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 > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
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, promoting political and economic freedom in the Middle East, and securing access to oil resources in the Persian Gulf.

Secretary Rice's failure to fulfill all of these costly commitments and achieve these many goals has less to do with her personal charm and diplomatic skills and more with the fact that the United States is reaching a point in which it seems not to have the power anymore to advance its agenda in the Middle East, which combines a realpolitik drive toward hegemony with a Wilsonian crusade for democracy.

To put it simply, the United States has too much on its Middle Eastern plate, and it is clearly beginning to lose its leverage over the main players in the region. As America's allies in East Asia are discovering, this means the U.S. has less time and resources to devote to other policy issues.

You don't have to be a great strategic thinker to reach these conclusions. Just glance at the headlines in your daily newspaper and watch the latest news on television and you get the picture: The United States is overstretched militarily in an Iraq, which is experiencing a form of civil war that threatens to split the country, where the rise of an Arab-Shi'ite-dominated government has helped Iran to emerge as the main regional power in the Persian Gulf and a source of inspiration for Shi'ites in the entire region.

All that has been happening as Washington tries without much success to force Iran to end its plans to acquire nuclear military capability. The Americans have succeeded in evicting the Syrians from Lebanon, but that has created a military vacuum that helped to strengthen the power of Hezbollah there. And the U.S. has made little effort to revive the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. In fact, the push for democracy in Palestine has brought to power the radical Hamas movement.

That does not mean that the U.S. is a global power in decline like, say, Great Britain and France were after World War II, as they were gradually ejected from the Middle East by the Americans (and the Soviets). But the unilateral and hegemonic project that the U.S. has been trying to establish in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the 1991 Gulf War, is probably coming to an end.

The kind of challenges that America is facing now in Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Lebanon, including the rising power of radical political Islamic movements, growing ethnic and religious tensions (including between Sunnis and Shi'ites), an increasing number of failed states, and threats from non-state actors, cannot be dealt with through this Democratic Empire project.

Making Way for Others

There are limits to Washington's ability to invest its economic and military resources in such a project, especially if one considers the unwillingness on the part of the American taxpayers to support a never-ending military intervention in the Middle East.

On one level, Washington cannot continue to pursue a policy of punishing and isolating Middle East regimes with which it disagrees on either policies or ideology. There is no way that Washington could encourage the creation of a stable balance-of-power in the Persian Gulf, including Iraq, without negotiating with Iran.

And it cannot help bring stability to Lebanon without dealing with its powerful Syrian neighbor, or for that matter with the powerful Lebanese-Shi'ite community, many of whose members support Hezbollah. Similarly, no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be reached through unilateralist Israeli strategy backed by Washington. Taking its cue from the process that has taken place in Southeast Asia, the U.S. should be supportive of a formation of regional security groups in which Washington will not play the leader; for example, a Persian Gulf security organization that includes Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.

On another level, it is in the interest of the U.S. to provide incentives for other global players to play a more active role in promoting stability and peace in the Middle East – in particular, the members of the European Union (EU), especially the Mediterranean countries (France, Italy, Spain) and Germany (which has special ties with the Jewish state). Britain and Turkey should play a leading role in this process of growing engagement in the Middle East, a region that because of geographical proximity, economic ties, and demographic links is their strategic backyard – what Latin America is for the U.S.

Through its hegemonic strategy in the Middle East, the U.S. has encouraged the Europeans to take a free ride on American policy. The message from Washington has been: "We'll do the driving, while you only have to check the tires and replace the oil."

France and Germany could start doing some of the driving, even if that means that they will have more impact on deciding what policy route to take in the Middle East. The current crisis in Lebanon might be just such an opportunity for a growing European engagement.

Against the backdrop of declining U.S. prestige, France, Italy, and Spain have been playing an active role, mostly through back-channel diplomacy with Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, and indirectly with Hezbollah, to fashion a peaceful resolution.

At the same time, according to press reports, Germany has also been pursuing behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving Israel, Syria, and Iran. The EU has already announced that it would be willing to take the lead in deploying peacekeeping troops to southern Lebanon; France, Italy, Turkey, and Norway have agreed to participate in such a force. And the Europeans have also indicated their interest in playing a more central role in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

This is the kind of European activism in the Middle East that American officials should encourage, so that when another crisis blows up in the Middle East, U.S. officials will be able to participate in an ASEAN conference without being distracted by a new mess in the Levant.

Copyright © 2006 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
Snuffysmith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Role in the Middle East
A failed foreign policy -- time for a national debate
- P. Edward Haley
Tuesday, August 1, 2006


If the debacle in Iraq were not clear enough, the explosion of warfare throughout Lebanon, northern Israel and the Gaza Strip has established beyond doubt: the Bush administration's foreign policy has collapsed in blood and violence.

Plainly, global democratization and military unilateralism have failed to yield solutions to the most important security threats facing the country and its closest friends and allies. It is time for all Americans -- citizens and political and military leaders alike -- to begin a national debate about what measures are needed to create a more effective foreign policy for the country.

On the basis of my work in Washington as a staffer in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, I would suggest three ideas for that national foreign policy debate.

1 Every successful American global foreign-policy initiative derives its greatest impact not from the power of the United States, but from the combined strength of allied and friendly nations that joined with the United States out of idealism and self-interest. It was that combination that defeated the Soviet Union and Communist China in the Cold War, turned the Marshall Plan at the close of World War II into an astonishing triumph and ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 at no cost to the American taxpayers and very low loss of American and allied lives. The contrast with the war in Iraq could not be greater. The economic and military strength of the United States makes it superior to any other country -- and its superiority was even more striking in 1945 than in 2005, given that after World War II the United States was the sole possessor of nuclear weapons and its economy was intact -- but not a global hegemony. In effect, the superiority of the United States allows it to set the global agenda and attempt to persuade other countries to agree to the measures it believes are necessary to attain security and prosperity.

2 My experience and study -- in and out of government -- teaches me that the United States is a deeply conservative country, not in a partisan sense of Republican versus Democrat, but in a more profound sense of skepticism about the power of human beings and their institutions to transform the world. Americans believe in change, as much or more than any other people. But the change we expect is incremental and derives from hard work and the sacrifice of generations of individuals, not sudden drastic shifts driven by governments and self-appointed elites. We distrust and doubt overnight transformations ushered in by revolutions in social and political values and, all too often, mass killing. Seen in this light, seeking global democratization is a revolutionary -- not conservative -- goal. Achieving it would require the overthrow of most of the world's governments, including many allies whose cooperation in the near term is essential to defeat terrorism, respond creatively to militant Islam, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and attend to global equity and threats to the environment. As Hamas' electoral win and the rise of Hezbollah have shown, the character and allegiances of whatever governments might replace those that had been overthrown or voted out of office are at best uncertain, and more likely damaging. To declare that the United States cannot be secure unless the world is completely democratic is to seek absolute security -- and absolute security for the United States means absolute insecurity for every other government in the world. The Bush administration's hope that American primacy would persuade others to get on the "bandwagon" never materialized.

Finally, nationalism can be an important ally of the United States in its dealings with Muslim and Arab countries and in efforts to keep foreign policy from bankrupting America financially and emotionally.

The world of Islam is huge and diverse and stretches from the eastern Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Its peoples include Africans, Arabs, Persians, Central Asians, Malays, Indonesians and Filipinos. If the countries with large Islamic minorities are included, the range is even greater and includes India, the United States, France and Britain. The languages, geography, histories and cultures within the enormous Islamic orbit differ markedly from each other. The vast differences in national aspirations and circumstances open the possibility of finding common ground and working together, but this can occur only if the American government is willing to negotiate on the basis of mutual advantage.

In simplest form, these insights amount to understanding ourselves and others. In terms that might be put to work in fashioning a new foreign policy they are: getting primacy right by developing a position of leadership and coalition building, abandoning global democratization and making common cause with other nations. These insights cannot make a new foreign policy by themselves. But they can help start a debate about a new international direction for America.

If not now, then when?

P. Edward Haley is the W.M. Keck Foundation professor of international strategic studies at Claremont McKenna College and the author of "Strategies of Dominance: The Misdirection of U.S. Foreign Policy" (Johns Hopkins/Woodrow Wilson Center Presses, 2006).

Page B - 7
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...EDGOBIQ0221.DTL
tazvil04
This is almost a comical response equating how we fought terrorists with how Israel is being asked to fight them. More evidence of the dishonesty of neocons...

The terrorists in Afghanistan were supported by regime in power -- the Taliban. Hezbollah --- while holding seats in the Lebanese government is not yet the majoritarian party in Lebanon --- and did not act with the knoweldge or support of the Lebanese government when it encroached on Israeli soil.

Another difference is that Afghanistan was not a democratic state like Lebanon is.

Another is that we waged a war against the Taliban who was the reigning authority --- Israel is not waging a war against the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government has not offered any support since the Hezbolah encroachment. While Lebanon may have "allowed" Hezboallah to

Additionally, the UN had issued Resolution 1559 which called for the disarming of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. There was no action after that --- or pressure from the US and other members of the UN Security Council to disarm Lebanon after passage of the resolution -- so the US acquieseced as much as Lebanon did...

There was no UN action calling for the dismantling of the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...

Another is that the US has or was at least perceived as having a superior military force to any other nation in the world when it went into Afghanistan--- Lebanese does not have similar forces and actually admits to being unable to extract Hezbolah from southern Lebanon.

Another is that there was no international force that was ready to stand for the US in Afghanistan. And if you examine Afghanistan now --- who is doing much of the fighting against a resurgent Taliban --- why an international force --- NATO.. so indeed what is being suggested in Lebanon is similar to what has already happened in Afghanistan.

So -- before Mr. Gaffney starts equating certain conflicts she should not only get his facts straight --- he should also not forget the complete picture...

One War
In its war on terror, the U.S. would never accept the limits being pushed on Israel.

BY FRANK J. GAFFNEY
Wednesday, August 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/f...e/?id=110008736

WASHINGTON--On Sept. 11, 2001, a freedom-loving nation was attacked by a terrorist organization operating from the territory of a sovereign state with the acquiescence, if not the active complicity, of the latter's government. The United States retaliated with what can only be called a "disproportionate response."

How We Fight Terrorists

America launched air and ground assaults on Afghanistan, aimed at destroying not only the al Qaeda safe havens but toppling the Taliban regime. We damaged or destroyed critical Afghan infrastructure so as to deny its use to the enemy. Civilian casualties occurred, as did refugee flows. At one point, the U.N. declared the resulting dislocation a humanitarian crisis.

Once the campaign to eliminate al Qaeda was launched, there was no consideration given to negotiating with the terrorists or the government that afforded them protection. The United States would not have contemplated a U.N.-mandated ceasefire, let alone the insertion of an international peacekeeping force under a Chapter 7 mandate from the Security Council--whose purpose, inevitably, would have been to protect the terrorists from our military, not the other way around.

And most especially, it would have been inconceivable that the U.S. could accede to one of its enemy's central demands--for example, the removal of all American forces from the Mideast--as part of a negotiated ceasefire brokered by the U.N. and approved by the Taliban at the direction of al Qaeda.

How We Expect Israel to Fight Terrorists

It is therefore stunning, not to say depressing, to see how the Bush administration's early, strong support for Israel's response to the murderous attacks on its territory by the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has morphed in recent days.

First, Israel was told it must not undermine the Lebanese government, even though the latter had not only acquiesced to what amounts to a Hezbollah-controlled state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. The government in Beirut actually has two Hezbollah ministers in its cabinet--a role al Qaeda never enjoyed in Taliban Afghanistan. This injunction had the practical effect of limiting Israeli efforts to press officials in Beirut to disassociate themselves from the terrorists in their midst.

Then, the U.S. embraced the idea that Israel must reward the government that has allowed Hezbollah to occupy and operate against the Jewish State from the part of south Lebanon the Israelis foolishly and unilaterally vacated in 2000. Where we destroyed the regime that afforded safe haven to our foes, Israel has been told it must make a further territorial concession to its counterpart by surrendering to Lebanon a small area known as Shebaa Farms that Israel has occupied since 1967.

Never mind that Shebaa Farms was not Lebanese territory to begin with; Israel conquered it from Syria in the Six-Day War. The character of this area was confirmed by none other than the United Nations. It certified in May 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory, that the Farms are not and have never been part of Lebanon and that their final status would ultimately have to be settled in negotiations between Israel and Syria.

Now, however, Israel is being told it must satisfy what amounts to a demand of Hezbollah--a manufactured pretext for the Iranian-backed terrorist organization to continue its war against Israel, even after the Israelis had abandoned the security zone they had wisely maintained in Lebanon for 18 years (along with the erstwhile Lebanese allies who lived there).

It is bad enough that Hezbollah will thus be rewarded for its terrorist attacks on Israel. The implications of this concession will prove much worse, however, to the extent the message is conveyed by it that Israel is not entitled to--and cannot expect to enjoy--inviolable, internationally recognized borders. To paraphrase an old saw: What belongs to the Arabs is the Arabs'; what belongs to Israel is extortable.

Even more problematic is the prospect that the United Nations will shortly mandate--with U.S. backing and Israel's acquiescence--the insertion into southern Lebanon of an armed international force. Its purpose, ostensibly, will be to enforce a ceasefire pursuant to a new Chapter 7 Security Council resolution. If its job is to "keep" the peace, not make it, such a force will by definition require Hezbollah's assent to enter. The peacekeepers will understand, moreover, that they will be allowed to remain there in safety only if they do not interfere with the terrorists' rebuilding and resupply activities in south Lebanon.

The make-up of this force may compound the problem. Under discussion are troop contributions from places like Turkey, Indonesia and France--nations that are not likely to prove unfriendly to Hezbollah and that are, to varying degrees, hostile to Israel. In short, this will be just another anti-Israel U.N. mission, providing protection to the Free World's terrorist foes and doing little if anything to keep them from readying new attacks on freedom-loving peoples.

The Bottom Line

For the United States, the current phase of this War for the Free World began on Sept. 11, 2001. For others, like Israel it has been going on for decades and represents an unmistakably existential threat. We cannot afford to pretend that there is an appropriate way for the United States to fight Islamofascist totalitarians and the terror they wield against us, then insist that our allies must negotiate with and try to appease such groups when they are in the Islamofascists' cross-hairs.

Mr. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, is author of "War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Make to Prevail in the War for the Free World."
tazvil04
LITTLE HAS BEEN LEARNED FROM THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM By Georgie Anne Geyer
Tue Aug 1, 6:04 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20060801/cm_u...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Washington, D.C. -- Common wisdom has it that adults, unlike children, lose their native ability to express surprise. As they grow in years, so too do they grow in cynicism, thinking they know everything when in fact they have lost only innocence.

We have been cursed in the Middle East these last few years not to have national leaders with mature wisdom. Instead, we see the naive surprise, not of innocent children, but of unversed and arrogant leaders expressing constant astonishment at what should, in fact, be palpably obvious.

Both Israelis and Americans have been endlessly "surprised" by Hezbollah's admittedly appalling attacks on Israel, and the rest of the world has been equally "surprised" at Israel's outbalanced counterreckoning. The American establishment is, after 3 1/2 years of disastrous meddling, "surprised" as Iraqis veer from insurgency against the always hated occupier to sectarian strife with their eternally despised neighbors and to all-out civil war among the Iraqi sects and sectors. Americans still believe, according to recent polls, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What can one say?

Most incredibly, the U.S. military, after these dangerous years of intervention in Iraq, characterized by an almost total lack of knowledge of the true culture of Iraqis, is now trying to glean lessons from Vietnam. Might one humbly suggest: "Finally!"

In a comprehensive and disturbing piece adapted from Thomas E. Ricks' book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq," The Washington Post recently traced how the American military repeated all the same mistakes of Vietnam and even the Balkans.

They arrogantly thought that their "presence patrols" -- their mere presence -- would control the submissive population. "Few U.S. soldiers seemed to understand the centrality of Iraqi pride and the humiliation Iraqi men felt in being overseen by this Western army," Ricks wrote. "Foot patrols in Baghdad were greeted ... with solemn waves from old men and cheers from children but with baleful stares from many young Iraqi men."

Defense chief Donald Rumsfeld announced at one point, "I guess the reason I don't use the phrase, 'guerrilla war' is because there isn't one."

But later, as the incipient guerrilla war morphed into a full-blown insurgency and well beyond, it became clearer that the United States was waging a "conventional war" -- boots on the ground, full force ahead -- against a classically "unconventional" enemy.

And all these years since the humiliating defeat of American troops in Vietnam in 1975 against a similarly unconventional guerrilla enemy, the Viet Cong (along with traditional Vietnamese troops), American military schools today still do not teach a viable counterinsurgency doctrine.

The Israeli position is quite similar. Despite all proof to the contrary, Israel persists, like the U.S., in thinking it can terrorize its enemies into submission, instead of terrorizing them into ever more lethal and potent irregulars -- thus the Armageddonesque destruction of both Lebanon and Iraq by massive bombing.

But this attitude, as any even reasonably sensitive person should know, is, at the bottom, one of despising one's enemies (always a dangerous business), of believing that he would never react the way you do and thus creating more guerrillas, insurgents and suicide bombers through the humiliation thus inflicted.

Hezbollah, after all, did not exist before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and stayed for 22 years. Hamas was originally formed with Israeli encouragement to stand up against the PLO. With Iraq, the United States ever so helpfully dismantled the one great enemy of Iran, which kept that imperious and ambitious nation in check. With the same naive destructiveness inside Iraq at the very same time, the American presence was creating new and dangerous insurgent groups -- the Shiite Mahdi Army, the al-Qaida spinoffs, and too many more to mention.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Meanwhile, these self-indulgent policies, which refuse to take into consideration the cultural realities of other peoples and groups, are changing the Middle East still further. Old movements are already morphing into new and more dangerous ones.

The New York Times recently wrote about the new war between nations, like the United States and Israel, and "networks," like Hazbollah and al-Qaida, which are simply an advanced form of the classic guerrilla movements of history. At the same time, radical Islamist groups from Lebanon to Somalia to Iraq, and potentially even the moderate Arab regimes, are now gaining power through electoral legitimacy.

And on every level, the American presence in the region is serving to create a new "retribalization" that is destroying what is left of the secular Arab states.

This is not at all to say that these groups are innocent, desirable or unsusceptible to violent confrontation -- far from it. It IS to say that there are intelligent ways to confront them, and to defeat them, other than indiscriminately bombing them to smithereens.

The intelligent policy would be the old middle ground: to address their real grievances, to negotiate and mediate confidently even with difficult governments like Syria's and Iran's and, while using military power prudently, to work on diffuse levels to gradually change the structures of power.

But it's so much easier to drop bombs, even if they only create exactly what you set out to destroy.
tazvil04
August 2, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Lebanon’s Force for Good
By ADIR GURION WALDMAN\
NEW YORK TIMES

IN the summer of 1998, I was an infantry soldier in the Israel Defense Forces. Preparing for an operation in southern Lebanon, my platoon received some unusual orders: no one, under any circumstance, was to open fire. This was a significant departure from our standard rules of engagement, which permitted firing upon sight at Hezbollah forces. The apparent reason was that representatives of the United States, France, Israel, Lebanon and Syria were in the area that day for a meeting of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group.

Today, Israeli soldiers are again in southern Lebanon. As pundits propose various diplomatic solutions to the crisis embroiling the region, lost in all of these suggestions is the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, the one institution that in the past was able to prevent war in the Middle East.

The Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group was born a decade ago when, as today, Israel sought to root out Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. In late April 1996, after two months of intense warfare, Secretary of State Warren Christopher set out for a weeklong session of shuttle diplomacy that culminated in an agreement calling for Israel and Hezbollah to shield civilians from violence. The Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group would oversee compliance with this pledge.

Over the next four years, until Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, violence did not cease, but the parties were able to keep it from spiraling out of control. Through regular meetings of high-level military and diplomatic officials, the monitoring group resolved disputes, arranged temporary cease-fires and reined in spurts of violence. In December 1999, for example, when Israeli shells mistakenly hit a Lebanese school, a series of phone calls through the monitoring group prevented Hezbollah from retaliating against Israeli civilians. In another instance, the group facilitated an exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hezbollah.

A long-term diplomatic solution to the current crisis should include the resurrection of the monitoring group and the establishment of a parallel Israeli-Palestinian body. These groups would be modeled on the old monitoring group, but with a new mandate: to oversee the full disarmament of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. If Western troops won’t take on that mission, the Israeli-Lebanese group could monitor the Lebanese Army’s accomplishment of the task. Routine meetings of both groups would help ensure enduring cease-fires on all fronts.

Most important, the monitoring groups would create a constructive new channel of communication among Israel, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. Away from the spotlight that has doomed past diplomatic efforts, these parties could freely negotiate over outstanding differences, and through those meetings, rising military and diplomatic leaders could build key personal relationships.

The monitoring groups would also provide a confidential forum where the parties could work to restrain violent flare-ups, rather than engaging in escalating tit-for-tat attacks. Thus, for example, an Israeli-Palestinian monitoring group, which might also include Egypt and Jordan, could immediately convene in the event of any spike in Israeli-Palestinian violence.

In 2000, I interviewed Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group delegates, who spoke about their work with enthusiasm. They told me of times when, after particularly egregious episodes of violence, the group was able to initiate immediate back-channel contacts that staved off reprisals, and they recalled how Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian military officers formed personal bonds of trust. When an Israeli general’s term on the monitoring group ended, he told me, his counterparts gave their final farewells with tears in their eyes.

Today, diplomatic leaders must not overlook this extraordinary precedent for calming tensions in the Levant.

Adir Gurion Waldman, a lawyer, is the author of “Arbitrating Armed Conflict: Decisions of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group.’’
Snuffysmith
.S. ENVOY: ISRAELI STATEMENT 'OUTRAGEOUS' (JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY, NY, AUGUST 1): Claims that Israel has a green light to fight in Lebanon until it ousts Hezbollah are 'outrageous,' a top aide to President Bush said. In interviews over the weekend with Malaysian media, Karen Hughes, Bush's envoy for public diplomacy in the Middle East, rejected Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon's claim of U.S. authorization to wipe out Hezbollah. 'That is an outrageous statement,' Hughes said.
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=3942

HUGHES INTERVIEW AT
http://www.state.gov/r/us/69779.htm

NOTE: In the interview, Ms Hughes states that 'Our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has said that's [Ramon's] an outrageous statement.'

'KAREN HUGHES DENIES ISRAEL HAS BLANK CHECK JUAN COLE (INFORMED COMMENT: THOUGHTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST, HISTORY, AND RELIGION, AUGUST 2): Ms. Hughes has her heart in the right place, and one can only applaud her for being the only member of the Bush administration to dare use the word "outrageous" to describe any action of any Israeli official in the current war. But can even her old friendship with W. protect her from the backlash from these statements that will come in the Israel lobby in Washington?
http://www.juancole.com/


SILENCE CAN BE GOLDEN PATRICIA H. KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIEW, AUGUST 1): 'I realize that Karen Hughes has never seen a camera -- or I guess a mike -- that she didn't like, but every once in a while she should think twice about agreeing to an interview at home or abroad on a topic she is ill-prepared to address particularly during a major crisis which this administration is bungling almost as badly as the IDF. The case in point is an almost incomprehensible interview Hughes gave for Malaysian state television on July 28 in which she attempted to express the administration's views on the latest Middle East crisis and the U.S. role in helping to resolve it. ... In general such interviews are not bad ideas -- although in this instance Hughes should have left talking about policy to Rice.'
http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...ce_can_be_.html


''HOUCAIR: ISRAELI ATTACKS ON LEBANESE CIVILIANS HURT U.S. STANDING IN REGION - BERNARD GWERTZMAN, INTERVIEWER (INTERVIEW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, JULY 31): Choucair: 'The United States is left with Israel in not calling for a cease-fire at the time when there is an increasing number of Lebanese civilian casualties. This position is perceived by Arabs across the region as callous and indifferent in the face of Arab suffering. This is very counterproductive for the U.S. administration's attempt to win the hearts and minds of the region's people. It also discredits the United States' declared push for reform in the region, and also has basically rendered all public diplomacy efforts useless because when images of civilians dying are on everybody's screens, it is really irrelevant what Karen Hughes says.' (Julia Choucair, an expert on Lebanon for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11182/choucair.html


'DAILY PRESS BRIEFING - SEAN MCCORMACK (STATE DEPARTMENT, JULY 31, 2006): Question: I wonder, since Karen Hughes actually was on the trip [of Secretary Rice to the Middle East] -- is on the trip and I think this is the first time that she's gone with the Secretary, actually, on an entire trip, are you trying to explain to your allies, even their publics, what the roots of this strong support of Israel are and how you might -- you know, will try to deal with public opinion in the Arab world, even in Europe MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary asked Karen to come along on this trip in her role as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy. Karen is at the crossroads of policy and public diplomacy for the Administration, so I think the Secretary thought it was very useful to have her on the trip. I think that Karen has found it very useful to be on the trip.
http://bloggeroffline.blogspot.com/2006/08...ng-july-31.html


HUGHES SIGHTING AT BAR LEADS TO UGLY SITUATION; HISTORY'S ACTORS CROSSING THE RUBICON (KARENA S BLOG, JULY 30): 'Earlier this week I watched Karen Hughes tussle with Soledad O'Brien on CNN. Soledad held her own and kept insisting that it made no sense for Karen Hughes to be on a mission to improve our image in the Middle East if America would not even back the call for a ceasefire. Soledad had Hughes on the ropes and finally backed off when it looked like any referee would have stopped the fight. Now you cannot find this interview on the internet. No transcript, no video, nothing.'
http://karenas.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/...atch_sitin.html


THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST DIGBY (JULY 31): Comments on Hughes based on the piece that appeared about her in the Ottawa Citizen, July 31 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...fb0&k=64899&p=2. Includes comments by Digby readers.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_...436142907362612
(scroll down link for item)

KAREN HUGHES STUDIES THE MIDDLE EAST - AS'AD (THE ANGRY ARAB NEWS SERVICE, JULY 31): Hughes' nighttime reading is telling. A re-reading of Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Alaa Al Aswany's The Yacoubian Building, about a building in Cairo and all its inhabitants. And, at her bedside, evangelist Billy Graham's new book, The Journey: How to Live by Faith in an Uncertain World.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/07/kare...e-east-her.html


ABOUT THOSE NUKES, IRAN ... - LIONEL BEEHNER (DAILY ANALYSIS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, JULY 31): The White House has ramped up its public-diplomacy spending seven-fold to counter anti-Americanism in Iran and reach out more to its opposition groups.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11180/about...ukes_iran_.html
Snuffysmith
This interview by Laura Rozen with Magnus Ranstorp was just posted on The American Prospect.

Contra Iran
TAP talks to Magnus Ranstorp about Hezbollah and the Iranian connection.
By Laura Rozen
Web Exclusive: 08.02.06

Magnus Ranstorp is among the world’s leading experts on Hezbollah. Advisor to governments, former director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and currently chief scientist on asymmetric threats at Sweden’s National Defense College, Ranstorp has interviewed hundreds of members of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other militant Islamist groups for his research, numerous articles, and books, including Hizb'Allah in Lebanon. He spoke from Sweden with Laura Rozen about the militia group and what the United States should be doing about the current conflict in Lebanon.

Some in the U.S. intelligence community have voiced concerns that Hezbollah has the capability to strike abroad; it’s not clear at this point they have the intent. What would their calculation be?

The Israelis know that if they assassinate [Hezbollah general secretary Hassan] Nasrallah, Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence will reach around the world and hit an Israeli embassy or diplomatic mission.

Why that sort of attack? To show they have global reach?

For retribution.

I have been to Argentina, I have seen where Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence attacked the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992. I have seen their style. I assisted the Argentine Supreme Court in its investigation of the 1992 case. And it’s indisputable that Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence were involved.

Why does Iran need Hezbollah to conduct terror operations? Their own intelligence operatives have conducted assassinations by themselves throughout Europe.

For plausible deniability. To operate under the cover of plausible deniability.

You’re right, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security is the most formidable intelligence agency in the region, surpassing even the Mossad.

Why is Iranian intelligence so effective?

Well, they have 30,000 employees. They have to survive in a hostile Arab environment. They export Hezbollah. They are at work in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So is the Lebanon conflict a result of Iranian hegemony?

This conflict has to be viewed in a broader geophysical context. The bottom line is that while it has to do, of course, with what’s happening in the Middle East in general, more specifically it has much to do with the brewing conflict, the U.S.-Iranian confrontation.

So you do see the Lebanon conflict as about the United States and Iran?

Without exception; with a great degree of confidence. There has been a lot of background preparation. Iran’s control is more than meets the eye.

Really, if you want to mess with Iran, Hezbollah is the Achille’s heal, the weakest link in the whole matrix. You take them on, not just because you want to mess with Iran, but for many reasons: for Lebanon’s sake, to get some solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, also to tackle Syria, which has been a staunch ally to Iran for 26 years.

Hezbollah has been very smart maneuvering politically. They have created a broad resistance coalition in Lebanon, which they control, but they don’t claim ownership of the resistance. They are playing the confessional card in the sense that they are reaching across the divide, and they have done so for a long time in order to position themselves to make it more difficult to disarm them.

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said at an event yesterday that Hezbollah is trying to de-Lebanize Lebanon, to reorient it to Iran.

Peres is compressing the long view of the path Hezbollah has taken.

Before, during Lebanon’s civil war, even into the early 1990s, Hezbollah’s flag called for the Islamic Republic of Lebanon.

But as they have entered into the Lebanese political scene in recent years, they have been very smart; they’ve stopped calling for the Islamic Republic of Lebanon, advocating instead for the people’s will to determine Lebanon’s orientation in the future.

Having said that, however, the ultimate card Hezbollah can play if the Lebanese play hardball with them is to push for pure proportional representation: one man, one vote. If that’s the case, Hezbollah will take over the reins of government to an even greater degree. That is the ultimate ace they have up their sleeve.

Hezbollah has organized, personal, longstanding links with Iran, on a number of different levels. In 1992, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah became the personal representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Lebanon…

Hezbollah currently has about 100 Iranian advisors in Lebanon. They don’t partake in the fighting. They are more tactical advisors…

[Hezbollah provides the Iranians with] the terror machinery. It’s not used very much anymore. Recently the main focus has been on trying to assist Hamas on a low scale, strategic consultations and kidnapping [the Israeli soldier]. That is coordinated via the Hamas representative in Beirut, Osama Hamdan. He used to be Hamas’ rep in Iran. They have recently been trying to infiltrate foreigners into Israel; people have been arrested for carrying out reconnaissance on Israeli troops.

But the connections with Iran go ever further. The entire Hezbollah collective leadership studied in Najaf [Iraq]. Nasrallah was there between 1976 and 1979, he was there during Khomeini’s rein there. The Iranian clerics were trained by the Palestinians in the 1970s….

If you were advising the U.S. government, what would you tell them to do?

I would say from a U.S. perspective, I would advise the Israelis, if they are really serious about taking out Hezbollah, they should neutralize the Hezbollah political leadership to lay the ground work for diplomatic efforts. Squeeze them in one direction, towards U.S.-led efforts to lock them into UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon, which means Hezbollah

The Israelis have seized the moment. Everything was in a holding pattern, stalemate, and the kidnapping was perfect for the Israelis, and they have seized the moment. From my perspective, I would tell them to continue on the same path. Not to concede until the work has been done...

I have followed this thing on a daily basis for sixteen years now, even when it was completely out of the headlines. And there has never been a better moment to really move on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.

By the “Syrian track,” do you mean behavior change, or regime change?

Probably behavior change, although things may have to get worse before they get better. The Israelis and the Americans will part ways on this. The U.S. would like to follow through with the democratic experiment there. The Israelis don’t want to change the regime.

Laura Rozen is a senior correspondent for the Prospect.

© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.
Snuffysmith
JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION

8/2/06

Zawahiri: Internationalizing Jihad, Uniting Muslims and Trumping Saudi Clerics

Michael Scheuer

Ayman al-Zawahiri's July 27 statement on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict
deftly advanced al-Qaeda's own interests, as well as al-Qaeda's goal
of putting the world's multiple ongoing Islamic insurgencies into the
context of a single, Shiite-and-Sunni struggle against "the
Zionist-Crusader aggression." The struggles in Palestine, Lebanon,
Iraq and Afghanistan are all connected, al-Zawahiri said, and "the
whole world is an open field for us. As they attack us everywhere, we
will attack them everywhere". For the first time, al-Zawahiri went a
step further, by urging that "all oppressed and wronged people in the
world, the victims of Western oppressive civilization led by America:
Stand by Muslims in the face of this injustice which humanity has
never witnessed before".

Al-Zawahiri's statement focused on themes that have dominated
al-Qaeda's rhetoric since Osama bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war.
First, al-Zawahiri claimed that the conflict in Lebanon underscored
the fact that Muslim blood is worthless in the West's eyes. "Nobody
cared about 10,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons," al-Zawahiri said,
"while the world went into an uproar after three Israeli soldiers were
captured". On this issue, al-Zawahiri seems to have caught the Muslim
world's mood. Writing in Jeddah's Arab News, for example, Lubna
Hussain wrote on July 28 that the war "in Lebanon once again provides
us in the Arab world a superfluous, all too frequent and unnecessary
reminder that our blood is cheap...The return of two Israeli soldiers
equate to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians".

Second, al-Zawahiri cited the Levant conflict as yet another instance
where the ruling Arab regimes are unable to protect their nationals
against Israel and the United States. "O my Muslim nation,"
al-Zawahiri said, "it has become known to you without doubt that the
governments of the Arab and Muslim states…are paralyzed and defeatist
and you are left in the field alone". Referring to the Arab League's
denunciation of Hezbollah's hostage-taking and Saudi King Abdullah's
condemnation of Hezbollah's "uncalculated adventures" [6], al-Zawahiri
told Muslims that the regimes had combined their impotence with being
"involved in collusions" with the United States and Israel. In this
vein, al-Zawahiri's words blended tellingly with those of many other
critics of the Arab regimes, which, by week's end, caused the Saudi
king to backpedal and announce that "if the option of peace fails as a
result of Israeli arrogance, then the only option remaining will be
war".

Third, al-Zawahiri strove to portray the Islamist insurgencies in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine as parts of a single jihad
meant to drive the United States and its allies from the Middle East
and all Islamic territory. "The war with Israel is not about a treaty,
a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal or disputed
borders," al-Zawahiri explained. "It is rather a jihad for the sake of
God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the
liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, as well as every land that
was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq". Specifically,
al-Zawahiri said that the insurgency in Iraq was the key to liberating
Palestine, citing the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's claim that, "we are
fighting in Iraq, while our eyes are on Jerusalem". Encapsulating bin
Laden's stubborn insistence that a successful Islamist insurgency
requires a geographically contiguous safe haven for basing and
operational staging, al-Zawahiri reminded his listeners that "Iraq is
characterized with its proximity to Palestine. The Muslims must
support its mujahideen so that a mujahid Islamic emirate can be
established there [Iraq] which can, with the will of God, move jihad
to the borders of Palestine. Then the mujahideen inside and outside
Palestine can unite and the great conquest will arrive, God willing".

Al-Zawahiri went on to claim that "the shells and missiles that tear
apart the bodies of Muslims in Gaza and Lebanon are not purely
Israeli. Rather, they come from and are financed by all countries of
the Crusader alliance." The target of the U.S.-led coalition,
al-Zawahiri argued, is the whole Muslim world, and so the mujahideen
must unite and "target the interests of all the countries that took
part in the aggression against Muslims in Chechnya, Kashmir,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. According to the Sharia, all
these governments and people are fighting the Muslims".

Fourth, and finally, al-Zawahiri took advantage of the unexpected war
in the Levant to advance the effort bin Laden began after al-Zarqawi's
death to reassert al-Qaeda's longstanding position that Sunni vs.
Shiite conflict must be subordinated to building a united Islamist
movement to drive the United States from the Middle East and to
destroy Israel and the apostate Muslim regimes. Speaking to all
Muslims, al-Zawahiri said, "We cannot just stand idly by while we see
all these shells fall on our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon. We must
target Jewish and American interests everywhere." Al-Zawahiri then
said that Muslims can find the models for such action in Islamic
history, invoking the examples of courage and resistance set by the
first Caliphs and the companions of the Prophet. In listing these
names, al-Zawahiri underscored the need for sectarian unity by
including—apparently for the first time in al-Qaeda's history—the
names of Ali and Husyan, two of the most revered Shiite leaders and
heroes. Not forgetting al-Qaeda's need to continue reducing its
anti-Shiite reputation in Iraq, al-Zawahiri called on all Iraqi
Muslims—not just Shiites—to cease their cooperation with Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki's regime and the U.S.-led coalition. "Perhaps,
the events of the Crusader-Zionist aggression on Muslims [in Lebanon
and Gaza]," al-Zawahiri said, "may push the traitors in Iraq to end
their disgrace and treason and stop justifying and supporting the
U.S.-Crusader presence in Iraq".

Al-Zawahiri fully supported the activities and Islamic virtue of
Shiite Hezbollah, in what is a daring departure from al-Qaeda's
traditional practice of not saying much about Hezbollah beyond
praising its 1980s attacks on U.S. forces. Besides this effort to work
toward sectarian cooperation, al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda took the risk
of alienating some of their Sunni supporters and benefactors in Saudi
Arabia by defying the official Saudi religious establishment. On July
22, the ultra-conservative Saudi cleric Sheikh Muhammad Bin-Abdallah
al-Habadan backed Saudi King Abdullah's initial condemnation of
Hezbollah, demanding that Sunnis not support Hezbollah in terms that
made al-Qaeda sound absolutely ecumenical. "It is not imperative that
anyone who happens to be the enemy of the Jewish state should be
considered our [the Sunnis] friend," al-Habadan declared. "As the
Jewish state is our enemy, also people who have declared the
companions of the Prophet, may God's peace and prayers be upon him, as
infidels, and are creating mayhem in today's Iraq against the Sunnis
are our enemies, too. The latter [Shiites] are not less of a threat
against the nations than the Jews themselves…[Events in Lebanon are]
nothing but a war between two antagonistic evils".

On the day of al-Zawahiri's message, the Saudi clerical establishment
again thundered out another vitriolic anti-Shiite message. The
Shiites, said Dr. Muhammad al-Abdah, adhere to Ayatollah Khomeini's
"fallacy, hatred and fanaticism" and are "a barrier in the way of the
Sunni tide."

Al-Qaeda has long condemned and derided the Saudi clerical
establishment as "the sultan's scholars," but had not previously taken
them on over such a fundamental theological question as the
Sunni-Shiite divide. As the saying goes, though, "He who dares, wins."
Beginning on the evening of July 27, the outside-Saudi Arabia cavalry
of Sunni scholars arrived and explicitly and implicitly supported
al-Qaeda's position. "We believe that this speech [al-Zawahiri's]
contains new and very important meanings," said Faysal al-Mawali,
secretary general of the Islamic Group of Lebanon, a leading Sunni
organization. "This new attitude [of al-Qaeda] represented by the call
for a large-scale alliance involving all the oppressed in the world
means, of course, an alliance between the Sunnis and the Shiites, in
particular, against the Zionist aggression and the U.S. tyranny. We
also consider this to be a very important and advanced step".

Then, on July 28 and July 30, several Sunni heavyweights delivered the
coup de grace to the Saudi clerics, and implicitly approved al-Qaeda's
non-sectarian approach to war-fighting. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr.
Ali Gomaa, said that Israeli actions in Lebanon are "injustice itself"
and that "Hezbollah is defending its country and what it is doing is
not terrorism." Then, Egypt's powerful Muslim Brotherhood publicly and
specifically rejected the rulings of the Saudi sheikhs which
prohibited Sunni support for the Lebanese Shiites. Finally, Dr. Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, one of the Islamic world's most influential and televised
scholars, condemned the Saudi clerics' rulings as "fanaticism" and
derided the fear of "some Arab regimes" that is apparent in their
belief that "Israel is an invincible state." Al-Qaradawi played down
Sunni-Shiite differences, hailed Hezbollah's resistance as a "noble
act" and—echoing al-Zawahiri—said that "It is the duty of Muslims
around the world to support the Lebanese resistance."

Overall, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda have taken full advantage
of the unexpected opportunity provided by the Israel-Hezbollah
conflict. In an al-Sahab video of unprecedented quality—al-Zawahiri
was made to appear as if he was in a professionally lit
studio—al-Qaeda's deputy chief effectively explained the
inter-connectedness of all Islamic insurgencies, focused Muslims
worldwide on the "Zionist-Crusader" threat and brushed aside arguments
that Shiites and Sunnis must not cooperate in resisting that threat.
In doing so, al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda provided Muslims with an
international context in which to view the Levant war through their
own words, as well as by leveraging the blessings of Hezbollah by
prominent Sunni scholars—which blew the usually unquestioned Saudi
scholars out of the water—and exploiting an environment in which
Muslims worldwide are watching real-time coverage of the carnage in
Lebanon.

Michael Scheuer served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the CIA's
Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is now a Senior Fellow
at The Jamestown Foundation.
Snuffysmith
Let The Slaughter Of Civilians Continue

U.S. Insists Cease-Fire Must Await Plan to Disarm Hezbollah

By JIM RUTENBERG and THOM SHANKER

The United States firmly reiterated its position on Tuesday that there can be no cease-fire in the Middle East until there is a solid plan in place to disarm Hezbollah.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14330.htm
Snuffysmith
A War Crimes Tribunal May be the Only Deterrent to a Global War

By Francis A. Boyle

The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a "subsidiary organ" under U.N. Charter Article 22. The ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14327.htm
Snuffysmith
Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in
Kfar Qanna that "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," the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)

(07.30.06)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283720,00.html
Istoodforu
This is just my intuitive prediction based upon the assumption that the US foreign policy is both unwilling and unable to broker a viable settlement of this conflict.

Hezbollah rocket attacks on Northern Israel will continue until they have depleted their stockpile to a level that they want to hold in strategic reserve.

The IDF will conduct special operations back and forth on the border with the objective of establishing a buffer zone in Lebonan wider than the range of most Hezbollah rockets. IDF and Hezbollah will try to draw each other into killing zones in this buffer zone but with limited success. Each will have the respective advantages of asymetric warfare such that these advantages will be offsetting.

The pressure of world opinion (particularly the EU) will dissuade Israel from continuing airstrikes elsewhere in Lebanon. They will also run out of targets that haven't already been reduced to rubble. The civilian population in Southern Lebanon and in these bombed out areas will become refugees more or less indefinitely.

Areas in Northern Isreal and throughout Lebanon will experience destruction and depletion of environmental resources and community infrastructure which will diminish the carrying capacity of the region. Both Jews and Arabs may eventually depopulate the region due to extreme environmental degradation.
tazvil04
Important article on PNAC shutting its doors because its policy objectives have been met --- and largely accomplished with the US backing its Middle East policy direction...

'American Century' Lives On
Tom Barry
August 03, 2006

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/0...ry_lives_on.php

Tom Barry is policy director of International Relations Center. Barry is the author of a June 2006 report on the Project for the New American Century.

The Project for the New American Century—a largely neoconservative coalition that included social conservatives, militarists and Zionists—has shut down, boasting, “Goal accomplished.”

A large part of that goal was to put Israel’s counterterrorism agenda at the center of U.S. foreign policy.

Although it remains far from clear that the 21st century will be a “new American century,” PNAC’s organizers can rightly claim that the Bush administration largely adopted its neoconservative agenda for foreign policy. PNAC, organized in 1997 by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, set forth a list of priorities immediately after 9/11 for the “war on terrorism”—including a close antiterrorism alliance with Israel, taking out Hezbollah, wiping out the Palestinian intifada and regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Nine days after the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington, PNAC published a public letter to President Bush that concisely described what was to become the Bush administration’s own policy agenda in the Middle East.

At a time when most Americans thought the war on terror would focus on hunting down Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida, PNAC made the case that the U.S. government should embrace Israel’s radical national security strategy. The neocon group argued essentially that Israel’s enemies were America’s enemies.
According to PNAC, “Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East….the United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism.”

In addition to eliminating al-Qaida, PNAC recommended that the U.S. military “remove Saddam Hussein from power,” even if “evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack.” Three years earlier, PNAC in a January 1998 letter, demanded that the Clinton administration pursue a regime change strategy against Iraq—described by PNAC in subsequent statements as a threat to both the United States and Israel.

PNAC’s Sept. 20, 2001 letter to President Bush foreshadowed the U.S. government’s unyielding support for Israel’s current military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon. “Any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah,” asserted PNAC, which called Hezbollah “one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world.”

Because of their support for the Lebanon-based anti-Israel Hezbollah, Iran and Syria should also be prime targets of the U.S.-led global war on terrorism, said PNAC. “We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial and political support for Hezbollah and its operations,” stated the PNAC letter. “Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.”


PNAC also included the Palestinian Authority on list of counterterrorism priorities: “The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel.”

With the Bush administration having largely integrated PNAC’s Middle East views into its foreign policy, PNAC issued another letter on April 3, 2002 that called for the administration to put Israel at the center of its counterterrorism strategy in the Middle East.

“You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President,” said PNAC. “Israel is fighting the same war.”

According to PNAC, “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy”—specifically naming Iraq, Iran, and Syria. “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.”

The neocon foreign policy group recommended that the U.S. “should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens,” warning that Israel’s counterterrorism war “task will not be easy” and “will not be accomplished quickly or painlessly.”

After nearly 10 years of seeking to call the shots for U.S. foreign policy, the Project for the New American century has quietly shut down operations. As its legacy, its organizers and members can rightly claim they played a central role in charting the Bush’s administration’s radical foreign policy agenda, particularly its Israel-centric counterterrorism policies.

Over the past few years PNAC became a victim of its achievements—especially of its role in leading the United States into Iraq. As the occupation faltered, PNAC found it increasingly difficult to hold together a conservative foreign policy coalition.

In 2004 William Kristol and other neocons outside government began criticizing the Bush foreign policy team, including such former PNAC associates as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for their failure to commit adequate troops and their half-hearted commitment to nation-building.

Other radical conservatives who had originally joined the PNAC coalition, such as End of History author Francis Fukuyama, began distancing themselves from the American supremacy project as the Iraq occupation became a quagmire.

New splits among conservatives on immigration, Israel policy and Iran have also undermined PNAC’s ability to project a conservative foreign policy consensus.

The limits of U.S. power and the follies of the Bush administration’s arrogance cut short PNAC’s glory days. Although forced into retreat, the Israel-focused neoconservative camp remains strong. The neocon-led Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which was created immediately after the 9/11 attacks to advance right-wing Zionist positions in Washington, includes many former PNAC associates and has become one of the most influential policy institutes on the war on terrorism and U.S.-Israel relations.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 3 2006, 08:42 AM)
This is just my intuitive prediction based upon the assumption that the US foreign policy is both unwilling and unable to broker a viable settlement of this conflict.

Hezbollah rocket attacks on Northern Israel will continue until they have depleted their stockpile to a level that they want to hold in strategic reserve.

The IDF will conduct special operations back and forth on the border with the objective of establishing a buffer zone in Lebonan wider than the range of most Hezbollah rockets.  IDF and Hezbollah will try to draw each other into killing zones in this buffer zone but with limited success.  Each will have the respective advantages of asymetric warfare such that these advantages will be offsetting.

The pressure of world opinion (particularly the EU) will dissuade Israel from continuing airstrikes elsewhere in Lebanon.  They will also run out of targets that haven't already been reduced to rubble.  The civilian population in Southern Lebanon and in these bombed out areas will become refugees more or less indefinitely. 

Areas in Northern Isreal and throughout Lebanon will experience destruction and depletion of environmental resources and community infrastructure which will diminish the carrying capacity of the region.  Both Jews and Arabs may eventually depopulate the region due to extreme environmental degradation.
*


If you are interested in another outcome, you might communicate with your representative in Congress about this resolution in Congress:

Tell Your Representative: Support an Immediate Cease-Fire in Lebanon

Contributed by Working Assets

A small but growing number of Representatives are co-sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 450, calling for an immediate end to the violence in Lebanon and negotiation of a lasting settlement to be enforced by international peacekeepers in southern Lebanon. This resolution presents the best hope for an end to the rapidly rising civilian toll in this deeply troubled region and should be approved in Congress.

The United States bears a special moral responsibility in this crisis as the only nation that can bring an end to the violence and relieve the humanitarian catastrophe that has enveloped the people of Lebanon and Israel. Regrettably, Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Rice are all too clearly doing what they can to stall a ceasefire. Each day of delay leads to more unnecessary civilian deaths in both Lebanon and Israel.

Achieving peace in the region requires that the government of Lebanon establish full military control over all of its territory, with Hezbollah disarmed and the rocket attacks stopped. However, it is clear that the Lebanese government is too weak to accomplish these tasks, so an international peacekeeping force is required.

Israel has a right to defend itself against military attacks, but its response to Hezbollah has involved attacks on Lebanese civilians and the destruction of vast amounts of civilian infrastructure totally unrelated to Hezbollah. Fully one-fourth of Lebanese civilians are now refugees. The current Israeli policy of declaring any civilian remaining in southern Lebanon as a target subject to bombardment is simply immoral and has already led to hundreds of civilian deaths, with more certain with each passing day.

The current U.S. policy of delay in favor of continued war is likely to have great consequences for the region, the world and the safety of our nation and its allies. Congress needs to step forward and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities by passing Representative Kucinich's resolution.

Call to action
Ask your representative to support House Concurrent Resolution 450 calling for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon."

----------

Even though few pay much attention to Dennis Kucinich these days, he is more consistent in making good sense than anyone else in Congress.
Snuffysmith
For those who like their analysis apocalyptic, Amir Taheri will usually oblige. Here the London Times provides a home for his vision of rapture.

THIS IS JUST THE START OF A SHOWDOWN BETWEEN THE WEST AND THE REST
by Amir Taheri
The Times, London
August 2, 2006

MANY IN THE WEST see the mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, as another episode in a tedious saga of an Arab-Jewish conflict that began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a political version of the "original sin". The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own.

But that analysis does not reflect the Middle East's new realities. All the wars in that region of the past century, including the one between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, revolved around secular issues — border disputes, the control of territory and water resources, security and diplomatic relations. Although fought in the name of nationalism or pan-Arab aspirations, none had a messianic dimension.

The first two wars of the new century in the Middle East, however, were ideological ones. The United States toppled the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq not in pursuit of territory but in the name of an idea: democracy.

Since 2001 the region has been turned into an ideological battleground between two rival camps with global ambitions. One camp, led by the United States, claims to represent the modern global system of open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality. The other camp is represented by radical Islam, which regards the Western model as not only decadent but dangerous for the future of mankind. It hopes to unite the world under the banner of Islam, which it holds to be " The Only True Faith".

In the Lebanese conflict, Israel and Hezbollah are the junior proxies for the rival camps. Israel is not fighting to hold or win more land; nor is Hezbollah. But both realize that they cannot live in security and prosper as long as the other is in a position to threaten their existence. A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state. A westernized, democratic Lebanon, on the other hand, could become the graveyard of Hezbollah and its messianic ideology. And if the US succeeds in fulfilling George W. Bush's promise of a "new Middle East" there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syria's Baathist dictatorship.

The present rupture in Lebanon has much to do with who will lead the fightback against the West. For almost a quarter of a century there has been intense competition within the Islamist camp over who could claim leadership. For much of that period Sunni Salafist movements, backed by oil money, were in the ascendancy. They began to decline after the 9/11 attacks that deprived them of much of the support they received from Arab governments and charities. In the past five years Tehran has tried to seize the opportunity to advance its own leadership claims. The problem, however, is that Iran is a Shia power and thus regarded by Sunni Salafists as "heretical". To compensate for that weakness, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made the destruction of Israel a priority for his regime. The war triggered by Hezbollah is in part designed to show that President Ahmadinejad is not bluffing when he promises to wipe Israel off the map as the first step towards defeating the "infidel" West.

The broader aspects of the Lebanon crisis are better understood in the Middle East than in the West. For the first time, Israel is under attack from Islamist and Arab secular radicals as "an American proxy". Writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab daily, a Syrian Cabinet minister, makes it clear that the war in Lebanon today is between "the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy".

Iran's "supreme guide", Ali Khamenei, expressed a similar view this week during an audience he granted in Tehran to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. "What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America," he said. "Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America." President Chavez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to "save the human race by finishing the US Empire". Iran's state-controlled media has said that Lebanon would become "the graveyard of the Bush plan for a new Middle East".

Tehran believes that a victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon will strengthen President Ahmadinejad's bid for the leadership of radical Islam. A number of recent events have made his attempt to wrest control more likely. This week several leading Sunni theologians at the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo issued fatwas that allow Sunnis to fight alongside and under the command of Shia Muslims. The fatwas came in response to a Saudi fatwa that had declared any association with and support for Hezbollah to be haram (forbidden).

More significant was a message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two. The Salafist radical tried to get hold of Hezbollah's tailcoats in the hope of winning a share of the expected spoils of victory. He endorsed the idea of a global campaign against the "infidel", thus abandoning his previous strategy of focusing the jihad on countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More significantly, he dropped the al-Qaeda claim of fighting a defensive war against the infidel by designating a vast area of jihad from Spain to India.

All that is good news for President Ahmadinejad, who claims that Sunni radicalism has reached the limits of its capabilities in the fight against the global system led by the US and that it is now the turn of the Shia, led by Iran, to be in the driving seat.

"Hezbollah has fought Israel longer than all the major Arab armies combined ever did," President Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran this week. He also promised that Muslims would soon hear "very good news" about the jihad against the United States.

The idea of Shia leadership for the jihad was further boosted this year when Iran took Hamas under its wings. As a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni outfit, Hamas has exerted its influence to win wider support for Iranian leadership at least as a tactical choice.

Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes. For this reason, there seems to be much less hostility towards Israel in the wider Arab world than we might expect in the West. There may be no sympathy for Israel as such but many Arabs realize that the current war is over something bigger than a Jewish state with a tiny territory of 10,000 square miles, less than 1 per cent of Saudi Arabia's land mass.

This war is one of many battles to be fought between those who wish to join the modern world, warts and all, and those who think they have an alternative. This is a war between the West and what one might describe as "The Rest", this time represented by radical Islamism. All the talk of a ceasefire, all the diplomatic gesticulations may ultimately mean little in what is an existential conflict.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...amir_taheri.htm

A DIPLOMATIC DUD -- PROBLEMS WITH A CEASE-FIRE

August 2, 2006 -- AS the conflict in Lebanon continues, the catchy word "cease-fire" has become a substitute for the policies needed to rid the Middle East of the root causes of violence and stabilize its state structures.

The major powers and others involved in this fight have used this fig leaf before. Ten years ago, after another tragedy in the village of Qana, the wheels of diplomacy went in motion to obtain a cease-fire - ending the first Israeli attempt at uprooting Hezbollah. That cease-fire lasted almost a decade, during which Israel felt secure enough from Hezbollah attacks to withdraw from territory it had held in Lebanon for almost two decades.

Yet, as we now know, that cease-fire didn't address the problem's root cause - the protagonists' inability to accept each other's existence. Hezbollah wants Israel wiped off the map. Israel repays the compliment by seeking the elimination of Hezbollah as a military organization. Thus, this fight is prompted by existential threats, not territorial disputes that diplomacy can sort out.

Yet many would still seek a cease-fire now as a least-bad option, which might offer a respite to organize humanitarian relief. The trouble is, they don't appear to have thought out the problems involved. Contacts with the United Nations, the European Union and the French government (all of whom are promoting the cease-fire idea) have failed to provide any answers to the key questions.

The first question is: Who will be the parties to the cease-fire?

The obvious answer is: Israel and Hezbollah. But such a deal would require Israel to recognize Hezbollah - which it regards as a terrorist organization - as a substitute for the Lebanese state.

One solution would be to have the cease-fire signed by the Lebanese government. But that option, too, entails major problems. That government's rival branches have contradictory different attitudes on the conflict. In a French TV interview last week, President Emile Lahoud made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, Hezbollah - not the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora - represents Lebanon in this conflict. But the speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, wants to reduce the role of Hezbollah, though without giving the Siniora government a boost. The Siniora government itself, meanwhile, wants a cease-fire but is not prepared to guarantee its enforcement unless and until the Lebanese army takes control of southern Lebanon - something that Hezbollah has vowed never to allow.

There is also talk of the European Union and the United States guaranteeing a cease-fire. Yet that would require them to abrogate their laws, which classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appears to have bought the idea of his generals that Hezbollah has been mortally wounded and, given another two weeks, would be ready for a coup de grace. So far, however, there is little evidence to back that analysis.

Hezbollah has seen considerable success from its tactic of preserving armed militants by hiding them among civilians. Consider: Three weeks into the fighting, Hezbollah admits the loss of 10 fighters, against some 800 civilians killed. At that rate, to "eliminate" Hezbollah's estimated 8,000 fighters, Israel would have to kill almost a quarter of the Lebanese population. Hezbollah's losses in weapons? Easily and speedily replaced by Iran - as indicated by Adm. Ali Shamkhani, head of the newly created Defense Policy Board in Tehran.

Those who hope for a meaningful cease-fire will look to the example of Herv? de Charette, then France's foreign minister, who brokered the 1996 cease-fire after the first massacre at Qana.

De Charette faced the same question as today: Who controls territory in southern Lebanon deep enough to provide Israel with a credible shield? He immediately realized two things. First, there was no Lebanese government strong enough to control the south and enforce the cease-fire. Second, it was naive to expect Israel and Hezbollah to abandon their mutual hatred and guarantee a cease-fire.

His solution was to bring in Iran and Syria on one side and the United States on another as guarantors of an Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire. (For diplomatic cover, he also involved the U.N. Security Council.) De Charette and his Iranian counterpart at the time, Ali-Akbar Velayati, became de facto chairmen of the ministerial committee that guaranteed the cease-fire.

By all accounts, that was a brilliant tactical success for diplomacy. It provided almost 10 years of calm on the frontier. Four years into that period, Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided to evacuate the area Israel had controlled in southern Lebanon for nearly two decades.

De Charette's initiative showed that, given time and calm, the Lebanese could obtain what they had failed to do through years of violence. Can the same formula work again? The risk is that, if history repeats itself, it would do so (as Marx once observed) as a farce.

The world is not what it was in 1996. Both Israel and Hezbollah have more powerful weapons and have perfected their tactics for dealing with one another. Israeli military planners are adamant that they can do away with Hezbollah once and for all. Hezbollah leaders for their part are equally adamant that, by simply not losing, they can win this round against Israel, thanks to international support (especially from Europe and the global antiwar movement). Syria is bitter toward the West and in no mood to revive the late President Hafez al-Assad's policy of keeping Washington sweet under all circumstances.

More important, perhaps, is that Iran appears to be in no mood for diplomatic finessing of issues. Its new leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is convinced that the West is in retreat and that, once President Bush is no longer in the White House, the Americans will run away, leaving the Islamic Republic and its allies to reshape the Middle East.

If a cease-fire emerges this time, it is likely to be a temporary stalemate in the bigger struggle to set the agenda for the region, not a prelude to a decade of tense calm on a remote border between two tiny states.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
Snuffysmith
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
------------H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
tazvil04
Istoodforu:

You do not see the operation becoming internationalized by the UN/NATO sending a multinational force to finish the job -- thereby effecting UN Resolution 1559--

What I have found so troubling about what is going on in Lebanon is the fact that this resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah was passed early in 2004...

If the US had not gone into Iraq we might have had the manpower after successfully subduing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to bring peace to the Middle East by effecting this resolution...

But instead we are still mired in Iraq and Israel's efforts here will largely be worthless...

I agree --- presently --- that there does not seem much impetus for internationalizing the conflict.

The world is sick and tired of these struggles whether it is Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon...

As Brent Scowcroft suggested in an earlier post ---- the only way we get the multinational force we need is by putting US troops on the ground there --- until that happens -- no one else will contribute...

So this is yet another way in which the bankrupt policies of the Bush Administration have negatively impacted upon our foreign policy in the region and our national security interests since there is no way US forces will be put on the ground.

02/09/2004
Press Release
SC/8181


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Council

5028th Meeting (Night)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

Security Council declares support for free, fair presidential election

in Lebanon; calls for withdrawal of foreign forces there


Resolution 1559 (2004) Adopted by Vote

Of 9 in Favour, to None Against, with 6 Abstentions



The Security Council this evening declared its support for a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence and, in that connection, called upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.



By a vote of 9 in favour (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation), the Council adopted resolution 1559 (2004), reaffirming its call for the strict respect of Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout the country.



In a related provision, the Council called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. It also called upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Council for the full implementation of all its resolutions concerning the restoration in Lebanon of territorial integrity, full sovereignty and political independence.



Requesting the Council to withdraw its consideration of that resolution before the vote, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, Mohamad Issa, said that friendly Syria had helped Lebanon to maintain stability and security within its borders. Syrian troops had been deployed and redeployed at Lebanon’s request, and had contributed to rebuffing the radical reactions emanating from repulsive Israeli actions. Also, the matter was purely internal and related to the upcoming presidential elections in Lebanon.



Asserting that the Syrian actions in the past week had made a “crude mockery” of the principle of a free and fair presidential electoral process, the United States’ representative said the Syrian Government had imposed its political will on Lebanon and had compelled the Cabinet and Lebanese National Assembly to amend its constitution and abort the electoral process by extending the term of the current President by three years. Clearly, the Lebanese Parliament had been pressured, and even threatened, by Syria and its agents to make them comply.



Similarly, the representative of France, who, along with the United States, had introduced the resolution, worried that persistent serious interference in the political life of Lebanon might cause it to retreat from the objectives that had been reaffirmed constantly by the international community. That was why a rapid mobilization and a decisive reaction from the Council had seemed essential. By refraining to act, the Council would have sanctioned interference in the internal affairs of another State. By acting in a robust manner, it was showing its confidence in Lebanon’s future, which must include its full restoration of sovereignty, and not the intensification of interference.



Having abstained in the voting, China’s representative said that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China’s foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations. In adherence to those principles, he supported safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. But, the draft resolution touched on the question of the presidential elections in Lebanon, and such questions fell within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves.



The representative of the Russian Federation said that, with tensions high in the region, any wrong step might exacerbate the situation and lead to a new focal point of instability. He had tabled amendments to the text, aimed at moving it towards the context of a Middle East settlement as a whole and preventing the document from being one-sided and from concentrating solely on domestic Lebanese affairs. His proposals would have improved the draft by making it more acceptable to Council members. Their lack of acceptance, however, had made it impossible for him to support the resolution.



Pakistan’s speaker said he had also abstained, as the resolution was not consistent with the Council’s functions and responsibilities. Moreover, there was no evidence of any urgent threat to peace. There had been no complaint from the country whose sovereignty and integrity the draft purported to uphold. On the contrary, the Lebanese representatives had communicated to the Council their opposition to consideration of the resolution. Besides, the text addressed the wrong threat. If there were a threat to Lebanon, that was well known and did not arise from Syria.



Explanations of vote were also made by the representatives of Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Angola, Philippines and Benin.



The meeting began at 7:38 p.m. and was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.



Resolution



The text of resolution 1559 (2004) reads as follows:



“The Security Council,



“Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),



“Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally territorially recognized borders,



“Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,



“Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,



“Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,



“Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,



“1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;



“2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;



“3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;



“4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;



“5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;



“6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;



“7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter.”
Istoodforu
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 3 2006, 01:51 PM)
Istoodforu:

You do not see the operation becoming internationalized by the UN/NATO sending a multinational force to finish the job -- thereby effecting UN Resolution 1559--

What I have found so troubling about what is going on in Lebanon is the fact that this resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah was passed early in 2004...

If the US had not gone into Iraq we might have had the manpower after successfully subduing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to bring peace to the Middle East by effecting this resolution...

*


No. I don't see much likelihood of success with such a UN/NATO operation.

The best way I see to disarm Hezbollah is via diplomacy and negotiation.

Even mandated UN Peacekeeping forces after a negotiated ceasefire would be dicey. It's going to be difficult to persuade any nation to contribute troops to the effort. Remember the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. American troops on the ground in Lebanon in any capacity will be hated targets due to US foreign policies w/r to Israel and Iraq.

My judgment is that a military operation to disarm Hezbollah would be even less likely to succeed and entail more loss of life than current efforts to quell the insurgency and disarm sectarian militias in Iraq. Like it or not, Hezbollah is better organized and has quite a bit of support among displaced Palestinians and Lebanese.
tazvil04
Istoodforu:

I think this is on point regarding your statement about the UN/NATO...

August 2, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Peacekeepers Are Not Peacemakers
By NANCY SODERBERG
Jacksonville, Fla.
NEW YORK TIMES

AS the death tolls in Lebanon and Israel rise, calls for a robust international peacekeeping force are increasing. But history should serve as warning. As we all know, the United States and France learned the cost of a poorly planned presence in 1983 when Hezbollah suicide bombers blew up their barracks, killing 300 troops.

More to the point, there has been a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon since 1978 (paradoxically named the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil) charged with confirming Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, restoring “international peace and security” and helping the Lebanese government restore its authority. The force, 2,000 strong, has failed in all but the first task, instead focusing on humanitarian aid.

The Lebanon mission is the most deadly United Nations operation, with some 260 personnel killed over 28 years. The most recent deaths came last week, when four peacekeepers were killed by Israeli fire, outraging Secretary General Kofi Annan. Regrettably, instead of bringing these lame-duck troops out of the fray, the Security Council chose to extend the mission’s mandate, which was to have expired Monday, until the end of the month.

Now the United Nations and European Union officials are urging a strengthened force to “sort out the question of disarmament of the militia” in southern Lebanon and “guarantee sovereignty and freedom for Lebanon.” These are goals so ambitious that no peacekeeping force, not even NATO, could achieve them.

In any case, one cannot deploy a peacekeeping force until the questions of disarmament and sovereignty have been addressed. Unless the path forward is agreed upon, the peacekeeping troops are at best without a clear mandate and at worst can become pawns in the negotiations.

Think of what happened in Bosnia in the 1990’s: the initial United Nations peacekeeping force in the Balkans, called Unprofor, was powerless to stop the fighting and had its troops used as human shields by the combatants. Its successor, a NATO-led force called IFOR, was far more effective — largely because the Dayton Accords were agreed upon before it went in.

The way forward in Lebanon is clear. First, the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Iranians must give up the fiction that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah justifies its terrorist attacks by claiming that Israel never withdrew from a small area called the Shebaa Farms.

In fact, however, the Shebaa Farms area is not in Lebanon; all international records clearly show it is part of Syria. When it was clear in 2000 that the Israelis were going to withdraw from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials circulated in the United Nations a crudely altered map purporting to show the area in Lebanon. The Security Council rejected that claim and confirmed the Israeli withdrawal. But myths have a way of surviving in the Middle East and the Arabs continue to use it as a justification for attacks.

Second, no cease-fire will hold unless the root cause of the current crisis is addressed: the continuing presence of armed Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon. Any solution will require a new security arrangement that not only disarms the Hezbollah militia but also mandates the deployment of Lebanese forces to the south, as well as a return of prisoners on both sides. Without such a deal, it would be folly to send in peacekeepers.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces a tough challenge in Lebanon, especially given that the key players, Syria and Iran, are not even in the room. Success will take more sophisticated diplomacy than we have yet seen from her or from President Bush. In the meantime, Lebanese and Israeli civilians, along with blue-helmeted peacekeepers, are paying the price for the West having ignored the rising threat of Hezbollah over the last six years.

Nancy Soderberg, the author of “The Superpower Myth,” was, from 1997 to 2001, a United States ambassador to the United Nations, where she negotiated the Security Council’s endorsement of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
Snuffysmith
Don't forget the politics you guys:

Future of Orthodox Jewish Vote Has Implications for GOP

By Jim VandeHei

Republicans are hoping a strong defense of Israel translates into greater support among Jewish voters this fall, but the biggest political benefits are likely to come long after the 2006 campaign concludes, according to political and demographic experts studying Jewish voting trends.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Istoodforu
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 3 2006, 02:35 PM)
Second, no cease-fire will hold unless the root cause of the current crisis is addressed: the continuing presence of armed Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon. Any solution will require a new security arrangement that not only disarms the Hezbollah militia but also mandates the deployment of Lebanese forces to the south, as well as a return of prisoners on both sides. Without such a deal, it would be folly to send in peacekeepers.
*


This point from Soderberg's article makes a lot of sense. I think a negotiated settlement is possible such that Hezbollah would dismantle its stockpiles of rockets and explosive devices under an inspections regime in return for release of prisoners and some other concessions that would not cause problems for Isreali security and self defense. In the such a settlement the role of foreign peacekeeping troops other than Lebanese security forces could be minimal or non-existent.

To get to such a settlement parties need to build some trust. That is why I see an immediate ceasefire and unrestricted entry of humanitarian relief efforts as crucial.
DWB04
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Aug 3 2006, 01:21 PM)
No. I don't see much likelihood of success with such a UN/NATO operation. 

The best way I see to disarm Hezbollah is via diplomacy and negotiation.

Even mandated UN Peacekeeping forces after a negotiated ceasefire would be dicey.  It's going to be difficult to persuade any nation to contribute troops to the effort.  Remember the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.  American troops on the ground in Lebanon in any capacity will be hated targets due to US foreign policies w/r to Israel and Iraq.

My judgment is that a military operation to disarm Hezbollah would be even less likely to succeed and entail more loss of life than current efforts to quell the insurgency and disarm sectarian militias in Iraq.  Like it or not, Hezbollah is better organized and has quite a bit of support among displaced Palestinians and Lebanese.
*

I agree ISFU......Nato is seen as a Western military arm and as such is unsuitable to that endeavor...And American troops there would be a BAD idea......

Lebanon has approached the situation and problematic solution of Hezbollah by including them in the governmental process.....I think its important to keep that going and as well to strengthen the Lebanese army in its own defence of its sovereignty.
DWB04
Published on Thursday, August 3, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Future History: A Glimpse of What U.S. Lebanon Policy Could Spawn

by Lawrence Pintak


It is very likely that the world will look back at the summer of 2006 as a seminal moment in Middle East history.

We may well be seeing, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” But it is also quite possible a monster will be born.

If the Bush administration is not very careful in the next few weeks, history may well record that this bloody summer was one in which:

1. Arabs realized, once and for all, that Israel had definitively lost its façade of invincibility. Hezbollah – which humbled America in 1983 and drove Israel out of south Lebanon in 2000 – has won this war by the very fact that it fights on. Israel’s survival has always depended on the perception of strength. The implications of the loss of that psychological armor are profound, both for its impact on Israel’s enemies and the potential destabilizing effect of an Israel that must restore the balance of fear.

2. Hezbollah reclaimed the crown of militant Islamic leadership from al Qaeda and the Sunnis of Iraq. Videos from the Hindu Kush and internecine slaughter in Iraq pale in comparison to fighters locked in what is being positioned in the Arab media as an epic battle. A new phase has begun.

3. Iran re-emerged as the region’s broker of war and peace. Already empowered by America’s toppling of its one real rival, Saddam Hussein, the Tehran regime – even without nuclear weapons – sent a strong message to both Washington and the conservative Arab governments: Don’t mess with us. The Gulf could once more become the Persian lake it was under the Shah.

4. The leaders of the “old” Arab world were rocked by the power of the Arab street. The initial condemnation of Hezbollah by the governments of key Sunni countries has sparked a popular backlash. Suddenly the democracy so ardently sought by the Bush administration is taking form in a way never anticipated; public opinion is driving policy – in a direction counter to U.S. interests and dangerous for existing regimes.

5. A powerful new confluence of interests arose between Sunni and Shi’ite militants – and angry young secular Arabs – around Palestine, regional political change and opposition to America. The movement will resemble the brief alliance-of-convenience in the 1950s between Nasserites and Muslim Brothers that sparked the Egyptian revolution. Look for Iranian-funded militants to step up efforts to undermine regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

6. The Arab world was cleaved into a dangerous new top-down Sunni-Shi’ite Cold War, driven by Sunni governments and elites threatened by the rise of Iran and the Shia. Even as the agendas of the most militant Sunni and Shi’ite forces – Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda and their kin – briefly coincide, a regional confrontation between nations could result.

7. Lebanon once more descended into civil war as Hezbollah usurped the power of the central government. Many Lebanese Sunnis and Christians have rallied to Hezbollah’s side in the face of the Israeli assault, but it will not take much to send the country spiraling back into confessional chaos.

8. The obituary for America’s Iraq adventure was written. The intimate ties of family and religion between the Shi’ites of Lebanon, Iraq and Iran mean engagement with Hezbollah via the Israelis could easily provoke open war against the U.S. by the Shia of Iraq. Even Iraq’s U.S.-backed prime minister is a Hezbollah ally.

9. Western peacekeepers embarked on a doomed mission to restore peace to Lebanon. Multinational forces have been trying to bring peace to the country since the 1840s. Each time, they have been driven out bearing coffins. The tactics being now used against American forces in Iraq were pioneered in Lebanon.

10. A new terrorist force was awakened. Hezbollah has not targeted U.S. interests since the 1980s. But America’s support for Israel’s attempt to annihilate it may change all that.

The last time a U.S. administration tried to isolate and marginalize Syria and Iran, the result was the birth of Hezbollah, the dawn of suicide bombing and the humbling of a superpower. Now, America is at it again.

“Folly,” wrote historian Barbara Tuchman, is “the pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest.”

The Bush administration set out to redraw the map of the Middle East. Instead, it has set it on fire. Three weeks ago, Hezbollah was a militia/political party engaged in a domestic struggle to survive on the new Lebanese political landscape reshaped by the withdrawal of Syria’s forces. Today, it is the inspiration for a generation. Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming the new Afghanistan.

This is, President Bush tells us, “a moment of opportunity.” The question history will decide is, for whom?


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0803-02.htm
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,108502,00.html

No Cease-Fire
Allan Topol | August 03, 2006
The Bush administration has taken a sensible position in permitting the Israelis time to clean out the Hezbollah forces close to its border before pressing for a cease-fire. To do anything else would be to ensure that the precise conditions that gave rise to this outbreak of hostilities would remain in effect. That would mean in a couple of years a similar war with similar casualties would commence.

Amid all of the noise and static on CNN about civilian casualties in Lebanon, let's not forget how this war started. After spending six years engaged in massive arming with sophisticated weapons supplied by Syria and Iran, and digging fortresses and tunnels, Hezbollah felt strong enough to strike at Israel. They kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed several others. This type of naked aggression cannot be rewarded. Hezbollah cannot be permitted to achieve gains from such a flagrant terrorist attack on another nation. If they do, this will become the standard for the world. We will be faced with hit-and-run attacks by jihadist terrorists throughout the planet.

Also, let's not forget what occurred in 1983. Hezbollah suicide bombers blew up U.S. and French barracks, killing 300 troops. One more historical note: Notwithstanding Hezbollah's existence, Israel voluntarily withdrew from all of Lebanon in 2000. The UN Security Council confirmed that this Israeli withdrawal was complete according to internationally accepted maps. Any claims to the contrary about Israeli possession of Shebaa Farms are inconsistent with international law.

It is unfortunate that there have been civilian casualties in Lebanon. It is also unfortunate that Israelis have died and been wounded in the rocket attacks, more than a hundred of which have been fired over many days. There is a fundamental difference in these two types of casualties. The Israelis have been making a concerted effort at minimizing civilian casualties while achieving their fundamental objectives. This has meant severing Hezbollah from its resupply in Syria. The task has been difficult because Hezbollah militants have deliberately taken cover in civilian areas.

On the other hand, there is no military objective to the Hezbollah rocket attacks. Their objective, firing randomly and often with warheads filled with ball bearings and nails, has been to inflict as much civilian suffering as possible on Israel.

As in every war, there is a shift in the tempo of the battle. The Israelis have stepped up their ground attacks in Lebanon, increasing the number of troops going into that country in an effort to hunt out and destroy the Hezbollah positions. This campaign has taken longer than the Israelis initially hoped, but the tide is now turning in their favor. This is why Hezbollah joined the chorus of Europeans in seeking an immediate cease-fire.

There is only one rational way for this war to end. That is by having Israel destroy Hezbollah positions and then permitting an armed international force to move into the area separating Israel and Lebanon. The international force cannot be expected to police Hezbollah or to disarm them. Only the Israelis can do that. Once that occurs the Europeans, or Turks or whoever signs on, can take up their positions in the border area in the strip which Israel has cleared in southern Lebanon.

After that, the rebuilding can begin in Lebanon. It is possible, under this scenario, that for the first time a real democratic Lebanon can emerge from the rubble of this Hezbollah-commenced war. That can only happen, however, once Hezbollah is fully disarmed and has abandoned its military positions. They may continue to have a voice in the Lebanese government. That is a matter for Lebanon's democracy to determine. However, they cannot exist as a separate military attacking a neighbor and instituting terrorist attacks as a separate army within a nation.

There is a great deal riding on this Israeli war. The Israelis are fighting not merely for themselves, but they are also fighting a proxy war on behalf of the United States against Hezbollah's supporter, Iran. The Israelis are also fighting on behalf of the Saudi, Egyptian and Western European governments who face the same risk from attacks by Hezbollah or other militant jihadists.

Copyright 2006 Allan Topol. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Snuffysmith
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,108400,00.html

If the Shia Turn Against Us
Joe Galloway | August 03, 2006
As Israel attacks deeper into Lebanon and the civil war in Iraq grows ever more dangerous and unpredictable, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist on the Middle East this week raised a new, interesting and chilling point to consider.
Retired Army Col. Patrick Lang asked who's at greatest risk if either Lebanon or Iraq spirals out of control and the Shiite militias in Iraq, who up to this point have been told to leave American forces alone, decide to act against the 130,000 U.S. troops occupying Iraq.

However invincible the military of the world's only superpower might seem, every army has its weak spot. Historically, it centers on logistics, the supply line tail that wags the dog. From Hannibal to Erwin Rommel, from Robert E. Lee to Kim Il Sung in 1950, it's been ever thus.

The lifeline for American forces in Iraq is a 400-plus-mile main supply route that runs from Kuwait through Shia-dominated and Iranian-infiltrated southern Iraq to Baghdad and points north and west.

Along that route, trucks and tankers driven by third-country nationals -- Turks and Pakistanis and others -- haul 95 percent of the beans and bullets for our troops and 100 percent of the fuel that our tanks and Bradleys and Humvees gulp at staggering rates.

That route runs through the heart of Iraq's Shiite Muslim south, an area now thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and under the sway of well-armed Shiite militiamen and Iraqi police who are often indistinguishable from the militiamen and sometimes the same people.

The lightly protected American convoys are vulnerable to ambushes, improvised explosive devices and even an occasional rocket-propelled grenade slamming into a fuel tanker.

In an article for The Christian Science Monitor, Lang asked what we could do if that supply route were cut. Only about 5 percent of the supplies for our troops in Iraq come in by air. With a huge effort, that could be doubled or perhaps even tripled, but an airlift couldn't provide nearly enough food, ammunition and fuel to keep our troops on the job, even if the Sunni insurgents around Baghdad and Balad didn't start trying to shoot down the supply flights or drop mortar rounds on the runways.

Would our military have to stop trying to end the sectarian violence in Iraq in order to keep its own supply lines open? How many troops and tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles and helicopters would have to be diverted to such an effort, and would it be worth it?

There's another strategic vulnerability farther up the chain: Supplies for our forces must first reach the main port in Kuwait by ships -- ships that must transit the Strait of Hormuz past a gantlet of Iranian Silkworm anti-ship missiles and suicide torpedo boats.

Little wonder, then, that Iran and its ayatollahs have the nerve to thumb their noses at efforts to curtail their nuclear ambitions and to supply thousands of short- and medium-range missiles to their Hezbollah proteges in Lebanon.

The Bush administration marched us into Iraq in the belief that it could install a democracy in the heart of a volatile region, create a better and more peaceful Middle East and, in the end, make the world and the United States safer and better.

The armed force the president dispatched to do the job was too small by half, it left its supply lines unguarded from the beginning and now it's bogged down in a situation that's only growing worse.

The crackdown we imposed on Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and the democracy we established in Iraq have unleashed the majority Shia to take revenge against the Sunnis who prospered and governed under Saddam Hussein's bloody rule. The Sunnis are responding in kind, and the capital city of Baghdad has become a killing field where few are immune to the sectarian violence.

We Americans have always believed that democracy is the answer, but we're discovering that there are places and people that are so scarred by their pasts that democracy and free elections can make things worse.

Witness Gaza, where Palestinians voted to install members of the militant Islamic group Hamas to run the Palestinian Authority. Witness Iraq.

The Bush people hope against hope that somehow it will all turn out right. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, touring the tinderbox, said that she saw in the smoking ruins of Lebanon the birth pangs of a new Middle East.

That reminds me of a sign that used to decorate the Army Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga.:

"Hope is NOT a method unless you are the chaplain!"

Copyright 2006 Joe Galloway. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

Sign Up for Newsletters | Email to a Friend | Print This Page | Military RSS
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH04Ak03.html
A force to be reckoned with
By Ian Williams

When St Augustine converted to Christianity, he prayed to become virtuous - but not just yet. Similarly, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Israelis want a ceasefire, but not just yet. They also did not want a multinational force, but the yet has caught up with them already.

In fact, now that the Israeli vision of rapid and complete victory has evaporated, they want an international force so much that their former robust refusal has dropped down the memory hole.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would stop the offensive "only after a robust international peacekeeping force is in place in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from border raids and rocket attacks".

Even if everyone is too polite to mention that Olmert is eating his words, the force is his only feasible exit strategy, unless the



Israelis follow the neo-conservative plan of digging themselves deeper into the hole they have made, and continue their assault, sending in more troops.

Unless they suffer another outbreak of stupidity, the Israeli leadership will be looking for a ceasefire and an international force that they can disguise as a victory, but with the casualties and costs to Israel of the Hezbollah bombing, and the diplomatic costs of the Lebanese casualties, it will take some very heavy disguise.

Insofar as the assault on Lebanon has any rationale, it was that Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz had hoped to prove to a skeptical Israeli electorate that, despite their lack of military experience, they really were tough guys. As Shimon Peres proved in 1996, the last Qana massacre, killing Lebanese wholesale seems the approved way for Israeli politicians to assert their military machismo, even if each time they predictably come unstuck.

There are reports of intelligence failures that led the Israeli leadership into thinking that they could breeze into Lebanon, whack Hezbollah and declare victory (see A new face to Hezbollah's resistance, August 3).

That combination of credulity for wish-fulfillment intelligence and a desire to disguise military experience is so reminiscent of President George W Bush that we should not be too surprised that he has applauded the disaster from the beginning.

Diplomatically, any solution has to allow all sides to declare victory and back down, and the idea of a force authorized by the United Nations seems to be the preferred ladder for everyone to climb down, which is of course rich in irony, since the Khiyam bombing certainly expressed Israeli commanders' true feelings about both the UN and international forces, all the more so since Likud, the party whose founders killed UN representative Count Bernadotte, has packed the high command while it has been in power. But the politicians can claim victory if an international force is on border - the other side, of course.

For its part, Hezbollah, by standing up to the Israelis for far longer than any recent Arab armies, has already won a victory politically in the Arab world. A payoff that may persuade the Lebanese and Hezbollah could be the handover of the Sheba Farms area to Lebanon, or to the UN force.

The question here, certainly not helped by Damascus' reticence about Lebanese borders in general, is whether the Israelis are occupying Syrian or Lebanese territory. One thing is sure, these are not Israeli territories. In fact, they come, like the Golan and the Palestinian territories, under UN Resolution 242, long outstanding, which says the Israelis should get out of them anyway.

It would certainly be anomalous to have a UN force enforcing Israeli control of annexed territories; Israel would have to "un-annex" them, since it grabbed them as part of the Golan Heights.

But the problem with an international force is, of course, in the details. If its task is simply to disarm Hezbollah, which does after all have the support of most of the people living in the south, it will soon be getting the dedicated militant attention that drove Israel out, unless it shows even-handedness by resisting Israeli incursions into Lebanon, which are in fact much more frequent than those going the other way.

The pipe dream of it patrolling the hitherto loosely demarcated border with Syria sounds like the invention of someone trying to prevent any force at all being established.

The fig leaf for the multinational force would be the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, symbolized by the disarmament of the militias, as called for in UN Resolution 1559. But while Washington talks of new democracies in the region, it blithely ignores the unanimous votes of the newly elected parliaments of Iraq and Lebanon condemning Israel.

It raises a major paradox: if the purpose of 1559 is to restore sovereignty to Lebanon, then how is that process served by disarming Hezbollah against the wishes of the Lebanese people and parliament? According to a Zogby poll, last year even before the invasion, Syria was more popular in Lebanon than the United States was. (Israel had zero support from any Lebanese, even the Maronites, who look to the "Christian" US to back them.)

If the Israeli action impels the Lebanese government to "nationalize" Hezbollah's armed wing, and nominally incorporate it into the Lebanese armed forces, then where does that leave 1559?

Apart from the question of what the international force will do is the even more vexed question of who will do whatever. The bombing of the UN post at Khiyam was a hint to potential troop contributors as to what they can expect. Even now, some people in the Israeli army, who may not have taken Olmert into their confidence, do not want a UN force with teeth, possibly because they still cherish illusions of following in the bloody footsteps Ariel Sharon left on the road to Beirut in 1982.

If they want to avert the prospects of a new Khiyam, any countries joining a multinational force should get cast-iron guarantees from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the US on protection for the force - including anti-aircraft capability.

The French, the most enthusiastic proponents of the force, seem to be implying that it will indeed be strongly armed, with armor and artillery, which raises the interesting question: In the event of shooting between Israeli and UN/multinational forces, which side will the United States be on? And the prospect of German troops firing on Israel may be a little too historically ironic for any of the parties to contemplate.

It is clear that insofar as there is a solution, the UN is at the core of it, and for that to succeed the US must be behind the solution, rather than behind Israel. That is a lot to ask of any US administration with mid-term elections in the offing, and even more so of one that seems to have shared the delusions that have led Olmert to disaster. Maybe Washington will eventually begin to listen to its "other" allies.

Ian Williams is author of Deserter: Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans and His Past, Nation Books, New York.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)
lenal
Here's a focused site that can fill you in on much of the areas historical political and territorial conflicts :


http://www.washington-report.org/index.htm


lenal
hurricane.gif
Snuffysmith
Human Rights Watch Accuses Israel of War Crimes

By Jim Lobe

The 50-page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," detailed nearly two dozen cases of IDF attacks in which a total of 153 civilians, including 63 children, were killed in homes or motor vehicles.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14343.htm


Israel, not Hizbullah, is putting civilians in danger on both sides of the border

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

“The image that Israel has promoted of such [human] shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong. In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14349.htm


War crimes and Lebanon

By Professor Steve Trevillion

The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanon's social infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate. The attempt has backfired.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14355.htm


Illogical, illegal and ill-fated

By Nasim Zehra

The Arab hostility towards Israel was inevitable given that its creation was at the cost of the Palestinian homeland. But instead of neutralising the Arab hostility by working for a Palestinian homeland Washington has sought to wean away the Arab regimes from the Palestinian cause. With a festering Palestinian wound, the undying resistance and an aggressive and insecure Israeli state, a stable Middle East will be an illusion.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14340.htm


Pulling the Plug on Israel

No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Truth

By David Himmelstein

Whether or not it has reached critical mass, there exists a heterogeneous agglomeration of Jewish people around the world-- e.g., moi--for whom the state of Israel has come to represent an 800-pound albatross that needs to be pried from our necks before it drags us over a cliff.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14354.htm


U.S. to Supply Food with One Hand, Arms with Other

By Thalif Deen

The United States says it stands ready to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the thousands of internally displaced Lebanese caught in the crossfire. But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel -- "perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter," says one Arab diplomat at the United Nations.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14348.htm

Lobbying For Armageddon

By Sarah Posner

Bush and other leading Republicans have lined up behind a growing movement of Christian Zionists for whom a European Antichrist figures prominently in an end-times scenario.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14346.htm
Snuffysmith
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_suppl...gnals_0803.html
US supplying Israel with NSA signals intelligence

RAW STORY
Published: Thursday August 3, 2006

A report by columnist Sidney Blumenthal in Salon claims that Israel is receiving intelligence from the US's National Security Agency.

Blumenthal claims to be in touch with "a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation" to supply Israel with signals intelligence from American assets to help it monitor armament transfers from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. He states that President Bush has approved the intelligence sharing.

Bush is being influenced by neoconservatives in his administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney's staff and Elliot Abrams, senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council. The group, according to Blumenthal, seeks to start a 'four front war' by giving Israel the pretext to strike Iran and Syria. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been briefed, but is not a central actor in the plan.

An exceprt of the restricted-access article is provided below.

#
The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah as it fires hundreds of missiles into northern Israel, according to a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation. President Bush has approved the secret program.

Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have been "briefed" and to be "on board," but she is not a central actor in pushing the covert neoconservative scenario. Her "briefing" appears to be an aspect of an internal struggle to intimidate and marginalize her. Recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
Snuffysmith
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ahrari.php?articleid=9473

August 4, 2006
Israel's Bid to Reestablish Deterrence Is Failing

by Ehsan Ahrari
Israel's war against Lebanon is about reestablishing its conventional deterrence. That is the ultimate goal, even though a frequently stated purpose of that war is to disarm Hezbollah as a fighting force in Lebanon, or even to neutralize it. The most telling aspect of Israel's confrontation with Hezbollah is that Hezbollah provoked the Jewish state by entering its territory, killing eight of its soldiers and kidnapping two. When Israel retaliated, Hezbollah fighters proved themselves a respectable force against the Middle East's best-equipped forces. In the process, by firing scores of missiles on Israeli territory, Hezbollah managed to challenge the long-established conventional deterrence that Israel had established against Arab forces. In past wars, Israel managed to achieve spectacular victories over Arab forces. Today, the Israeli military appears to be struggling to establish ground supremacy over the Hezbollah forces. The question now is whether Israel can reestablish its conventional deterrence.

Israel's founding fathers fully understood that real deterrence means relying on their own nuclear and conventional weapons as the ultimate source of security guarantee. Since Israel was established by carving out part of Palestine, its leaders were cognizant of the depth of animosity that reality had created in the hearts and minds of Arabs (both the leadership and populace). Thus, their conclusion was that they could guarantee Israel's survival only by developing a militarily powerful state.

Israel's military convincingly established its conventional deterrence force in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were provoking Israel for a military showdown. However, they apparently knew nothing about preemptive military actions, nor did they imagine that Israel could or would take such action against their forces.

While provoking Israel, they might have been thinking about a conventional war. However, Israel surprised them by taking debilitating military actions whose ultimate outcome was the loss of major territories by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The 1967 war changed the equation of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, once and for all. Arab states have remained pretty much on the defensive both politically and militarily ever since.

The 1973 war enabled Egypt to surprise Israel by being on the offensive, but only briefly. The chief purpose of that war, according to the late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, was to recapture ample territory and then let the superpowers help negotiate between his country and Israel. Sadat succeeded in that objective, but only on a limited basis. That was when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger established the "magic" of his "shuttle diplomacy."

In 1981, the Israeli air force demonstrated its deterrence capabilities once again by a surprise attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities in Osirak. That was when Israel established the doctrine of "nuclear denial." The aspects of this doctrine were two-pronged – disallowing any Arab state the capability to develop nuclear weapons and officially denying Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Soon after the attack, Israel announced, "Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people." (Incidentally, only two weeks after the Osirak attack, Israel admitted that it had the technical capability to develop its own nuclear weapons.)

Both aspects of that doctrine served Israel very well, but only because of the sustained and vigorous implementation of the U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy toward the Arab states. The current fixation of the Bush administration on Iran's uranium-enrichment program is an integral aspect of a long-established tradition stemming from its nuclear nonproliferation policy.

The U.S. policy of military assistance also has been aimed at establishing a permanent qualitative edge for the Israeli armed forces. That has been the cornerstone of American policy since the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. No U.S. president found it necessary to alter it. One can get an idea of the significance of this policy by looking at the following observation from the World Policy Institute:

"During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel has actually received more in U.S. military aid than it has in U.S. arms deliveries. Over this time period Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing – the Pentagon's biggest military aid program – and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel."

While Israel does not have to worry about encountering military challenges from any Arab states, it has encountered increased Qassam rocket attacks from the occupied territories carried out by the military wing of Hamas. The same group kidnapped one Israeli soldier and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange. Hezbollah's provocation of crossing over into the Israeli territories and kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight more was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

For Israeli leaders, Hezbollah's daring action is part and parcel of the mounting challenge to their conventional deterrence they have been encountering from the military wing of Hamas. This deterrent capability had, in their view, established the sustainability, if not legitimacy, of their country among the Arab states. The most intricate aspect of that challenge is how much power Israel had to unleash in order to reestablish that deterrence, especially on forces like Hezbollah, which has no territory to lose, and the military wing of Hamas, which is operating from the occupied territories.

Israel's immediate response was to unleash "overwhelming force," something they have done in the past, and a pattern that they witnessed as a "standard response" of the American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, as U.S. leaders are finding out in Afghanistan and Iraq, overwhelming response is a tactic that is devoid of a strategy. The guiding question in each instance ought to be what is the general purpose of that tactic and how complementary is that tactic really for that general purpose.

What exactly does Israel wish to achieve in Lebanon? That is a question in constant search of an answer. The ideal solution for Israel is to wipe out Hezbollah as a military force. However, it cannot wipe out Hezbollah as a military force without wiping it out as a political entity. If the underlying strategy was to reduce the military power of Hezbollah, then the type of destruction that Israel has carried out in Lebanon was not only unnecessary, but it appears to be self-defeating. Now, Hezbollah not only has acquired a high degree of support among the Shia population of Lebanon, but it also enjoys an equal amount of support among other sectors of the population of that country, indeed, throughout the rest of the Arab world.

So Israel has to revise its strategy, which also means that it must curtail the scope of its tactics. The destruction must stop. Otherwise, international opposition would be of such magnitude that Israel would have no choice but to accept the considerably reduced objective of living with Hezbollah, while chaos in southern Lebanon escalates.

Israel should have known that even the lone superpower could not do whatever it wanted in Iraq. With a considerably smaller force and significantly limited economic capabilities at its disposal (compared to what the U.S. enjoys), Israel is destined to face enormous difficulties in Lebanon, which is fast becoming a failed state.

To the dismay of Israeli leaders, what is emerging now is the possibility that there will be a UN-sanctioned cease-fire, whereby international peacekeeping forces will be reintroduced into southern Lebanon and Hezbollah will be disarmed.

The dismaying part of this development is that, under such a scenario, the chances of Hezbollah's reemergence as a fighting force remain very high. So Israel is right in calculating that such a development will not eliminate the possibility of the repeat of Hezbollah-Israel military confrontations. It will only postpone it for another decade or less.

An even more consternating aspect of the introduction of UN peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon is that Israel, once again, has to count on a "foreign entity" to provide security in northern Israel. Even though Israel would take its own defensive measures to safeguard its northern territory, the very idea of relying on someone else for its security is alien to the strategic thinking of the Israeli leadership.

Israel's chief dilemma, in the words of Barry Rubin, an observer of Middle Eastern affairs, is that, "what is to a large extent a defeat in practical and military terms also can be considered a political victory. The Arabs never 'lose' because they never surrender. Thus they do not formally give up anything." He adds, "Such a pattern is a formula for endless conflict and endless defeat."

The reestablishment of conventional deterrence, vis-à-vis Hezbollah and the militant wing of Hamas, might not be worth the bloodshed and destruction that are required. Even then, there is no guarantee that such deterrence would be reestablished.

Under these confusing realities, the best course available to Israel is to rely on political solutions to its long-standing conflict with the Palestinians, Syrians, and the Lebanese. In this particular aspect, it has to depend on U.S. leadership – that has been sorely absent thus far – to create ample stakes for all the parties on the Arab side to renew their efforts for an overall political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Syria appears eager to become part of that endeavor. Hamas can be persuaded to do the same by offering the right political compromises. Iran, though it is not a direct party to the Arab-Israeli conflict, has considerable influence with Hezbollah. As such, Iran also should be brought into a comprehensive dialogue. Iran has already expressed ample interest to negotiate with the United States on all issues of mutual concern.
Snuffysmith
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5067d974-228c-11db...00779e2340.html

Israel making same mistake as US in Iraq, say strategists
By Stephen Fidler and Roula Khalaf in London

Published: August 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 3 2006 03:00

It may be, say military experts, the future of warfare: a powerful army frustrated by a much weaker enemy.

As Israeli ground troops flood into southern Lebanon in a bid to create a buffer zone to protect its territory from rocket attacks, some military analysts believe Israel has made the same mistakes as the US in Iraq. They say its focus on high-technology warfare and tactical advantage has led it to underestimate the strategic importance of public opinion.

"Local, regional and global perceptions of the conflict will be as important in sustaining a war, and in terminating a conflict on favourable and lasting terms, as the numbers of enemies captured or killed," Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington wrote.

"Israel has failed to understand this in Lebanon as the US to some extent failed to understand it in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Even some pro-Israel commentators in Washington say the conflict has not gone in Israel's favour, particularly since the death of more than 50 Lebanese in Qana on Sunday, and despite claims from Israeli leaders that the group had been severely diminished.

"Rising civilian casualties in Lebanon have not been accompanied by a quantifiable degradation of Hizbollah's military capabilities," argued David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Indeed, yesterday Hizbollah fired more rockets into Israel - about 190, according to news agency reports - than on any day since the fighting began on July 12.

Critically though, Israeli public opinion has stuck behind its military - belying the May 2000 description by Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah's leader, of Israeli society as like a cobweb in the face of conflict.

There is little doubt that Hizbollah constitutes a problematic adversary. In contrast with the conventional Arab forces Israel easily defeated in the 1960s and 1970s, the Shia militia has become a clever exponent of "asymmetric warfare". Its decentralised command structure means its fighters can use their own initiative without having to consult their leaders in Beirut.

Doron Amir, a former Israeli military intelligence officer now with the Infinity Group, an investment house, says Hizbollah is a hybrid organisation. "Hizbollah is between a guerrilla force and a normal army. It's on the border between the two. It would be a lot easier if we were fighting a country or an organised army."

Nizar Hamza, a professor of international relations at the American University of Kuwait and an expert on Hizbollah, says Hizbollah moves in groups of between three and 10 people, who conduct hit and retreat operations. "Three groups might act like a triangle. If one group is hit and retreats, it doesn't mean you lose the triangle, another could still go in and attack," he says.

Mr Amir says Hizbollah has built its infrastructure amid the civilian population and its fighters attack Israel from civilian areas, leaving Israel with a dilemma about how to respond.

"Nasrallah is an expert in psychological warfare," he says. Publicity is an essential element of his approach, making sure video footage of Hizbollah successes are quickly published and eschewing confrontations of no propaganda value.

Hizbollah appears to have carefully prepared for such a conflict since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000. The group has imported thousands of missiles, many from Iran and often transported through Syria. Iran has provided revolutionary guards to help train fighters. Western estimates suggest about 40 such trainers have been in the south, with another 40 moving in and out. Some Israelis put the number in the hundreds.

The group has created a network of tunnels in the south. An unconfirmed report in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a London-based Saudi-financed Arabic daily, said this week that North Korean experts had helped with the tunnelling.

There are wide differences in estimates of how many fighters it has. Western estimates suggest 2,000 frontline fighters with 8,000 in support. Some Iranians claim there may be 20,000. Mr Hamza says possibly 30,000.

A central difficulty for Israel is that its and Hizbollah's military goals are asymmetric too. Hizbollah can claim victory, even if severely battered, if it can still launch a few rockets into Israel or seize an Israeli soldier.

Longer term, the balance between the two sides may be settled only in the minds of Lebanese people: whether they withdraw support from Hizbollah for provoking Israeli attacks or whether they back it for standing up to their powerful neighbour.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Snuffysmith
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html

Ending the neoconservative nightmare

By Daniel Levy

Witnessing the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy has been one of the more noteworthy aspects of the latest Lebanon war. A true friend in the White House. No deescalate and stabilize, honest-broker, diplomatic jaw-jaw from this president. Great. Except that Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage, the Qana tragedy included. The American ladder had gone AWOL.

More worrying, while everyone here can identify an Israeli interest in securing the northern border and the justification in responding to Hezbollah, the goal of saving Lebanon's fragile Cedar Revolution sounds less distinctly Israeli. Perhaps an agenda invented elsewhere. As hostilities intensified, the phrase "proxy war" gained resonance.

Israelis have grown used to a different kind of American embrace - less instrumental, more emotional, but also responsible. A dependable friend, ready to lend a guiding hand back to the path of stabilization when necessary.




Advertisement

After this crisis will Israel belatedly wake up to the implications of the tectonic shift that has taken place in U.S.-Middle East policy?

In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task.

Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush.

The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" - centered around Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, Perle, Feith and others - were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich, and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an aggressive unilateralist U.S. global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended moment in the sun arrived after 9/11.

Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The U.S. press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization."

Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.

Afghanistan is yet to be secured, Iraq is an exporter of instability and perhaps terror, too, Iranian hard-liners have been strengthened and encouraged, while the public throughout the region is ever-more radicalized, and in the yet-to-be "transformed" regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, is certainly more hostile to Israel and America than its leaders. Neither listening nor talking to important, if problematic, actors in the region has only impoverished policy-making capacity.

Israel does have enemies, interests and security imperatives, but there is no logic in the country volunteering itself for the frontline of an ideologically misguided and avoidable war of civilizations.

So what should be done, on both sides of the ocean?

It is admittedly difficult for Israel to have a regional strategy that is out-of-step with the U.S. administration-of-the-day. However, the neocon approach is not unchallenged, and Israel should not be providing its ticket back to the ascendancy. A U.S. return to proactive diplomacy, realism and multilateralism, with sustained and hard engagement that delivers concrete progress, would best serve its own, Israeli and regional interests. Israel should encourage this. Israel may even have to lead, for instance, in rethinking policy on Hamas or Syria, and should certainly work intensely with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in encouraging his efforts to reach a Palestinian national understanding as a basis for stable governance, security quiet and future peace negotiations. A policy that comes with a Jerusalem kosher stamp of approval might be viewed as less of an abomination in Washington.

Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.

Internationalist Republicans, Democrats and mainstream Israelis must construct an alternative narrative to the neocon nightmare, identifying shared interests in a policy that reestablishes American leadership, respect and credibility in the region by facilitating security and stability, pursuing conflict resolution and promoting the conditions for more open societies (as opposed to narrow election-worship). The last two years of the Bush presidency can be an opportunity for progress or an exercise in desperate damage limitation. It sounds counter-intuitive, but Israel should reflect on and even help reorient American expectations.

Daniel Levy was a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.
tazvil04
DWB04

I actually believe US troops being there and NATO troops being there are a better solution than Israeli troops being there...the problem as the article above suggests is that they have to do more than keep the peace --- they have to be able to make the peace --- and that means hunting down Hezbollah missile stores and Hezbollah - but as Istoodforu has indicated --- Hezbollah is so hard to indentify and its movement has grown so big in Lebanon --- that it is difficult to imagine any success coming with an internaitonal force.

I think there is a definite benefit to an international peacekeeping force.

As long as Israel is involved it becomes an Arab vs. Jew dynamic...

An international force allows Israel to be blamed for the problem...and any excesses attributable to the international force are not attributed to Israel...which can do nothing but help the Middle East.

But, while I believe an international force composed of US and NATO forces is a good idea --- or at least a better idea than Israeli forces being used --- I believe that that will not take place unless the US commits forces to the region...

And I do not see that happening as Condi has already said ----

So we are at a stalemate it seems where nothing good is going to come of this in the near future.

The UN has suggested that 500,000 troops are needed --- I assume this includes reinforcements to rotate in an out every six months ---

Where are these troops going to come from?

I think it would be great if we could use the Lebanese army --- Egyptian army and other Arab League member forces...but NATO forces will have to be used as well --- the problem with NATOizing the forces is that NATO is already taking much of the fight to the Taliban --- so their forces may be limited ----

India, Chinese and Russian forces could be very useful...and actually help them to own the problem in ways they have not done before...

The only problem with this is that Russia and China are allies of Iran trying to lock up oil contracts with them --- and would likely not do anything to interfere with these agreements...
tazvil04
August 3, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ground to a Halt
By ROBERT PAPE
Chicago
NEW YORK TIMES

ISRAEL has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won’t work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. At first it consisted of a small number of Shiites supported by Iran. But as more and more Lebanese came to resent Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah — never tight-knit — expanded into an umbrella organization that tacitly coordinated the resistance operations of a loose collection of groups with a variety of religious and secular aims.

In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult like the Taliban than to the multidimensional American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s. What made its rise so rapid, and will make it impossible to defeat militarily, was not its international support but the fact that it evolved from a reorientation of pre-existing Lebanese social groups.

Evidence of the broad nature of Hezbollah’s resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hezbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks — which included the infamous bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 — involved 41 suicide terrorists.

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

Thus the new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying the Hezbollah movement. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hezbollah’s recruiting.

Equally important, Israel’s incursion is also squandering the good will it had initially earned from so-called moderate Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The countries are the court of opinion that matters because, while Israel cannot crush Hezbollah, it could achieve a more limited goal: ending Hezbollah’s acquisition of more missiles through Syria.

Given Syria’s total control of its border with Lebanon, stemming the flow of weapons is a job for diplomacy, not force. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, Sunni-led nations that want stability in the region, are motivated to stop the rise of Hezbollah. Under the right conditions, the United States might be able to help assemble an ad hoc coalition of Syria’s neighbors to entice and bully it to prevent Iranian, Chinese or other foreign missiles from entering Lebanon. It could also offer to begin talks over the future of the Golan Heights.

But Israel must take the initiative. Unless it calls off the offensive and accepts a genuine cease-fire, there are likely to be many, many dead Israelis in the coming weeks — and a much stronger Hezbollah.

Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.”
tazvil04
Istoodforu -- good point regarding Soderberg's article...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.