Comments on The Ostroy Report: "Those Poor Innocent Lebanese"....A Reality Check ...

Using your logic, all of us Americans are not inno...

2006-08-10T10:21:00.000-04:00

Using your logic, all of us Americans are not innocent civilians because we have allowed an unjust war to continue, have approved or acquiesed in permitting torture and violations of the Geneva convention and have permitted our liberties to be taken from us, among other things. Any argument which blames the victim is problematic at best. The reality is that not all the "good" people are in positions to get their governments to do the right thing nor are some governments strong enough to protect their citizens from ideological troublemakers. The kind of argument put forward in this article is an attempt to rationalize and simplify what is an extremely complicated moral dilemma and does not really add much to the discussion.

Why the Dems Have Failed Lebanon

By Stephen...

2006-08-10T09:37:00.000-04:00

Why the Dems Have Failed Lebanon

By Stephen Zunes

08/09/06 "Foreign Policy In Focus" -- -- The Bush administration's unconditional support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon is emblematic of the profound tragedy of U.S. policy in the region over the past five years. The administration has relied largely on force rather than diplomacy. It has shown a willingness to violate international legal norms, a callousness regarding massive civilian casualties, a dismissive attitude toward our closest allies whose security interests we share, and blatant double standards on UN Security Council resolutions, non-proliferation issues, and human rights. A broad consensus of moderate Arabs, Middle East scholars, independent security analysts, European leaders, and others have recognized how—even putting important moral and legal issues aside—such policies have been a disaster for the national security interests of the United States and other Western nations. These policies have only further radicalized the region and increased support for Hezbollah and other extremists and supporters of terrorism.

The Democratic Party could seize upon these tragic miscalculations by the Bush administration to enhance its political standing and help steer America's foreign policy in a more rational and ethical direction. Instead, the Democrats have once again overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the president and his right-wing counterpart, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Supporting the Israeli Offensive

Soon after Israel began its offensive on July 12, House Republican leader John Boehner, along with House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, introduced a resolution unconditionally supporting Israel's military actions and commending President Bush for fully supporting the Israeli assault. Despite reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that Israel (and, to a lesser extent, Hezbollah) were committing war crimes in attacking civilians, the resolution praised Israel for its “longstanding commitment to minimize civilian loss” and even welcomed “Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties.” The resolution also claimed that Israel's actions were “in accordance with international law,” though they flew in the face of longstanding, universally recognized legal standards regarding the use of force and the treatment of non-combatants in wartime.

Despite such a brazen attack against the credibility of reputable human rights groups and the UN Charter that limits military action to legitimate self defense, Rep. Tom Lantos signed on as a full co-sponsor. Lantos is the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee and likely to chair the committee should the Democrats win back the majority in November. Even more alarmingly, all but fifteen of the 201 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted in favor or the resolution.

In supporting the Republican-authored resolution, Pennsylvania Democrat Allyson Schwartz invoked the September 11 tragedy and insisted that the United States had a “moral obligation” to “stand by” Israel “on the side of democracy and freedom versus terror and radicalism” since to do otherwise would “undermine our national security.” Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida praised Israel's efforts “to eradicate this global threat” and insisted that Syria and Iran should be held responsible for the violence. Even though the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel began only after Israel started bombing civilian areas of Lebanon, Democratic Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey insisted that the killings of these Israeli civilians took place “despite every attempt” by the Israeli government “to demonstrate their genuine commitment to peace.”

One reason for such broad Democratic support for the resolution may stem from the fact that the Arms Control Export Act forbids arms transfers to countries that use American weapons for non-defensive purposes, such as attacking civilians. Thus, in order to protect the profits of politically influential American arms merchants, the Democrats joined with Republicans in supporting language in the resolution claiming that Israel's actions were “legitimate self-defense.”

The Senate endorsed by a voice vote a similar resolution unconditionally supporting Israel's military offensive. Introduced by Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, the resolution was co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and the majority of Senate Democrats, including Barack Obama and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, among others.

The Democrats' support for the Bush administration's defiance of the international community was most clearly articulated by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, another co-sponsor of the resolution, who claimed that the European community and others who called on Israel to “show restraint” believed that “Israel should not be given the ability to defend herself” and that those who advocated “any other course” than that pursued by the Bush administration and Israeli government would constitute an “appeasement of Hezbollah.”

Hillary Takes the Lead

Yet another Democratic co-sponsor of the Senate resolution was Hillary Rodham Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008. Speaking at a rally in New York City in support of the Israeli attacks against Lebanon, she praised Israel's efforts to “send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians [and] to the Iranians,” because, in her words, they oppose the United States and Israel's commitment to “life and freedom.”

Clinton's statements were challenged by her opponent in the Democratic primary for Senate, union activist Jonathan Tasini, who pointed out that “Israel has committed acts that violate international standards and the Geneva Conventions,” citing reports by a number of reputable human rights organizations, including the Israeli group B'Tselem. Clinton's spokesperson dismissed Tasini's concerns about Israeli violations of international humanitarian law as “beyond the pale.”

Tasini, a former Israeli citizen who has lost close relatives in the Arab-Israeli wars and Palestinian terrorism and whose father fought and was wounded in the Israeli war of independence, correctly observed that “Hezbollah's actions violate international law” as well. He argued that his criticism of Israel's policy of collective punishment and attacks on civilians comes from the perspective of being a “friend of Israel,” citing the Jewish tradition of Tikkun Olam, or “repairing the world.” Facing vicious attacks from Clinton supporters for his liberal views, Tasini has called for a debate with his opponent to demonstrate how her unconditional U.S. support for Israeli militarism actually threatens Israel's security interests. The Anglo-Saxon Protestant Clinton, who—like the vast majority of the overwhelmingly WASP Democratic Party leadership—has never lost a relative to the region's violence, has thus far refused the challenge.

Democrats Attack Maliki

The perversity of the Democrats' Middle East policies can be illustrated in their reaction to the visit to Washington in July by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki's government, primarily through its Interior ministry, has been responsible for the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Sunni Arabs in Baghdad and elsewhere and the massacre of hundreds more. Amnesty International and other reputable human rights groups have documented gross and systematic human rights violations by Maliki's government, including torture and ill treatment, arbitrary detention without charge or trial, and the excessive use of force resulting in countless civilian deaths.

With so much blood on Maliki's hands, one would think that at least some Democrats would have chosen to protest or even boycott his speech before a joint session of Congress on July 26. Yet few concerns were aired. However, once the Iraqi prime minister criticized Israel's attacks on Lebanon, only then did the Democratic leadership decide to speak out against the Iraqi prime minister.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi stated that unless the Iraqi Prime Minister “disavows his critical comments of Israel … it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress.” Given that the leaders of America's most important allies have also made critical comments about Israel's offensive, very few foreign dignitaries will be given such an honor in the coming years if the minority leader's recommendations are followed.

The Democrats' offensive against Maliki may have been part of a broader campaign to oppose discontent within their own ranks regarding criticism of the Israeli offensive. For example, Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois declared that the Iraqi prime minister's comments inflicted “hate upon another democracy,” linking criticism of a particular Israeli policy with hate against Israel (an important warning, given that he heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.) Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Pennsylvania claimed that Maliki, in criticizing Israel's attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon, had “condemned Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism,” an apparent effort to equate criticisms of Israeli war crimes with denying Israel's legitimate right to self-defense. Senator Schumer claimed that Maliki's criticisms of the Israeli destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the large-scale killings of Lebanese civilians raised questions as to “which side is he on in the war on terror,” thereby insinuating that those who oppose Israeli attacks against civilians are supporters of al-Qaida. Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, in a speech on July 26, went so far as to insist that Maliki was an “anti-Semite,” perhaps as a warning to party liberals that anyone who dared criticize any policy of America's top Middle Eastern ally would be subjected to similar slander.

Ironically, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry defended his support for the Iraq war by claiming that sacrificing American lives to defend the Iraqi government was worthwhile in part “because it's important for Israel.” In other words, the Democrats want it both ways: condemning the Iraqi government for being “anti-Israel” while justifying the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq because the Iraqi government is “pro-Israel.”

Behind the Democrats' Hawkish Stance

The decision by Democratic members of Congress to take such hard-line positions against international law and human rights does not stem from the fear that it would jeopardize their re-election. Public opinion polls show that a sizable majority of Americans believe U.S. foreign policy should support these principles. More specifically, only a minority of Americans, according to a recent New York Times poll, support President Bush's handling of the situation or agree that the United States should give unconditional support to Israel in its war on Lebanon.

Nor is it a matter of Democratic lawmakers somehow being forced against their will to back Bush's policy by Jewish voters and campaign contributors. In reality, Jewish public opinion is divided over the wisdom and morality of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. More significantly, the vast majority of Democrats who supported the resolution came from very safe districts where a reduction in campaign contributions would not have had a negative impact on their re-election in any case.

Perhaps more important than pressure from right-wing political action committees allied with the Israeli government to support the Bush administration's backing of the Israeli attacks has been the absence of pressure from the liberal groups who oppose such policies.

For example, MoveOn not only continues to work for the re-election of many prominent Democratic hawks who backed Boehmer's resolution, but has not even sent out an alert to its supporters to contact their representatives and senators to protest their defense of Israeli attacks or to support proposed House resolutions calling for a cease-fire. And while Peace Action, the country's largest peace group, has called on its supporters to encourage their elected officials to back a cease-fire, its political action committee turned back efforts to rescind endorsements of incumbents who supported the House resolution.

This reticence contrasts with other foreign policy issues related to international law and human rights from U.S. intervention in Central America during the 1980s to Iraq today. In these other cases, liberal groups made it a priority to hold their elected representatives in Washington accountable for backing administration policy. However, it appears that if the victims of such policies are Lebanese or Palestinian civilians, there are—with some notable exceptions—few organized protests heard on Capitol Hill. With so little pressure from progressive groups, elected representatives have little inclination to withdraw support for administration policy toward Israel and its neighbors.

In reality, the Democrats' support for Israeli attacks against Lebanon is quite consistent with their support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In both cases, Democrats rushed to the defense of right-wing governments that have run roughshod over international legal norms, that have gone well beyond their legitimate right to self-defense, and that have taken an incredible toll in innocent civilian lives.

For example, when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in violation of the UN Charter, only eleven House Democrats voted against a resolution that “reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone” could not “adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” If such an overwhelming majority of Democrats believe that the United States invading a country disarmed of its offensive military capabilities, overthrowing its government, and indefinitely occupying its territory is an act of self-defense, it would be quite easy for them to believe the same about Israel's assault against its northern neighbor. Indeed, to this day, despite not finding any “weapons of mass destruction,” an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress continue to support funding the war despite polls that show a growing majority of Americans now oppose it.

In other words, the Democratic Party's support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon is quite consistent with its disdain for international law and human rights elsewhere and its defiance of public opinion on other foreign policy issues. It is not, therefore, something that can simply be blamed on “the Zionist lobby.” Rather, it indicates that the Democrats' worldview is essentially the same as that of the Republicans.

This ideological congruence calls into question whether the increasingly likely prospect of the Democrats regaining a majority in Congress in November will make any real difference on the foreign policy front. Many supporters of human rights and international law are debating whether to continue to support the Democratic Party or instead support the Green Party or other minor parties that embrace such principles.

The tragic misdirection in U.S. foreign policy in recent years cannot be blamed on the Bush administration alone.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

"A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER....M.J...

2006-08-09T23:14:00.000-04:00

"A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER....M.J. Rosenberg shares a Charles Krauthammer moment:

About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace — peace essentially on Israel's terms — but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?

Those neocon hawks are such a charming bunch, aren't they?"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009311.php

Anon 10:12, where in my 3:19 comment do I utter ev...

2006-08-09T22:39:00.000-04:00

Anon 10:12, where in my 3:19 comment do I utter even one syllable about 9/11?

To 319 (And why I bother I do not know)

How...

2006-08-09T22:12:00.000-04:00

To 319 (And why I bother I do not know)

How dare you imply that 9/11 was not a monumental tragedy because it hadn't gone on for five years, because no one knew abaout it, because the terorists hadn't warned us or told us that they wanted us dead. Most sane people measure tragedy by the number dead - especially the number of innocents. And of course, as always, you missed the point of the argument. LEBANON DIDN"T HAVE THE POWER TO STOP HEZBOLLAH. You're not only stupid, you're hard-hearted and most unforgivable - A BORE.

Destruction, Death, and Drastic Measures

By...

2006-08-09T18:20:00.000-04:00

Destruction, Death, and Drastic Measures

By Dahr Jamail

08/09/06 "TomDispatch" -- -- Damascus, Syria -- "I care about my people, my country, and defending them from the Zionist aggression," said a Hezbollah fighter after I'd asked him why he joined the group. I found myself in downtown Beirut sitting in the backseat of his car in the liquid heat of a Lebanese summer. Sweat rolled down my nose and dripped on my notepad as I jotted furiously.

"My home in Dahaya is now pulverized," he said while the concussions of Israeli bombs landing in his nearby neighborhood echoed across the buildings around us, "Everything in my life is destroyed now, so I will fight them. I am a Shaheed [martyr]."

He asked to remain anonymous, and that I refer to him only as Ahmed.

The late afternoon sun was behind him as he told me just how hard his life had been. When he was eleven years old, he and his youngest brother had been taken from their home by Israeli soldiers and put in prison for two years. I asked him what happened to him there, but that was a subject he wouldn't discuss. One of his brothers was later killed by Israeli soldiers. After his release from an Israeli prison Ahmed was spending his teenage years in southern Lebanon when he was caught in crossfire between Hezbollah fighters and Israeli soldiers near his home. He was shot three times. Many years before, his father had been killed by an Israeli air strike on a refugee camp in south Beirut.

"What are we left with?" he asked, while the angle of the sun through the windshield highlighted tears welling in his eyes, "I know I will die fighting them, then I will go to my God. But I will go to my God fighting like a lion. I will not be slaughtered like a lamb."

A Widely Misunderstood Group

Leaving on this trip to Syria, I never intended to go to Lebanon. When my plane took off from San Francisco, Lebanon was still a peaceful land; by the time my plane touched down in Damascus, however, everything had changed. That very day, I learned on landing, Hezbollah had taken two Israeli soldiers captive and killed eight others. While the mainstream media have taken it as fact that the Hezbollah raid occurred inside Israel, many Arab outlets claim the Israelis actually entered Lebanon before being attacked. The exact location of the clash remains in dispute.

Clearer, however, are the effects of the subsequent Israeli attack on Lebanon. Physically, Lebanon has been bombed if not yet back to the Stone Age, then at least to a point where much of the country now looks as it did in the worst periods of its brutal civil war, which lasted from 1975 until 1990.

According to statistics provided by the Lebanese Government on July 24th, there had already been well over $2.1 billion of damage to the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon -- all three of its airports and all four of its seaports had by then been bombed, and in the weeks to follow it was only to get worse.

By estimates that go quickly out of date as the brutal bombing campaign continues, there has already been nearly $1 billion of damage done to civilian residences and businesses, with over 22 gas stations as well as fuel depots bombed and the major highways along which fuel resupply would take place badly damaged. Scores of factories, worth over $180 million, have also been damaged or destroyed.

Red Cross ambulances, governmental emergency centers, UN peacekeeping forces and observers, media outlets, and mobile phone towers have all been bombed, each a violation of international law. Mosques and churches have been hit; illegal weapons such as cluster bombs and white phosphorous used; and, as far as can be told at this early point, over 90% of the victims killed have been civilians.

As of this writing, the Lebanese government had already announced at least 900 deaths, and that number is now certainly well over 1,000. At least 60 Israelis are also dead from Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel and fierce fighting inside Lebanon.

Tom Engelhardt recently wrote,

"As air wars go, the one in Lebanon may seem strikingly directed against the civilian infrastructure and against society; in that, however, it is historically anything but unique. It might even be said that war from the air, since first launched in Europe's colonies early in the last century, has always been essentially directed against civilians. As in World War II, air power -- no matter its stated targets -- almost invariably turns out to be worst for civilians and, in the end, to be aimed at society itself. In that way, its damage is anything but 'collateral,' never truly 'surgical,' and never in its overall effect 'precise.' Even when it doesn't start that way, the frustration of not working as planned, of not breaking the 'will,' invariably leads, as with the Israelis, to ever wider, ever fiercer versions of the same, which, if allowed to proceed to their logical conclusion, will bring down not society's will, but society itself."

The government of Israel stated at the outset that the goal of their massive air campaign, leveled directly at the infrastructure of Lebanese society and at its economy, was essentially psychological -- meant to increase popular pressure against Hezbollah; but, as might easily have been predicted, exactly the opposite has occurred.

"I never supported Hezbollah before," a young student at the American University of Beirut told me shortly after I arrived in the capital city. "But now they are defending us against Israel." His view of Hezbollah is quickly becoming the norm for hundreds of thousands of previously unsympathetic Lebanese as American-made Israeli bombs and missiles continue to rain down on the country.

During my time in Lebanon I drove to Qana. On the way there, I passed one small hilltop village after another, all of them resembling bombed out ghost towns. Chunks of buildings littered the roads, which our car had to carefully negotiate. Powdered rock from shattered homes seemed to cover everything like a thin film. No one was walking the deserted streets, even in the middle of the day. The few who remained, mostly the elderly and children, hid in basements. For whole stretches, only occasional stray cats and dogs were seen, along with a flock of goats whose herder had long since fled.

The villages looked like ghost towns as the irregular thumping of bomb explosions continued in the distance. The roar of Israeli F-16's overhead was a constant reminder that no place in the south of this country was safe. After witnessing this level of destruction, the literal tearing apart of a society, it was clear to me so many more people were supporting Hezbollah.

Enter Nasrallah

To grasp the unfolding events in Lebanon, you have to begin with an uncomfortable fact. Hezbollah, widely known throughout much of the West as a "terrorist organization," is seen as anything but in Lebanon. This was obviously true of most Shiites, especially in southern Lebanon, before this round of war began. Now, even many in the conservative Christian population in parts of northern Lebanon and West Beirut have come to hold its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in high regard. With seats in the Lebanese parliament, Hezbollah is seen as a legitimate political group.

Hezbollah first came into existence as a result of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon, which began on June 6, 1982. The group draws most of its popular support from southern Beirut and south Lebanon, where the majority of the country's Shia population live. Downtrodden, impoverished, and largely overlooked by a government in Beirut in which they had inadequate representation, the Shia were primed for a leader who would promise them a better future.

The group was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin proclaimed its manifesto. Hassan Nasrallah would only come to power after the Israeli military assassinated al-Amin. A charismatic leader, he promptly solidified his base and swelled Hezbollah's ranks by working to satisfy the most essential needs of his followers. Hezbollah soon started providing the basic social-service infrastructure in the neglected Shia areas of southern Beirut and southern Lebanon -- hospitals, schools, construction projects, welfare programs, and, above all, a well-trained, highly disciplined militia for protection.

After years of brutal guerrilla war against the Israeli military, which had occupied part of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah succeeded in doing what neither the Lebanese government, nor their impotent army could possibly have done. Its fighters wore down the Israeli military and finally forced it out of the country in 2000. This, not surprisingly, lent it even greater popularity.

While the coming years also brought it more significant political representation and respect, the Druze and Christian populations, continued to distance themselves from or oppose the group.

Now, the staggeringly disproportionate Israeli response to the detention of two of its soldiers and the killing of others in mid-July has changed even this. In a sense, the Israelis are accomplishing the previously inconceivable -- uniting the otherwise hostile power centers of the country behind Hezbollah. Last week, the Israelis actually began bombing key bridges in the Christian part of the country for the first time -- a clear statement that no Lebanese are to be spared their attentions. Most of the Druze and Christian leadership have by now condemned the Israeli response. Many have even gone so far as to state that they believe Hezbollah is working to defend the country's sovereignty.

Thus, the Israeli response has played a huge role in strengthening the already strong hand of Hassan Nasrallah.

The View from Damascus

Hezbollah enjoys massive popular and political support in Syria. Everywhere in the ancient city of Damascus the yellow and green flags of the group hang from storefronts, flutter in the wind from television antennae, and fly from the radio antennae of cars. Portraits and photos of Nasrallah are taped to the back windows of Mercedes and BMW's. Key chains of his bearded, smiling face, along with iconic t-shirts in which he is portrayed between the Syrian flag and that of Hezbollah are now selling like hotcakes.

"We know the Americans are trying to smash our dignity," a man named Faez told me in the coastal Syrian city of Latakia. Inside a heavily air-conditioned European-style coffee shop, while sipping espresso, the businessman did what so many Syrians do nowadays – he used "America" and "Israel" interchangeably.

The head of the Syrian Union of Engineers, Hassan Majid, was no less frank as we sat in his plush office in downtown Damascus. "Hezbollah has our greatest respect now," he said softly.

Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese refugees have flooded the capital. You can see them inhabiting schools and crowded into various offices for Middle East Airlines, Lebanon's air carrier. They are always to be found at Syrian Red Crescent shelters hoping to acquire lodging, food, or other assistance. The support they receive here is of a far better kind than is available to the tens of thousands of internal refugees who have fled no farther than Beirut, where they sleep in the dirt in city parks or, if they are lucky, on thin foam mats in still empty schools; yet their accounts of suffering and loss are no less heart-wrenching. These stories ripple across Syria daily, broadcast far and wide by state television.

At the headquarters of the Syrian Red Crescent, you can still see a plaque from the Red Cross thanking them for their efforts assisting Hurricane Katrina victims. When I asked about it, one of the volunteers told me Syria had donated medical supplies to aid the desperate residents of New Orleans.

An old man named Hassan Hamdan has just arrived from southern Lebanon and is waiting for volunteers to find him somewhere to sleep. He catches the spirit of the moment when he takes my very first open-ended questions as an opportunity to vent his rage.

In a sense, it never feels as if he's talking to me at all. As he begins, he promptly stands up. His voice rises instantly into the shouting range and he quite literally yells, "The Israelis are attacking and killing everything which moves!" I involuntarily take a step back, fearing he's so angry he might actually assault me. "It's total destruction! They just shredded our city!" For a moment he calms slightly and explains that he's just left his village near the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbail. Immediately, his voice rises and he's off again: "Everyone is now with Hezbollah! Even Jesus is with Hezbollah! Insha'Allah [God willing], Hezbollah will smash the Israelis and kick them from Lebanon once and for all!"

I've seen similar rantings broadcast on Syrian state television as people crowd around to watch inside sweaty falafel restaurants and I automatically dismissed it as so much state propaganda. But here that "propaganda" is alive and unbelievably vociferous, with not a screen in sight.

In fact, it hardly matters any more what anyone says or does. Sometimes you can feel a tidal pull in events -- in this case, a strong one flowing in but a single powerful direction. When one Israeli general recently aimed some pointed barbs at Syria for supporting Hezbollah, and President Bashar Assad promptly put the Syrian military on high alert, popular support for Hezbollah, further galvanized, only grew accordingly. It's no longer hard to imagine a whole region in which the shouting might reach previously inconceivable decibels and nobody will be listening.

Drastic Measures

After visiting a hospital in Beirut where I saw dozens of horribly wounded children, women, and the elderly, their skin burnt, often from the flames of their own devastated homes, their bodies shredded, possibly by the cluster bombs the Israelis have reportedly been using, I walked outside and wept.

Shortly after, I met with Ahmed again and briefly described the experience while, once again, tearing up. "This is what I've been seeing my entire life," he replied, staring into my eyes. "Nothing but pain and suffering."

Now, this is also what so many Lebanese, sheltered these last years of reconstruction from life experiences like Ahmed's, are seeing first-hand, and this is why Hezbollah is viewed by almost all Lebanese as a legitimate resistance movement, not a "terrorist organization." This is what the Israelis have actually done to the Lebanese, other than dismantling their society and turning them into refugees in their own land.

When you are in Syria or, I suspect, in most Arab states today, and utter the words "terrorist organization," it doesn't even occur to people that Hezbollah might be the topic of conversation. They take it for granted that you're referring either to Israel or the United States.

As Israeli pilots continue to drop American made precision-guided bombs from F-16's and Hezbollah launches barrages of rockets ever deeper into Israel, the radicalization of both populations -- and of the region -- only intensifies amid the spreading devastation.

When this war finally ends, the societal, economic, and environmental destruction will undoubtedly be staggering -- it already is -- as well as long-lasting; but it will pale in comparison to the psychological damage which has already been done. Rather than sowing the seeds of a future peace, it's painfully clear to an observer that the seeds of everlasting bloodshed, resentment, and resistance are now sprouting amid the ruins.

Arab leaders continue to earn the scorn of their populations for not putting their all into stopping the Israeli campaign against Lebanon. Meanwhile, Hezbollah appears committed to doing so until the very end -- and, based on what I saw in my days in Lebanon, that "end" of mutual destruction seems all that is left on the minds of those involved. The Israelis, over-valuing the technology of war and, in particular, of air power (as so many have done before them), began their campaign against Lebanon by using perfectly real bombs and missiles to achieve largely psychological ends -- the humiliation of Hezbollah in the eyes of the Lebanese population. As it turns out, they have indeed changed the psychology of Lebanon -- and possibly of the region. Just not in ways they ever imagined.

As Tarad Hamadé, the Lebanese Minister of Labor and official representative of Hezbollah told me in Beirut recently, "We might not be as powerful as the Israeli army but we will fight until we die."

Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist from Anchorage, Alaska who spent eight months reporting from occupied Iraq. He regularly reports for Inter Press Service, and contributes to the Independent, the Sunday Herald, and Asia Times as well as Tomdispatch.com. He maintains a website at: www.dahrjamailiraq.com/

Anon 2:06, you are an idiot. You're going to compa...

2006-08-09T15:19:00.000-04:00

Anon 2:06, you are an idiot. You're going to compare the one-shot surpirse attack by Timothy McVeigh in Ok to what Hezbollah's carried out over the past 5 years against Israel? Did we have prior knowledge of McVeigh's build-up, planning, headquarters? Did he committ smaller acts for five years while we had all this info and let him continue unchecked? Did he come out publicly and say he won't be happy until he wipes that building off of the face of Oklahmoa? Did he flaunt his future terror in our faces for 5 years like hezbollah has to the Lebanese and Israeli governments? The trouble with idiots like you is that you clog up boards like this with uninformed drivel. Nice comparison, jackass.

to 2:06

From all reports the newly formed d...

2006-08-09T15:13:00.000-04:00

to 2:06

From all reports the newly formed democratic Lebanon didn't have the power to stop the Hezbollah build up. Is that so hard to understand? Here in our country we had the Oklahoma bombing - why didn't someone stop that? We have major illegal drug commerce which is responsible for most of our crimes -- why hasn't someone stopped that? We have more domestic abuse that any civilized coutnry: Why hasn't someone stopped that? We have the Mafia that's never even been slowed down. We have white supremist groups. We have, would you believe, terrorists in this country. For that matter, why didn't someone stop 9/11? Even our president couldn't do that with all his resources. And none of these groups is as powerful as Hezbollah was when Lebanon became a new government. And you can be sure the woman and children couldn't have stopped Hezbollah under any circumstances.

cool. about time we see some balance on this board...

2006-08-09T15:03:00.000-04:00

cool. about time we see some balance on this board with some support for Israel.

"Hezbollah fired more than 160 rockets at Israel o...

2006-08-09T14:46:00.000-04:00

"Hezbollah fired more than 160 rockets at Israel on Wednesday. Since the fighting began July 12, a total of 3,333 have been fired at Israel, officials said."

3,333

source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel;_ylt=AsxqGYNZPN7MUKp93_WMBbCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Not that everybody here cares, but Israeli civilians are suffering too:

"Panic is the mood at a northern Israeli shelter" article-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060809/ts_nm/mideast_israel_shelter_dc_1

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organ...

2006-08-09T14:06:00.000-04:00

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world to set up shop throughout your country>"

Would we in America "allow" Hezbollah to set up shop?

"You allow the terrorists to build sophisticated, fortified bunkers and you did not see any heavy equipment building them. You allow the Hezbollah terrorists to move into many of your towns and villages, including the complete takeover of one of the largest neighborhoods in Beirut, where they proceed to build numerous, complex command and control centers...and then you claim ignorance."

Would we in America allow Hezbollah to build sophisticated fortresses and take over neighborhoods? If we did, wouldn't we be complicit in their actions?Especially if their actions included bombing, say, Canada, or sponsoring/supporting suicide bombers?

Most Americans had no problem with the logic of fighting against Afghanistan since it harbored terrorists. Why should Israel be similarly denied the right to defend itself?

Proud liberal here.

Look Bob/Larry

Don't read the crap. Take O...

2006-08-09T13:46:00.000-04:00

Look Bob/Larry

Don't read the crap. Take Ostroy's advice and go elsewhere.

....would you call someone a freedom fighter if th...

2006-08-09T12:09:00.000-04:00

....would you call someone a freedom fighter if they strapped on bombs and blew up your family at the mall this Saturday? Nah, they'd probably be terrorists. Their only freedom fighters when they kill other people's kids.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

2006-08-09T12:05:00.000-04:00

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organ...

2006-08-09T11:42:00.000-04:00

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world to set up shop throughout your country>"

The first line of this tirade distinguishes it immediately as Israeli propaganda.

Do some research. An occupying power cannot legally "defend" their illegal occupation. Claiming those who resist the occupation are "terrorists" is purely propaganda.

Israel has invaded Lebanon before, continues to defy U.N resolutions regarding its earlier withdrawals, imprisons Lebanese citizens without charges, and continues to occupy Lebanese territory.

Just who are the real "terrorists" in the Middle East?

Mr. Abrams, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm not ...

2006-08-09T11:15:00.000-04:00

Mr. Abrams, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm not going to "refrain from commenting" on my own blog. Given how dissatisfied and "tired" you are of my writings, the more logical approach would be for you to find another blog. Happy trails.

To "V" from yesterday: what, no apology? You claim I agree with Israel on everything, and then I list many things I am actually opposed to, and instead of a mea culpa from you I get zippo! I guess it's more fun to just make wildly false accusations rather than to acknowledge error.
Andy

Anon 10:07. Sorry pal, the article you cite very c...

2006-08-09T11:05:00.000-04:00

Anon 10:07. Sorry pal, the article you cite very clearly has a message that Israel is killing civilians unjustly, and I have no interest in reading this propaganda crap.
Bob

Zionist crap...how many Zionist PM's were on the B...

2006-08-09T10:43:00.000-04:00

Zionist crap...how many Zionist PM's were on the British Gangsta list in '47 - '48?

Andy,
I could not disagree with you more, again...

2006-08-09T10:33:00.000-04:00

Andy,
I could not disagree with you more, again. While your violent tendencies are veiled somewhat when you write about the US, and Republicans, it is in full view when you write about foes of Israel. It is tiresom. You should refrain from commenting and just use your "Megaphone desktop tool" to alter opinion polls.

Bob,

Facts are facts no matter through what...

2006-08-09T10:07:00.000-04:00

Bob,

Facts are facts no matter through what distorted and biased perception you view them.

yeah right, Joe, you and your article are really o...

2006-08-09T09:29:00.000-04:00

yeah right, Joe, you and your article are really objective. The freakin thing opens with "On Tuesday, Israeli warplanes struck the southern Lebanese town of Ghaziyeh, killing at least 14 people. Missiles demolished civilian homes just as some 1,500 mourners were participating in a procession to bury 15 of their relatives and neighbors slain just the day before. The explosions sent the crowd running in panic, dropping shrouded corpses in the street."

Yup, with this opening paragraph it sure makes me see it as a truly objective piece.
Bob

Below is what I consider an accurate analysis of t...

2006-08-09T09:12:00.000-04:00

Below is what I consider an accurate analysis of the current situation in Lebanon and the parallel policies carried out by the US and Israeli administrations.

By Bill Van Auken
9 August 2006

On Tuesday, Israeli warplanes struck the southern Lebanese town of Ghaziyeh, killing at least 14 people. Missiles demolished civilian homes just as some 1,500 mourners were participating in a procession to bury 15 of their relatives and neighbors slain just the day before. The explosions sent the crowd running in panic, dropping shrouded corpses in the street.

Ghaziyeh’s normal population of 23,000 has reportedly been swelled by a wave of refugees. It is a predominantly Shiite town near Sidon, a region where most of the population is composed of Sunni Muslims. Many people from further south had fled there to stay with relatives and friends.

There was no indication that the town was used to launch rockets against Israel or had any intrinsic strategic significance. The objective was merely to further terrorize people who have already suffered the loss of their homes and seen members of their families massacred in the relentless Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon. The aim is to force them to flee further north, or kill them.

Israeli planes have dropped leaflets on southern Lebanon announcing an open-ended curfew, violation of which is punishable by death from the air. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has warned that any vehicles on the roads will be struck. Anyone disobeying these orders will be considered a terrorist and a target for Israeli bombs, missiles and shells.

This threat, combined with the escalating air war against the south, has effectively shut down attempts by the International Red Cross and other relief agencies to bring desperately needed food, water and medical supplies into the ravaged south. The bombing of roads and the destruction of the last bridge crossing the Litani River into the southern city of Tyre has cut off the region from rest of Lebanon and the rest of the world.

The head of the International Red Cross, Jacob Kellenberger, accused Israel of violating the Geneva Conventions—that is, committing a war crime—by threatening aid convoys with military attack. Kellenberger dismissed Israel’s claims that its leaflets warning of imminent air strikes somehow justified violent attacks on civilians. “By letting down leaflets, you cannot get rid of your responsibilities under international humanitarian law,” he said.

The Israeli practice is akin to a serial murderer telephoning death threats to people before killing them and then blaming the victims for their own deaths, because, after all, “they were warned.”

This is the real context in which the United Nations Security Council is going through the motions of considering a US-French resolution designed not to end the fighting, but to allow it to continue until US-Israeli objectives are met. This document demands that Hezbollah disarm, while it allows the 10,000 Israeli troops occupying Lebanese territory to remain and permits Israel to continue “defensive” air strikes and artillery bombardments.

It essentially demands that Hezbollah, a mass movement of Lebanon’s impoverished Shiite population, commit suicide and that the government of Lebanon accept the status of an occupied protectorate. By presenting an utterly unacceptable proposal, Washington aims at provoking Lebanese rejection and then using this supposed opposition to “peace” as a justification for continuing the month-old war.

In a further indication that it has no intention of compromising on the terms of its UN diktat to the Lebanese people, the Bush administration Tuesday dismissed a Lebanese proposal to send 15,000 Lebanese troops to the south to take control of the area from the Israeli army. A State Department spokesman declared that the Lebanese army is not “a robust enough entity to be able to, on their own, exercise total control of that southern area of Lebanon.”

This word “robust” is endlessly repeated to describe a proposed multinational force to be sent into the region. It is a euphemism for an occupation army that will utilize murderous force against the local population to achieve US and Israeli war aims.

In a rare moment of candor at the UN, the Qatari foreign minister told the Security Council on Tuesday: “It is most saddening that the council stands idly by, crippled, unable to stop the blood bath which has become the bitter daily lot of the defenseless Lebanese people.”

He warned that adoption of the US-French resolution posed the “danger of civil war in Lebanon.” This is no idle threat. The proposed smashing of Hezbollah would be seen by the Shiite population as an attempt to disenfranchise and oppress them, reversing the results of Lebanon’s previous civil war and restoring the power once wielded by Israel’s traditional ally in the country, the Maronite Christian right.

Such social reengineering of the country—carried out under George Bush’s slogans of “freedom” and a “new Middle East”—would undoubtedly ignite a new round of bitter sectarian warfare.

What the US-Israeli offensive aims to accomplish as its immediate goal is the thorough ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon.

This is a term that never appears in the mainstream media in relation to the present war in Lebanon. It appears only in the occasional stories following the continuing tensions in former Yugoslavia, where US-led NATO forces intervened in 1999 with a savage bombing campaign against Serbia, which was carried out under the pretext of halting ethnic cleansing in the province of Kosovo. The end result has been a thorough ethnic cleansing of the Serb population at the hands of the Kosovar nationalists whom Washington supported.

In the Israeli offensive against south Lebanon, the media invariably refers to air strikes and ground assaults against “Hezbollah strongholds,” a formulation meant to conceal the fact that the real target is the Shiite population as a whole. Missiles, cluster bombs and artillery shells are employed to massacre men, women and children in order to terrorize the entire population and send them fleeing north.

Unlike the wave of moral outrage generated by the US media over the alleged ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, which was critical in conditioning public opinion and providing a pretext for Washington’s war against Serbia, there is no similar condemnation of Israel for the mass expulsion of a population.

One major television network, the ineffable Fox News, expressed more concern for the lost dogs of northern Israel than for the Lebanese women and children buried beneath the rubble of buildings demolished by US-supplied Israeli bombs.

The IDF has had little success in defeating Hezbollah or even halting its rocket attacks against Israel, but its strategy against the civilian population has proven effective. While more than 1,000 Lebanese have been killed and approximately 3,500 wounded—the majority of them women and children—one million Lebanese, fully a quarter of the national population, have been turned into refugees, most of them driven from their homes in the south.

Ethnic cleansing is nothing new for Israel. The very foundation of the Israeli state was bound up with the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and farms. The Zionist leaders employed massacres and terror to drive out the native population.

As the well-known Israeli historian Benny Morris acknowledged in a 2004 interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore, it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads.”

In 1967, with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, military terror was once again utilized to drive hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off their land, paving the way for the Zionist settlements in the occupied territories and Israel’s claims over all of Jerusalem.

There is no reason to believe that anything different is being planned for Lebanon. Once again Israel, in the name of “security,” is driving an Arab population off of its land. Where does this process end?

There is every indication that the IDF is now being deployed to conquer Lebanese territory between the Israeli border and the Litani River, 18 miles to the north. A new senior officer known to favor a far more extensive ground assault, Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, has been placed in charge of the Lebanon operation. Haaretz reported that his mission would be “to coordinate land, air and sea operations in case of a widescale offensive.”

There is more at work in the current Lebanon war, however, than Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Shiite population and the potential annexation of Lebanese territory. Prodding the Israeli government to intensify its attacks is the Bush administration. It sees the IDF offensive as a means of furthering its own objective of setting the stage for new wars of aggression in the Middle East, to achieve “regime change” in Iran and Syria and bring the extensive oil reserves of the entire region under uncontested US control.

This is the reality behind the Bush’s rhetoric, casting the conflict as one between “freedom” and “democracy,” on the one side, and “Islamic fascism,” on the other.

If anything in the present war recalls the crimes of fascism, it is not the Lebanese, who are fighting an Israeli army that his invaded their land, but rather the regimes in Washington and Israel, which are utilizing overwhelming military force to conquer an oppressed people.

Like the one-sided wars waged by fascist regimes that shocked the world’s conscience in the 1930s—from the rape of Ethiopia to the incineration of Guernica—the destruction of Lebanon contains the seeds of a global conflagration.

"A supposedly intelligent person"?

2006-08-08T19:33:00.000-04:00
"A supposedly intelligent person"?

Why would you suppose that anyone who writes for the lunatic MichNews.com is in any way "intelligent"?

I'm not surprised by its stupidity, but am shocked by its cruelty.

Do you have any articles which confirm my belief t...

2006-08-08T19:05:00.000-04:00

Do you have any articles which confirm my belief that Israelis are fucked in the head?

Well that was just about the saddest thing I've ev...

2006-08-08T18:47:00.000-04:00

Well that was just about the saddest thing I've ever read from a supposedly intelligent person.

The hate just seems to keep on coming.

Comments on The Ostroy Report: "Those Poor Innocent Lebanese"....A Reality Check ...

Using your logic, all of us Americans are not inno...

Why the Dems Have Failed LebanonBy Stephen...

"A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER....M.J...

Anon 10:12, where in my 3:19 comment do I utter ev...

To 319 (And why I bother I do not know)How...

Destruction, Death, and Drastic MeasuresBy...

Anon 2:06, you are an idiot. You're going to compa...

to 2:06From all reports the newly formed d...

cool. about time we see some balance on this board...

"Hezbollah fired more than 160 rockets at Israel o...

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organ...

Look Bob/Larry Don't read the crap. Take O...

....would you call someone a freedom fighter if th...

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

"You allow one of the largest terrorist organ...

Mr. Abrams, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm not ...

Anon 10:07. Sorry pal, the article you cite very c...

Zionist crap...how many Zionist PM's were on the B...

Andy,I could not disagree with you more, again...

Bob,Facts are facts no matter through what...

yeah right, Joe, you and your article are really o...

Below is what I consider an accurate analysis of t...

"A supposedly intelligent person"? 2006-08-08T19:33:00.000-04:00 "A supposedly intelligent person"?Why would you suppose that anyone who writes for the lunatic MichNews.com is in any way "intelligent"?I'm not surprised by its stupidity, but am shocked by its cruelty.

Do you have any articles which confirm my belief t...

Well that was just about the saddest thing I've ev...

Why the Dems Have Failed Lebanon

By Stephen...

To 319 (And why I bother I do not know)

How...

Destruction, Death, and Drastic Measures

By...

to 2:06

From all reports the newly formed d...

Look Bob/Larry

Don't read the crap. Take O...

Andy,
I could not disagree with you more, again...

Bob,

Facts are facts no matter through what...

"A supposedly intelligent person"?

2006-08-08T19:33:00.000-04:00
"A supposedly intelligent person"?

Why would you suppose that anyone who writes for the lunatic MichNews.com is in any way "intelligent"?

I'm not surprised by its stupidity, but am shocked by its cruelty.