a blind eye to civilian deaths in Lebanon
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14319.htm
Snuffysmith
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459

August 2, 2006
Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'
The Qana massacre reveals the true face of Israel's aggression
by Justin Raimondo
The Qana massacre was the occasion for a full-court propaganda campaign by Israel’s amen corner, and one has to say they rose to the occasion like real pros. First, of course, they expressed remorse – then, naturally enough, they blamed it all on… Hezbollah.

How so? Well, you see, the Israelis bombed a building filled with children and old people because rockets fired at Israel "originated immediately next to it." Yet the Red Cross denied there were any Hezbollah in Qana. The Israelis keep up a constant refrain claiming Lebanon uses its own civilian population as "human shields," but the reality is quite different: Lebanese civilians flee when Hezbollah fires a fusillade, because they know the Israelis will soon be bombing the place to perdition. Aside from which, Nasrallah’s folks are a tightly knit group and security is taken seriously: a friend of mine who went into Hezbollah headquarters in southern Beirut was subjected to such a thorough search that by the time they were through with him he was bereft of his dignity as well as any desire to proceed further. Hezbollah doesn’t trust noncombatants, and for that reason keeps well away from them no matter what their religious, ethnic, or political affiliations.

Read this Ha’aretz piece and see if you can figure out how the IDF is trying to slither and slide out of this one: the building didn’t collapse immediately, there is an 8-hour gap – or maybe not – and "maybe we’ll never know what happened." Blah blah blah – in short, the Israelis are blowing a lot of smoke.

One has to wonder, however, what it is they’re smoking if they really think anyone believes their overly elaborate obfuscations. Like a squid ejecting a cloud of ink, the Israeli propaganda machine is emitting all sorts of alternate scenarios, replete with maps, aerial photos, and video, and they dispatched their Internet army to spread the rationalizations far and wide. All to cover up a simple, irrefutable fact: it was Israeli warplanes, and not Hezbollah, that slaughtered 54 people, more than half of them young children, and the rest women and old folks.

IDF commanders and the politicians who supposedly control them don’t even have the courage of their own viciousness. After all, they have an easy out in this pronouncement of the Yesha Rabbinical Council:

"According to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy. All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians."

These aren’t fringe characters, but fairly representative of Israeli religious opinion. Pat Buchanan complains:

"If Israel is not in violation of the principle of proportionality, by which Christians are to judge the conduct of a just war, what can that term mean? There are 600 civilian dead in Lebanon, 19 in Israel, a ratio of 30-1, though Hezbollah is firing unguided rockets, while Israel is using precision-guided munitions."

But these guys aren’t Christians – and Israel isn’t the West, as much as they’d like us to believe they are. The principle of proportionality doesn’t apply in the Middle East or North Africa – where history and culture have conspired to produce a socio-political milieu in which a disproportionately violent response to the least provocation is required. The Israelis are deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians in order, as per the Yesha Rabbinical Council, to "exterminate the enemy" – just as Hezbollah is deliberately (albeit relatively ineptly) targeting Israeli civilians in the north.

These people not only inhabit the same lands and look the same, they also think alike: if you steal their cow, they’ll blow up your barn – with your family in it. A similarly harsh justification for inflicting death and terror on a civilian population was offered by none other than Osama bin Laden in his fatwa explaining the "Islamic" rationale behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center:

"It is allowed for Muslims to kill protected ones among unbelievers in the event of an attack against them in which it is not possible to differentiate the protected ones from the combatants or from the strongholds. It is permissible to kill them incidentally and unintentionally according to the saying of the Prophet. When he was asked, as in al-Bukhari, about the offspring and women of unbelievers who stayed with the unbelievers and were killed, he said, 'They are from among them.’ This indicates the permission to kill women and children because of their fathers if they can not be distinguished. In the account of Muslim he said, 'They are from their fathers.'"

Perhaps Osama graduated from the same school of moral philosophy as Alan Dershowitz, who, in defense of the Qana slaughter, wrote at the Huffington Post:

"By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and the terrorists with a win-win option."

Dershowitz, a well-known advocate of torture, issues a "challenge" to readers to come up with a better solution than launching a military campaign certain to involve heavy civilian casualties. The clear implication being that the IDF has no choice but to kill civilians, because Hezbollah uses its own supporters as "hostages."

This argument does not apply to Qana, however, since, as Ha’aretz reports:

"As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the Sunday air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident. It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence there of Hezbollah men at the time.

"The Israeli Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were practiced in the past. But there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."

Let’s assume, for the moment, that Ha’aretz is wrong, and Hezbollah did launch rockets in the vicinity of Qana. Dershowitz’s argument still makes no moral sense – at least, to the Western mindset – because the Israeli response is so grotesquely disproportionate. Remember, all this death and devastation is occurring in response to a minor border incident involving a few Israeli soldiers and some trigger-happy Hezbollah fighters: similar dust-ups have occurred on our border with Mexico, and I don’t see Washington ordering air strikes on Mexico City.

The Middle Eastern "morality" that allows the Israelis to target the Beirut airport, where tourists ducked and covered, and permits Hezbollah to lob Katyusha rockets into Haifa, is given its dark voice by bin Laden:

"It is allowed for Muslims to kill protected ones among unbelievers on the condition that the protected ones have assisted in combat, whether in deed, word, mind, or any other form of assistance, according to the prophetic command. This is what happened at the time of Abu Dawud and others who were involved in the murder of Duraid Ibn al-Samma. When he was 120 years old he went out with the Hawazin tribe to advise them. They consulted him on battle procedure and he went from being a protected one to being a target because of his advice regarding the war against Islam.

"It is allowed for Muslims to kill protected ones among unbelievers in the event of a need to burn the strongholds or fields of the enemy so as to weaken its strength in order to conquer the stronghold or topple the state. It is permissible even if protected ones are among the victims, as the Prophet did among the Bani Nadir."

Substitute "Jews" for "Muslims," and you have something the Yesha Rabbinical Council can get behind. This thinking is exemplified by Israeli "Justice" Minister Haim Ramon, who recently opined:

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

Therefore, according to the Yesha-bin Laden doctrine, it’s okay to slaughter them: after all, there’s no such thing as an innocent civilian. They are merely "the enemy," period, and thus subject to extermination.

Israel’s amen corner in the U.S. is constantly screaming about "moral equivalence," supposedly the prime sin of the antiwar crowd. How, they ask, can you equate the Israelis, who are always careful to avoid civilian casualties, with the "terrorist" Palestinians-Lebanese-and-Arabs-in-general, who don’t give a fig whom they kill as long as the victim is Jewish?

That is utter hogwash. The Israelis, as we have seen from the first days of this bloody war, are no different than Hezbollah in their tactics or their intentions: they’re both bloody murderers, the only difference being that the Israelis are better-armed – and receive much more aid from their Western allies than Hezbollah could ever dream of getting from Syria or Iran.

Another myth exploded by Israel’s summertime slaughter: the idea that this is the only democracy in the region, and therefore must be supported by the West. As Nehemia Shtrasler, a columnist for Ha’aretz, put it:

"The Olmert-Peretz plan was to shell and demolish south Lebanon and south Beirut until the Lebanese public demanded that its government vomit Hezbollah out from its midst."

The goal of the invasion: regime change – in a country once touted by the president of the United States as a beacon of liberty and proof that his "global democratic revolution" is succeeding. Another myth blown to pieces by Israeli bombs: the neocon notion that democracies don’t make war on each other. The democratically elected government of Lebanon is being systematically destroyed by the Israeli blitz – and that, it turns out, is the whole point of this exercise in death and destruction.

The IDF is openly committing war crimes, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Americans and the Brits – and, as the rest of the world looks on in horror, it doesn’t seem to me as if they’ll stop in Lebanon. The War Party is on the warpath, and there is no political opposition at home – at least, not in the U.S. – to act as a brake on their killer instincts. If I were Syrian, I’d hightail it out of Damascus, or start building a bomb shelter. And in Tehran, they must be holding their collective breath, straining to hear the drone of American (or Israeli) fighter jets as they glide in over the horizon…

The silence of the "liberals" empowers the neocons – and virtually ensures that this Israeli-spawned war will spread far and wide. George W. Bush and his Democratic "opponents" have teamed up, in this instance, and I seriously doubt if either Brent Scowcroft or Henry Kissinger can motivate our policymakers to reconsider and think about how – and where – this will all end.
Snuffysmith
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060...03604-8059r.htm
U.S. aims to placate Arabs over strong Israel alliance
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 1, 2006


U.S. officials expressed concern yesterday about a new rise of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world over U.S. support for Israel, particularly after the deadly Qana attack, and said they would try to calm the anger by pushing for a speedy U.N. resolution this week.
Meanwhile, diplomats and analysts said that the number of civilian casualties of Israeli bombardment and Washington's reluctance to criticize its ally have put new pressure on friendly Arab governments but are not likely to affect their relations with the United States.
"The world's perception right now is that we'd do anything to support Israel and go to any lengths to protect it," one U.S. official said. "There is a sense that not only are U.S.-supplied weapons killing Arab children, but that we are co-conspirators."
A European diplomat said people in the region feel that the United States has a double standard and does not appear to be concerned about Arab civilians as much as for Israelis.
Both the U.S. official and the European diplomat said they did not agree with those sentiments.
American, European and Arab diplomats pointed to the television images of dead Lebanese children and the newspaper headlines in the Middle East in the past two days, which placed some of the blame for the Qana incident on the United States.
"Israel's murderous bloody attack [Sunday], using U.S.-supplied laser-guided missiles, represents a new low in subhuman depravity," the usually moderate Arab News wrote yesterday in an editorial.
In addition, diplomats and analysts said, it did not help that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was meeting with Israeli officials in Jerusalem at the time of the strike on the Qana building that turned out to be housing mostly women and children. Fifty-six were killed.
In the attack's aftermath, along with the images of carnage and grief, TV stations around the world were showing pictures of Miss Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert smiling as they sat down for dinner on Saturday, the night before the incident.
The Arab press also criticized Miss Rice for calling for an investigation into the incident instead of condemning it. She also was admonished for failing to demand an immediate cease-fire and for condoning Israel's military response to Hezbollah's July 12 attack, which the United Nations and the European Union have labeled "disproportionate."
On Sunday, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq condemned the "Israeli aggression" and warned that "Islamic nations will not forgive the entities that hinder a cease-fire" -- a clear reference to the United States.
"Oftentimes, sticking by principle and operating on the basis of principle in policy will buy you some criticism. We understand that," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "People should not, however, mistake that for the United States not caring about the loss of innocent life."
Haim Malka, Middle East fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the anti-Hezbollah sentiment expressed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia after the July 12 attack has been "wasted" by the many civilian casualties in Lebanon.
"Many Arab regimes want to see Hezbollah defeated militarily, and if Israel can do the dirty work, all the better," he said. "But as long as there are civilian casualties, it'll be difficult for those countries to support Israel and criticize Hezbollah."
Snuffysmith
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=9458

August 2, 2006
The US Can't Run the Show in the Middle East
It's time for the Europeans to get more active in diplomatic efforts
by Leon Hadar
It feels like déjà vu all over again. A U.S. official leaves for a conference in East Asia where he or she is supposed to discuss issues that affect the interests of the governments and economies in the region. Instead, the American representative ends up investing most of his or her time and energy in trying to resolve another Middle East crisis.

Indeed, this was expected to be a Southeast Asian week for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was scheduled to fly to Malaysia for the ASEAN regional forum, and after concluding talks with officials from the region, return to Washington. But her trip to Kuala Lumpur will probably be recalled now as nothing more than a short stopover in between her extensive and more important efforts to deal with the mounting violence in the Middle East.

On her way to Southeast Asia, Ms. Rice spent several days of shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, followed by an international conference in Rome, as part of an effort to bring a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hezbollah that has already resulted in hundreds of casualties and appalling destruction in Lebanon (as a consequence of Israeli aerial bombing) and in northern Israel (caused by hundreds of missiles launched by Hezbollah guerillas).

And on her way back from Malaysia, the United States' chief diplomat held more talks with Israeli and Arab officials as she tried to find ways to reach an agreement that she insisted would lead to the release of Israeli soldiers who had been kidnapped by Hezbollah (the development that ignited the current crisis), the disarming of Hezbollah's militias in exchange for Israeli willingness to discuss the return of Lebanese citizens it has been holding for several years, as well as resolving the fate of disputed land on the border of Israel, Lebanon, and Syria.

Most U.S. allies, including the ones that Ms. Rice met in Kuala Lumpur, would like to see an immediate cease-fire in the Mideast. But Ms. Rice and her boss, President George W. Bush – as he made clear during a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday in Washington – seem to have given Israel a green light to continue its assault on Hezbollah until the Shi'ite group is so damaged it is forced to raise a white flag.

That this has been a very long and grueling week of diplomacy for Secretary Rice becomes obvious when one studies her body language during press conferences. She looks as if she's under a lot of pressure. That is not surprising when one takes into consideration the problems she has been facing as she tries to juggle the many and contradictory U.S. commitments – to Israel, which the Bush administration and Congress regard as a close U.S. ally; to the fledging democracy of Lebanon, where Hezbollah is part of the cabinet; to the pro-American Arab-Sunni regimes in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia; and to a Arab-Shi'ite government in Iraq with close ties to Iran. The U.S. has the ambition of achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, isolating and containing Syria and Iran,