This was a fascinating interview that demands some context. Specifically, how badly was Hezbollah hurt?

Press coverage during Nasrallah's War and afterward contained many references to Israeli and Lebanese casualties reported by their respective governments. Hezbollah released little information on its losses in men, equipment or infrastructure; moreover Iranian aid to Hezbollah, much of it in the form of armaments, will now need to be supplemented by large amounts of money for reconstruction.

Armaments and fighters can, of course, be replaced; much can change in the time this takes to happen, however. How badly Hezbollah's military capability was damaged in the war is not the only relevant consideration for understanding the context of Nasrallah's interview, but it is surely important.

I think the original purpose of the raid into Israel was to obtain Israeli prisoners to exchange for Hizbollah prisoners held by Israel. However, one could argue that the Palestinians had already been refused an exchange of a prisoner for prisoners by the Israelis.
However, this attitude represented a major change in policy as they had previously exchanged many prisoners to obtain the release of few Israeli soldiers, or their bodies. In deed, it has been the general policy of Israeli governments to "rescue" Jews anywhere in the world, if they are in danger.
The idea of not negotiating for hostages is an American concept, and I rather suspect, but cannot prove, this change in policy represents American Neoconservative influence on the Olmert government. Freeing Hostages by force provided the excuse for moving into Gaza and the Hizbollah stronghold in Southern Lebanon. What was particularly stupid about the move into South Lebanon was that they thought that they were dealing with the same type of organization in Lebanon that was in Gaza. Therefore, you saw bulldozers moving into Lebanon to conduct a Gaza type operation, when they were dealing with a single organization, who were experienced fighters, and had unity of command.
Why should we be surprised? Neoconservatives moved into Iraq based on preconceptions and total ignorance of the facts on the ground. Both the American army, and the IDF are paying the price for their stupidity, and the fact that they conduct war on the cheap so the wealthy can have their tax breaks, which, in itself, is a reason for defeat.

If only Bush would follow Sayyed Nasrallah's example of being candid and admitting mistakes. Of course, Bush is too busy planning yet another ill fated attack on an oil rich Middle Eastern country. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting another result, Bush is insane as they come.

Ok, now that you've salad picked the defensible portion of Nasrallah's statement, lets show them the rest of the story.

..........................................
"If we hadn't captured those soldiers, the war would have come in October anyway."
..........................................

This pinhead needs to get his lies straight.

If he had known Israel would have invaded in response to the kidnappings, he wouldn't have done it. YET, he knew Israel was going to invade in October, so he kidnapped the two soldiers to bait them into invading early to control the timing and throw them off balance.

Then, after seeing all the whining and hand wringing out of Europe, he's going to claim they were backing this operation?

Tell me why the Hell the media isn't ripping that statement apart? This idiot blatantly contradicted himself in his own statement, yet you DARE call this candor? Please.

It seems more natural to take Nasrallah's statement as a sign of what he thinks is the winning statement for Hezbollah to be making now than what actually went into his thought process then (although they could well happen to be the same).
Put that way it seems that his view is that the message that will sell is something like "We didn't start this war, but since it came we fought it to victory." Put that way it sounds like the same kind of rationalization that is made on our side. We blame the other side for the damage while taking credit for what we can.
So I don't see much significance to this statement as a reflection of a change of heart on Hezbollah's part, or a sign that they were weakened (why should he respond to that if he can hide the fact). Rather it is a sign that he is politically savvy.
Or to put it another way, it is something that points to the similarities of the players on both sides rather than the difference. Everybody likes to think the other guy started it. Everybody likes the guy who fought on their side. Everybody likes to think they won.

Considering the sources, I wonder at the significance of these reactions. There is the Sunni/Shiite divide to consider first, and second there is a reasonable possibility that the White House has a hand in this.

What are the reactions in the Arabic language press?

I think Nasrullah acted like a leader and admitted his mistakes. Which I, as a Muslim, can not say about leaders from Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan.

He just acknowledging what everyone knew. There has been serious damage done to Lebanon. Coming from his mouth makes a difference though. Now that Sunni ( I am a sunni) Arab countries trying to justify their criticism before the war through Nasrullah's candor makes me laugh.

Nasrullah have more street credibility in Muslim streets than rulers of Saudia Arabia or Egypt. No matter how much criticism he faces in the aftermath of his interview. Reason is not cause Muslims are not fanatics. The reason is Arab rulers are not sincere and do not represent people.

I'd really like to see an independent translation of this interview.

Remember, the soldiers were taken in a sort of spur of the moment action, as Hezbollah began firing rockets at CIVILIAN targets in Israel-- causing both Arab and Jewish casualties.

Perhaps he was suprised at the the smack down Hezbollah recieved (and hey, how about some more coverage and ombusman's apologies for using staged, orchestrated, and just plain old doctored photos and video????). Perhaps villagers in South Lebanon are starting to think its not such a good idea to let terrorists have their bases and weapons/explosives in their towns....

The Israel-right-or-wrong media chorus keeps portraying this man as a vicious heartless terrorist with no conscience, and Israel as a helpless victim. And yet Nasrallah's interview doesn't quite square with that portrayal; nor does the fact that Israel killed 10 times as many civilians as Hizbollah did in the latest conflict.

There is an old Arab saying: "if you go to sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with flees". The situation in Lebanon can be explained very well by using this analogy - The Lebanese went to sleep with dogs (Hezbollah) and woke up with flees (the damage and loss of life)Israel (the veterinary), is doing them a big favour and curing them of this condition, but the medicine (bombing) is very painful. Lebanese must be patient and take the medicine until they are completely cured and free to build their country at last

I think Simon has it right, at least Nasrallah can stand up and admit a "mistake", or at least question some aspect of his decision making. Obviously this does not change the situation he created, or at least was a principle player in initiating, however it speaks more of his character than the actions of Bush43. Look, the whole world knows he (GB)dropped the ball on the WMD situation in Iraq, as well as Al Queda's involvement in that country's government...and yet he continues along this path as if we (and I mean the general reading we) are completely unaware of this fact.

Hey, GB you effed up - stop pretending that you didn't and let's all get going toward fixing your mess. The sad fact is that many of us are much more willing (and ready) to follow someone who is capable of admitting his human failures, than someone who simply expects it b/c he is our boss. Unfortunately that is why we are losing in the ME. Its truly sad on a grand scale that the potential stars of any society die in a horrible fashion b/c they believe in their leaders who couldn't care less about their existance. The warriors are the brave, they at least are willing to stand for something, unfortunately they are undone by their leaders who just stand for ancient hate, prejudice or self advancement.

Despite Hasan Nasrallah's admission of error, Jerusalem should not lift the naval blockade of Lebanon and should not pull Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon unless the following 2 conditions are met.

1. Hezbollah releases the 2 Israelis kidnapped by Hezbollah.

2. International peacekeepers patrol the Lebanese-Syrian border.

The Lebanese people deserved the damage that the Israeli military inflicted on the Lebanese infrastructure. Now, the people understand the price of supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Shelby Steele, a renowned scholar of international events, correctly asserts, "Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era." He explains well the threat that Islam poses to Israel and Western society.

Read the rest of his thoughtful comments at the following Web link.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008852

His thoughtful comments are in the form of an essay published on Sunday, August 27, in the "Wall Street Journal".

I think Nasrallah's statement is an opening into the thoughts of his aides and those in Lebanon who supported him. He may be popular with the Iranian leadership, which is shoveling money to him and giving him much praise, but in S. Lebanon no amount of money will bring back the lives of loved ones, their homes and its contents. The people of S. Lebanon know why their homes were bombed. They saw how Hezbollah "protected" them by storing munitions in their basements and shot rockets from next to their homes. I think the people of Lebanon have had a few weeks to think about what happened and are seeing it for what it was, a war started not by elected leaders but by an unelected group which is funded from abroad. Even though the target was a country all in Lebanon despise, bringing destruction to Lebanon has put Hezbollah in a worse light with the people of Lebanon than they were before the fighting. The Lebanese kicked out the Syrians and were proud of it. Expect them to kick out Hezbollah over the next few years as the anger grows. Hezbollah believe Iranian money will bring support. It may, but hopefully the Lebanese are smarter than that.

One thing not mentioned in the article that is important to consider is the newly held hate for Israel in Lebanon. Israel needs friends and Lebanon could be a good one if it just worked to resolve the border issue. I cannot understand why Israel has let the Lebanese/Israeli border issue ferment. It has lead to legitimizing Hezbollah's presense and remaining armed. It needs to be resolved and now is a very good time to do it. A resolution of the border would give Hezbollah no reason to exist, would help the Lebanese extract that cancer that Iran feeds and empower the Lebanese government in the eyes of its people. Why Israel is not moving on this is bewildering.

The Interview That Wasn't
Hezbollah Denounces Evrensel Interview of Nasrallah as a Fake
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Hussain Rahhal, Hezbollah's press liaison, has issued a written statement:

"Our secretary general Nasrallah has not given any interviews to any Turkish or other non-Lebanese journalist during the month of August. In the face of this imaginary interview that is untruthful, and hence does damage to journalism, credibility and objectivity, Hezbollah reserves its right to take legal action against those who have published it."

For the full article:

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn09012006.html

M.M.C. wrote:
"Hezbollah Denounces Evrensel Interview of Nasrallah as a Fake"

And what has this to do with the article above? Morley does not mention any interview with Evrensel as far as I can see. Its interesting that a newspaper would run a fake interview, but its sort of irrelevent with respect to Morley's article. He leads off with a Lebanon TV News article then quotes and links other news articles, but not the Evrensel interview you specify. Am I missing something here?

athe(zion)ist wrote:

"The Lebanese people deserved the damage that the Israeli military inflicted on the Lebanese infrastructure. Now, the people understand the price of supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Posted by: Atheist, Boston, USA | September 1, 2006 12:44 AM "

SO are you saying that the dead civilians in Lebanon deserved to be murdered by the idf?

Nasser

You have heard the right Arab saying, but you got your interpretation wrong. Let me please correct.

"if you go to sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with flees".

The situation in Lebanon can be explained very well by using this analogy - The Lebanese had to go to sleep with dogs (Israel) and woke up with flees (the damage and loss of life) Hezbollah (the veterinary), is doing them a big favour and curing them of this condition, but the medicine (bombing) is very painful. Lebanese must be patient and take the medicine until they are completely cured and free to build their country at last.

It's a pleasure to help. Anytime.

The Middle East, where nothing feels better than hate, professional wrestling with real blood.

THE ISRAEL LOBBY: Does it have too much influence on US foreign policy?
On 28 September 2006, at 7 p.m., the London Review of Books will host a public debate in the Great Hall, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, Cooper Square, New York, on the subject:

Panellists: Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer, Dennis Ross

Moderator: Anne-Marie Slaughter

Tickets
Tickets for the debate are $25 per person. You can buy them online from Ticket Central at: www.ticketcentral.com/index.asp?p=promocode&pid=5020 or telephone: +1 212 279 4200

Notes on Participants
Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign and security minister and the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy

Martin Indyk is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution

Tony Judt is Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies and Director of the Remarque Institute at New York University

Rashid Khalidi is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago

Dennis Ross is Counsellor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace

Anne-Marie Slaughter is Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

The fact that Nasrallah is getting so much coverage shows that he is becoming powerful. Difficult for Olmert.

A couple of days back Jeff Morley wrote: "I'm interested in whether regular World Opinion readers are bothered by the tone of the discussion.... etc."

Indeed, there is too much of just a few people harranging each other in lenghty boring arguments. Right now I'm in Asia and want to show my collegues here some clear USA to-the-point reasoning. We may then learn something from their replies.

So far Nasser from Egypt has posted the most interesting and intelligent comment so far.

Simon, Miami -
Don't confuse Nasrallah's "candor" and "ability to admit mistakes" with anything that nears decency. The man is a terrorist and is only lying through his teeth to improve the world opinion of him as well as encouraging people like you to believe his phony regrets. Open your eyes and see what the man really is!

I am going to repost this entire Ynet Article here, because I think few articles I have read more clearly point to the illegitimacy of Israeli policy, including the latest debacle in Lebanon, than this article, which comes from a farily right wing Israeli Source.

Although I think it speaks for itself, I will add one question that is not overtly stated in this article: If the Israeli People do not trust their leadership regarding issues of Israel's military actions, why should we trust our leaderships support of those actions or the government that perpetrates them.

I.E. When Hillary Clinton Stands next to the Israeli ambassodor to the US and agrees with his cheerleading of the bombing of lebanese infrastructure and civilians, Keep in mind that the Israeli people trust Nasrallah to be more truthfull than Mr. Gillerman (who is just spouting the same official BS that is referenced in this article).

What does this say about Hillary and the rest of our leadership who claim that backing Israels Wars and occupations is actually helping Israel when no one in Israel actually trusts the people who perpetrate these actions?

Here is the Article;

Poll: Israelis believed Nasrallah over Peretz

Polls conducted by Dr. Udi Lebel, political psychology lecturer, found sad picture of Israeli PR

Anat Breshkovsky Published: 09.03.06, 16:38

Since the end of the war in the north, two main issues have been keeping the public busy: The demand for an account of the failures by the Israeli leadership, and criticism of the press and nature of reports.

A new study, however, buy Dr. Uri Lebel of the Ben Gurion Institute, Beer Sheva University, has found that another problem requires urgent treatment: Israeli PR.

During the poll, entitled "the management of Israeli PR during the second Lebanon war," members of six groups were asked to watch video recordings of Israeli PR in Israel and abroad, and to answer questions. Lebel says he held polls in the past on issues of strategic press, political psychology, and army-media relations. The result of his latest poll show that Israeli PR was so lacking, that in my cases the public was forced to rely on the reports of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Lebel says a good media leader relies on three points - gripping the audience, being watchable, and giving the feeling of certainty.

The participants of the poll were asked who gave the a sense of certainty regarding the continuance of the war, and who was most authentic. The results were unequivocal: The Israeli public chose Nasrallah's speeches as giving it both.

'Nasrallah contradicted the Israeli spokespeople'

Asked about Nasrallah's authenticity compared to that of Israeli spokespeople, not one Hebrew spokesperson received high authenticity marks.

"We reached a really crazy situation," says Lebel. "A psychological situation which seems inconceivable: Instead of the Israeli public
watching our national spokesman who tells it what is happening every day, who will minimize the chaos and who will be seen as believable, something unprecedented happened: The public perceived the enemy leader against whom we fought as having those characteristics, and waited impatiently for his speeches. Nasrallah contradicted the Israeli spokespeople more than once, many times contradicting the minister of defense - he was the first to announce the deaths of Israeli soldiers and the sad circumstances which led to them."

He added: "This isn't the first time that a bereaved mother found out the truth of the death of her son in recordings released by Hizbullah, where a totally different picture is shown to what the IDF and its spokespeople have provided."

Dr. Lebel believes that the figures indicate a serious crisis of leadership down the road. "It's not important if objectively the leadership did its best - now the public perceives it as cut off, unprofessional, and boastful. It won't follow the leadership to the next confrontation," he said.

J -

First of all, I wouldn't exactly call Ynet a "farily right wing Israeli Source" as you wrote. Ynet definitely has a lieberal bent. The article you posted presents the findings of one person and doesn't speak for all Israelis. You are extending the thoughts of "six groups" of who knows how many Israelis each to an entire country of people. It doesn't exactly bear out as a statistically scientific study. The entire Israeli society doesn't believe Nasrallah over its own government as you suggest.

J -

First of all, I wouldn't exactly call Ynet a "farily right wing Israeli Source" as you wrote. Ynet definitely has a liberal bent. The article you posted presents the findings of one person and doesn't speak for all Israelis. You are extending the thoughts of "six groups" of who knows how many Israelis each to an entire country of people. It doesn't exactly bear out as a statistically scientific study. The entire Israeli society doesn't believe Nasrallah over its own government as you suggest.

#1 American,

I am just posting here what is being printed in Israel as news from a credible and not particularly "liberal" source. Since you do not know the N size, You can not comment on the statistical validity of the study, although I assume that the study adhered to the coventions of what is scientifically accepted as statistical significance, or it would not be presented as such. It certainly has a margin of error associated with it, but it still seems to indicate an overwhelming attitude in the Israeli public, even with a margin of error of 5% or so, which would be on the high side for any credible study.

I know it's difficult to hear, but the Israeli's dont appear to trust their own government to give them the straight story.

They also want the settlers out of the occupied territories as well. We owe it to them and ourselves to speed that process up to the maximum course possible by pressuring their government until they make good on the promises they have already made to withdraw and then push them to withdraw completely. It's in keeping with long standing US policy and It's the morally correct thing to do. It will also reduce world wide terrorism dramatically.

J

to #1 American:

You call Nasrallah a "terrorist" only because you are an American. In the official EU view neither he nor Hezballah are "terrorists".

So, who is named a "terrorist" is a matter of politics, nothing more. Admit it.

I think this comment shows his strength more than weakness; if he had totally lost he would have to claim complete victory. As it is it seems he is now trying to shore up any potential criticism at a time when he has a lot of support instead of dealing with it (damage from the war) when the issue of HZB disarmament is more prominent.

The biggest concern of this for the US should be that it demonstrates with the right weapons a western military can be harmed. Isreal was partially neutralized while in attack mode; what would happen to the idea of patrolling and stabilizing Iraqi cities when the enemy has weapons that can destroy tanks from a range of 2,000 meters? In that sense Iran and Syria have beneffited from this a great deal, assumning they are willing to supply their Iraqi allies with similar anti-armour missiles.

The below article is from The Arab new:

The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon: Their Facts and Ours
James Petras, jpetras@binghamton.edu

All the national, state and local Jewish organizations in the US have launched a $300 million fund-raising and propaganda campaign in support of the 21 Jewish civilians and 116 soldiers killed during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (but not the 18 Israeli Arabs who were excluded from Jews-only bomb shelters). As adjuncts of the Israeli Foreign Office, not a single one of the 52 organizations which make up The Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US voiced a single public criticism of Israel's massive destruction of civilian homes, hospitals, offices, supermarkets, refugee convoys and churches and mosques, and the deliberate killing of civilians, UN peacekeepers and rescue workers with precision bombing. On the contrary, the entire Jewish lobby echoed in precise detail the Israeli lies that the Lebanese deaths were caused by the Lebanese resistance's "use of human shields," despite the total devastation of the heavily populated southern suburbs of Beirut, completely out of range of any Hezbollah rockets.

The magnitude of the Jewish Lobby's cover-up of Israel's massive military assault can be measured in great detail.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched 5,000 missiles, five-ton bunker-buster bombs and cluster bombs as well as anti-personnel phosphorus bombs each day into Lebanon for 27 days - totaling over 135,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells. During the last seven days of the war Israel launched 6,000 bombs and shells per day - over 42,000, for a grand total of 177,000 over a heavily populated territory the size of the smallest state in the US. In contrast, the Lebanese national resistance launched 4,000 rockets during the entire 34-day period, an average of 118 per day. The ratio was 44 to 1 - without mentioning the size differentials, the long-term killing effects of the thousands of unexploded cluster bombs (nearly 50 killed or maimed since the end of hostilities) and Israel's scorched-earth military incursion.

The Jewish lobbyists publish the number of Israel's civilian dead as 41, forgetting to mention that only 23 were Jews, the remaining 18 were members of Israel's Arab Muslim and Christian minority who constitute around 20 percent of the population. The disproportionate number of Israeli Arabs killed was a result of the Israeli government policy of providing shelters and siren warning systems to Jews and ignoring the security needs of its Arab citizens. The proportion of civilian deaths to soldiers was 41 to 116 or 26 percent of the total Israeli dead (but if we only consider Jewish Israelis and IDF members the proportion 23 to 116 or 16 percent of the Jewish dead were civilian.) Clearly the Lebanese resistance was aiming most of its fire at the invading IDF. In contrast, in Lebanon, of the 1,181 so far known to have been killed, 1088 were civilians and only 93 were fighters. In other words 92 percent of the Lebanese dead were civilians - over three times the rate of civilians killed by the Lebanese resistance and almost six times the rate of Jewish civilians killed (the only ones who count in the lobby's propaganda machine). To put it more bluntly: Over 47 Lebanese civilians were slaughtered for each Jewish Israeli civilian death.

The Jewish lobby's claims of Israeli moral and military superiority in the Middle East - which is paradoxically combined with warnings that Israel's survival is at stake - has been shredded to tatters as a result of their failure to annihilate Hezbollah.

The lobby's echoing Israeli military claims of the invincibility of the Israeli Defense Forces is largely based on their "fighting" against rock- throwing Palestinian school kids. Today it is clear that they are quite vulnerable when faced with well-armed, veteran Lebanese guerrilla fighters. According to a United Nation Report, from June 26 to Aug. 26, 2006, Israel killed 202 Palestinians, 44 of whom were small children, while losing one soldier; while in Lebanon, Israel lost 116 soldiers to 93 Lebanese fighters in 34 days (almost half the time period). In other words, 157 times more Israelis were killed as a result of the Lebanese invasion in one month than died in Palestine in two months (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Aug. 26, 2006). The Jewish lobby's propaganda campaign in the US Congress, throughout the mass media and even in our small communities in defense of Israel's "Summer Rain" (raining bombs on civilians) against the Palestinians has been thoroughly exposed as a murderous scorched-earth policy by the United Nations report and summarized in the Israeli daily Haaretz (Aug. 27, 2006): "The (campaign) . . . is still taking a severe toll on 1.4 million Palestinians . . . thousands of Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes following continuing IDF incursions into the Strip (Gaza) and heavy shelling . . . the Israeli Air Force has conducted 247 aerial assaults in Gaza...more than a million people have been left with no regular supply of water and electricity." The lobby, like skilled totalitarians, reverses the roles calling the Palestinian victims (all 202 of them) terrorists and the executioners (the Israeli Defense Forces) victims (one dead soldier who was most likely killed by "friendly fire").

George Orwell would have written a scathing essay on the lobby's version of Israel's Animal Farm where one Israeli death is worth more than 202 Palestinians.

In surveying the Daily Alert, the propaganda sheet prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (a semi-official propaganda arm of the Israeli regime) for the Conference of Presidents of Major America Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO), there is not a single mention of the fact that the Jewish state was killing almost 10 Lebanese civilians for each fighter, while the Hezbollah resistance was killing four times as many Israeli soldiers as Israeli civilians (Jews and Gentiles). Not a single opinion article, editorial or commentary reproduced by the Daily Alert, from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The National Telegraph, the New York Sun, USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post or The Times (UK) mentions the fact that Israel's much ballyhooed "precision" bombing succeeded in targeting civilians, while the Lebanese defenders' far less sophisticated weaponry mainly hit IDF invaders.

These omissions by the Jewish lobby and its members and supporters in the Anglo-American-Israeli respectable and yellow press and electronic media were absolutely necessary to perpetuate the myth the Israel was waging a "defensive", "existential" (sic) war for "survival" against Islamic "terrorists" embodied in Hezbollah and the Lebanese national resistance.

Was Israel's destruction of 15,000 homes up to Beirut and beyond to northern Lebanon defensive actions as the CPMAJO claims? Do these very smart, very wealthy, highly educated Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Hopkins and Chicago-educated apologists for the Israeli invasion really believe that bombing hospitals, supermarkets, water treatments plants, churches and mosques in southern Lebanon, oil refineries and milk, food and pharmaceutical factories in Beirut, transport, highways and bridges in northern Lebanon were "existential" acts essential for the survival of the "Jewish state"? Can't they understand the simple math presented above? The math of genocide? Do the investment bankers, professors, dentists and armies of rabbis of all Talmudic readings believe that Israel is the innocent victim of aggression - justifying the slaughter of over 90 percent Lebanese civilians among those it killed? Such well-educated professionals must know that from January 1996 to August 2006, there were weekly incidents all along the Israeli-Lebanese border, involving Israeli raids, killings and kidnapping of Lebanese civilians, as well as rocket firing in both directions. Didn't the Hollywood moguls who gave so generously to the Israeli war machine know that Elliott Abrams, President Bush's chief adviser on the Middle East (stern defender of Jewish purity and intimate collaborator with the Israeli high command) gave full support in early summer to an Israeli plan to destroy Hezbollah, at least one month before the border incident (see Seymour Hersh, "Watching Lebanon ," The New Yorker, August 21, 2006)?

Of course the educated elites know all about the Israeli lust for power and dominance - unlike the good Germans in the 1940s, who claimed they didn't see the smoking chimneys or the grim trains - as today images of devastated apartments and slaughtered children were visible, easily accessible and followed by well-publicized reports by all the human rights groups on Israel's crimes against humanity. They knew and supported Israel's crimes before and after the cease-fire - and they proudly chose to endorse the war, the policies and the state as true accomplices after the fact.

Yet the Jewish Lobby tells us that Hezbollah's kidnapping of two soldiers across the Israeli border was the detonator for a full-scale invasion. Numerous sources around the world even dispute the Israeli account of a Hezbollah cross-border attack. According to the big business US magazine Forbes (July 12, 2006), the French news service AFP (July 12, 2006), the respectable Asia Times (July 15, 2006) and the Lebanese police, the Israeli soldiers were captured within Lebanon in the area of Ai'tu Al-Chaarb, a Lebanese village a few kilometers from the Israeli border.

While the Jewish lobby raises funds exclusively for Israeli-Jewish soldiers and civilians, Hezbollah is engaged in a non-sectarian reconstruction program that embraces all Lebanese communities and households, regardless of religious or ethnic preferences. The reason is found in the fact that the Lebanese resistance was a national movement. Contrary to the lobby's propaganda, the Lebanese resistance was not exclusively Shiite or even Muslim in make-up. Israel's invasion managed to united Lebanon's factions in defense of their homeland. Of the 93 Lebanese fighters killed, 20 percent were from organizations other than Hezbollah, a point ignored by the lobby's ideologues, who pursue Israel's policy of pushing the US to attack Iran, Syria and other Middle East states known to be hostile to Israel's hegemonic ambitions.

Consequences of Israeli War

In both Israel and throughout the pro-Israel Jewish networks, the Israeli military's failure to achieve its goal of defeating and eliminating the Lebanese resistance, particularly Hezbollah, has had a major impact. In Israel, the major criticism of the Olmert-Perez regime and Gen. Halutz from both soldiers and civilians is that the government was too weak - there was insufficient bombing, lack of sufficient ground troops and too much concern for Lebanese civilians. The cease-fire, they complained, was premature; the territory occupied was too limited. Likud and other parties in the Knesset called for the bombing of Syria and Iran.

While many US and Israeli progressives cited the "turmoil", "dissent" and harsh polemics in the aftermath of the war as typical of the "rough and tumble" of Israel's democracy, they ignored the savage militarist substance and ultra-right-wing direction of Israeli public opinion. The "who lost the war" polemics in Israel is basically anchored in preparations for a new, more violent attack on Lebanon and other adversaries of Israel.

This militaristic rage is manifested in the brutal daily assaults on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank where Israeli warplanes bomb homes and ground forces assassinate and injure dozens of civilians - "existential" murders against stone-throwing schoolboys. Israel's rage has affected Jewish religious notables. The Rabbinical Council of America called for the Israeli military to re-evaluate its military rules of war in light of Hezbollah's "unconscionable use of civilians, hospitals, ambulances, mosques and the like as human shields," according to the Jerusalem Post (Aug. 21, 2006). The RCA and the modern Orthodox women's organization, Eminah, represent over one million US Jews. Their call to maximize civilian deaths in order to lessen the "risk" to "our" (Israeli Jewish) soldiers is in the finest spirit of Nazi chaplains egging on the Wehrmacht's scorched-earth policy during World War II. Their Israeli counterparts, rabbis Eliyahu and Drori, echoed the RCA's "delicate criticisms" in more colorful and uninhibited terms: "Our corrupt military, which tells us that our soldiers must endanger their lives to protect enemy civilians, is the reason we lost the war," according to the gentle Rabbi Eliyahu, who sees all non-Jewish civilians opposing Israeli policy as enemies worthy of incineration. Not to be outdone, the good Rabbi Drori accused the rest of Western humanity of being "anti-Semites" for being horrified at Israel's savage destruction. "Anti-Semites demand that we use Christian morality while our enemies act like barbarians." (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 21, 2006) Apparently the killing and maiming of over a thousand Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children, does not satisfy this raging bull rabbi.

Lest one think that these US and Israeli rabbis are simply loose cannons or isolated psychopaths, three weeks earlier one Rabbi Dov Lior, in the name of the Yesh Council of Rabbis (with hundreds of thousands of Israeli followers), announced that "when our enemies hold a baby in one hand and shoot us with the other, or when missiles are purposely aimed at civilian populations in the Land of Israel in blatant disregard for moral criteria, we are obligated to act according to Jewish morality, which dictates that 'he who gets up to kill you, get up yourself and kill him first.'" (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 25, 2006) The holy men of the Holy Land are providing a post-factum religious blessing for the more than three hundred Lebanese children killed and urging the future killing of even more children. All this, we are told, is according to "Jewish morality." Surely many US Jews, especially liberals and even conservatives, object to rabbinical fiats for the slaughter of children, but we are deafened by their polite silence. The lobby conveniently ignores the Jewish morality spiel, even as it defends the "moderate" secular line of Israeli civilian deaths resulting from Hezbollah using Lebanese babies and old grannies as shields to commit their crimes. So we have a raging debate among US and Israeli rabbis, and secular and religious apologists over whether killing Lebanese civilians and children is based on tactical military or religious-ethical considerations.

The executive director of the American Jewish Committee, David A. Harris, puts to the lie the nasty bit of propaganda by US "left" Zionists who downplay the role of the Jewish Lobby in securing whole-hearted White House and Congressional support for Israel's destruction of Lebanon. In discussing US subservience to Israel, Harris stated, "No other nation has been prepared to define such an intimate relationship with Israel in all bilateral spheres - from arms sales, foreign aid and intelligence-sharing to a free-trade zone, scientific cooperation and diplomatic support. No other nation has the capacity, by dint of its size and stature, to help ensure Israel's quest for a secure and lasting peace (sic) . . . In the recent conflict with Hezbollah, once again the United States demonstrated its willingness to stand by Israel, provide vital support and withstand the pressure of many US allies who would have wished for an earlier end to the fighting even if it meant keeping Hezbollah largely intact and in place . . . Whatever the primary factor, there can be no doubt that American Jewry is an essential element of the equation (yoking the US to Israel). This is all the more reason why American Jewry need to work day in and day out to ensure that the mutually beneficial link (sic) goes from strength to strength." (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 25, 2006)

In plain English, the Jewish networks and lobbies were able to secure 98 percent support from Congress for a resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Lebanon, even as 54 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans favor a policy of neutrality as opposed to alignment with Israel. (Times-Bloomberg Poll, July 25-Aug. 1, 2006, published in the Jewish Telegraph Agency - Aug. 15, 2006) The lobby convinced, pressured and threatened the White House to prolong the Israeli terror bombing as Harris so proudly announced. The Jewish Lobby does work "day in and day out" to make sure that Israel can ethnically cleanse Palestine, drop five-ton bombs on Lebanese apartment buildings, bulldoze villages and isolate the US from even its closest allies at the expense of the US taxpayers, our democratic ideals and our sovereignty. And the American Jewish Committee has the chutzpah (arrogance) to say that it is "our mutually beneficial link." Now that is a bit of political dishonesty!

- James Petras is Bartle professor emeritus at Binghamton University and author and editor of 63 books translated into 31 languages. His latest book is The Power of Israel in the United States

To Jeff Morley: The above message from RB goes on-and-on and is pure garbage. Jeff, please stop this kind of nonsense. Thanks

Great Post RB. Very important for people to read things like it.

Anadagirl should read more things like it, and perhaps his hateful opinions might change

"Great Post RB. Very important for people to read things like it."

Whether it is a great article or not, a simple link would have sufficed. You should not post long articles that can be linked. Its just good manners. Something people who read and believe the Arab News probably have no clue about :^)

So the civilizans of Lebanon murdered (by the savage, warmongering Isralis) "deserved it".(this courtesy of the athiestfrom Boston who rants all day on several posts). Good God.

PS...and by the way, let's dont'let pass the little insert above about how Hez kidnapped soldiers while bombing Israeli civilians. The Hez bombing didn't start for two days after the Israelis began their rampage. No one questions that. Look it up.

Anagadir,

"To Jeff Morley: The above message from RB goes on-and-on and is pure garbage. Jeff, please stop this kind of nonsense. Thanks"

I guess the first 4 paragraphs of the article scared the hell out of you - because it is the TRUTH and you can't stand it.

Sully,

Thanks for your condescending comments. I only posted as I know many readers may forget to look up the link but would read important information on this board since our American press would never point out the facts that Petras did.

Enjoy and eat your heart out!!!!

J -

Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe that having Israel merely withdraw from the territories will actually reduce worldwide terror. It may reduce the problems in that small region in the Middle East, but it certainly won't stem the tide of hatred against American and the growing hatred in Europe. The radicals who promote terror worldwide have a much greater agenda, which is jihad against the West. They are very open about their mission and their purpose.

TimothyL -

"What's in a name?" Yes, obviously, politics dictate what you call whom. Politics dictate which side you're on. I will continue to call Hezbollah a band of terrorists because over the course of their existence they have murdered innocent people without remorse and continue to inspire terror in those they target. Why don't you read some details about Hezbollah and their sordid history? You're welcome to call them whatever you want. I have plenty of names for Hezbollah besides "terrorist."

#1 American,

You over look the fact that most of the growing resentment towards the US in other countries and Europe stem from our support of Israels dysfunctional policies in the first place. We have Vetoed a very large number of UN resolutions regarding Israel that virtually every other country in the world has wanted passed.

Our support of Israeli policies, many of which even a majority of Israelis would like to put to an end, lead to economic and political problems in many countries in the region and this translates into fertile ground for extremism and terrorist recruitment. This is not my personal Idea, but rather the analysis of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Bush Senior (to some extent) Scowcroft, James Baker,
Pat Buchanan, Michael Scheuer, Tony Blair, and many other people of significant geopolitical insight.

But more importantly, What I, the people mentioned above and in fact most of the world are asking for is to change a policy which is wrong in the fist place and is so indefensible, that even the Israeli's have come to the conclusion that the settlements must go. It is simply a win win situation to remove them. This will result in a significantly improved situation for the Isaelis, the US and the rest of the world and it will put right a situation as morally deplorable as South Africa's aparhteid ever was. Remember all the road blocks that the Afrikaners put up that the US and Israel bought hook line and sinker? And what became of all those fears and objections when Apartheid was finally removed? Absolutely nothing.

Americans have a very easy choice. Continue to support a system in Israel we have always officially condemned that has inspired more ME terrorism than virtually any other cause, or shut it down, and reduce terrorism to at least some degree, and probably a great deal.

So I put the question to you; Why keep them in any case when they benefit no one and are an affront to any democratic society that values basic human rights (like the US)? If terrorism was only reduced by a little, it would still be worth it. Then Israel could put it's resources into defending it's internationally recogized borders and it would begin to garner more support world wide.

Regarding Hezbollah, If someone invaded, occupied, and layed waste to the US, I would form a vigilanty group to drive them from our borders. I would think of myself as a freedom fighter. I would remain armed and vigilant after they left to ensure that they would not invade again and might take action to free thousands of US POWs if they still held them, especially if they constantly still antagonized our organization and held pieces of US territory.

The reason they attacked the US marines is because they found out we were shelling their postions from a carrier out at sea in order to assist the Israelis when we were supposed to remain a neutral peace broker. They really have not engaged in just about any other "terrorist acts" in the many years that they have been defending Lebanon (and the marine barracks that was really a military attack). They simply have remained vigilant against Israeli incursions and occasionaly try to get their POWs back. They don't go out to other peoples territory and murder innocent civilians to try to further their cause.

I would like to see Israel safe and secure. I would like to see the US safe and Secure. on the other hand, I could not care less whether the settlers, who are as racist and thoughtless as the KKK, lose the land that they stole from others. They dont care how many Israelis die as the results of their actions. They dont care how many US citizens die as the result of their actions, and they certainly don't care how many Palestinians die in the mess they have created. It's time we forced the Israelis to put them out of commission. We put the KKK largley out of business and made this a better country as a result. We need to end to the Settler Movement in Israel because we posess the tools to do it and it is in our best interest do so. That is reason enough, and the reduction in terrorism (which would be large) would be icing on the cake.

J

RB,

That article was great. Keep up the good work and don't worry about the "bandwidth".
I appreciate not having to surf all over to get to it.

J

J wrote:
--You over look the fact that most of the growing resentment towards the US in other countries and Europe stem from our support of Israels dysfunctional policies in the first place.--

Gee, and here I was thinking it had something to do with invading Iraq, which a majority of EUs believe was wrong and helped lead to the bombings in Spain and Britain. Guess you know better...

--It is simply a win win situation to remove them. This will result in a significantly improved situation for the Isaelis, the US and the rest of the world--

You ignore the fact that Israel had left Gaza completely and the result was rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and an incursion into Israel where an Israeli soldier was kidnapped. Israel is now back in Gaza. Their test at withdrawing showed the Hamas government is not interested in peace with Israel, they are interested in the destruction of Israel. This is not something that you can sweep under the rug and ignore. Hez has the same mission.

--The reason they attacked the US marines is because they found out we were shelling their postions from a carrier out at sea in order to assist the Israelis when we were supposed to remain a neutral peace broker. They really have not engaged in just about any other "terrorist acts" in the many years that they have been defending Lebanon (and the marine barracks that was really a military attack). They simply have remained vigilant against Israeli incursions and occasionaly try to get their POWs back. They don't go out to other peoples territory and murder innocent civilians to try to further their cause.--

A more complete piece of fiction I have not read. Where do you get your information? Not reality it seems. Here's a few things to consider when you apologize for that wonderful Hezbollah boys club that never attacks outside of Lebanon:
From http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=448:
"September 1992, Lebanese members of the Hizballah killed four senior opposition members of the Kurdish KDP party in the Mikonos restaurant in Berlin. The Hizballah members involved were subsequently captured and sentenced to extended terms in prison for their role in the attack. They revealed that they had been recruited in Germany and had reported to a senior Iranian intelligence official."
...and...
"Hizballah members committed two suicide bombings of a particularly bloody nature in Buenos Aires. In the first, an attack on the Israeli Embassy building, 29 were killed and dozens were injured (March 1992). In the second, the bombing of the "Amia" Jewish community building, 86 were killed and dozens injured. Most of the casualties were Argentine nationals. Hizballah tried to carry out another suicide attack in Bangkok on March 1994, which failed due to a car accident involving the truck full of explosives on its way to the target. Iran, with the Hizballah acting as sub-contractor, was also suspected of involvement in the attack on the American military base at Daharan, where 19 American soldiers were killed in June 1996."

Sully -
Thanks for shedding some light on Hezbollah's worldwide activities. I don't consider killing innocent people around the world the acts of "freedom fighters."

J -
Hezbollah is not just an altruistic group of people trying to help the Palestinians to "recover" the territories. Their stated mission is the "liberation" of the entire country of Israel. They believe that the ENTIRE country of Israel should cease to exist and needs to be under the control of Muslims. Can you explain to me how the Israelis, the Americans and the rest of the world are supposed to resolve that diplomatically? We're dealing with an extreme ideology deeply rooted in religion and perceptions of territorial claims. Hezbollah will not back down from their beliefs.

Additionally, please read the following article by a Palestinian journalist which sheds light on the problems that the Palestinians are having in Gaza. It shows that Palestinian leadership is lacking and that the Palestinians cannot rely solely on Nasrallah to deliver them.

***********************************

Aug. 28, 2006 0:31
|Updated Aug. 28, 2006 12:51

'Gaza caught in anarchy and thuggery'

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
"When you walk in the streets of Gaza City, you cannot but close your eyes because of what you see there: unimaginable chaos, careless policemen, young men carrying guns and strutting with pride and families receiving condolences for their dead in the middle of the street."

This is how Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority government and a former newspaper editor, described the situation in the Gaza Strip in an article he published on Sunday on some Palestinian news Web sites.

The article, the first of its kind by a senior Hamas official, also questioned the effectiveness of the Kassam rocket attacks and noted that since Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip, the situation there has deteriorated on all levels. It holds the armed groups responsible for the crisis and calls on them to reconsider their tactics and to stop blaming Israel for their mistakes.

"Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," Hamad wrote. "I remember the day when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and closed the gates behind. Then, Palestinians across the political spectrum took to the streets to celebrate what many of us regarded as the Israeli defeat or retreat. We heard a lot about a promising future in the Gaza Strip and about turning the area into a trade and industrial zone."

Hamad said the "culture of life" that prevailed in the Strip has since been replaced with a nightmare. "Life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden," he said. "Today I ask myself a daring and frightening question: 'Why did the occupation return to Gaza?' The normal reply: 'The occupation is the reason.'"

Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

Hamad admitted that the Palestinians have failed in developing the Gaza Strip following the Israeli withdrawal and in imposing law and order. He said about 500 Palestinians have been killed and 3,000 wounded since the Israeli pullout, in addition to the destruction of much of the infrastructure in the area.

By comparison, he said, only three or four Israelis have been killed by the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip over the same period.

"Some will argue that it's not a matter of profit or loss, but that this has an accumulating effect" he said. "This may be true. But isn't there a possibility of decreasing the number of casualties and increasing our gains by using our brains and making the proper calculations away from demagogic statements?"

The Hamas official said that while his government was unable to change the situation, the opposition was sitting on the side and watching and PA President Mahmoud Abbas was as weak as ever.

"We have all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity," he remarked. "We have lost our sense of direction and we don't know where we're headed."

Addressing the various armed groups in the Gaza Strip, Hamad concluded: "Please have mercy on Gaza. Have mercy on us from your demagogy, chaos, guns, thugs, infighting. Let Gaza breathe a bit. Let it live."

KHALED ABU TOAMEH - - - khaledat@zahav.net.il
****************************************

Okay, that's a lovely post

How about some comments from you? Opinions, ideas?

No? Then please don't waste my time with secondary and tertiary postings.

Thom -

First of all, your sarcasm and nastiness is unnecessary.

Second, if you read the entire post, I did give my opinions before I posted the article.

Thom -

First of all, your sarcasm and nastiness is unnecessary.

Second, if you read the entire post, I did give my opinions before I posted the article.

Not sarcastic at all, it really did look good on the page. Well cropped and perfect punctuation. Truly a lovely post.

#1 American and Sully,

Sully, Hezbollah is exclusively interested in protecting Lebanon. That over the years, a few members might have gone rouge and participated in other more questionable causes is not surprising for a group that large and that has suffered so much at the hands of Israel and the US.
regardless, the few examples you posted are highly questionable.

First, you cited all the examples that there are (two). a political assaination of a rival party does not count, unless you want to include the US and Israel in your list of terrorist organizations, in that Israel was sending assasins out all over the world to hit both PLO and Hamas leaders.

Here is the entire list from wikipedia:

Claims of Terrorist Activities
The U.S. claims Hezbollah carried out two terrorist attacks in Argentina during the early 1990s: the 1992 Israeli embassy bombing in Buenos Aires[31], killing 29 people, and the bombing of a Jewish community center there, killing 85.[32] Hezbollah denies these claims.[33][34] Responsibility for the former attack was claimed by Imad Mughniyah's Islamic Jihad Organization - considered to be a unit of Hezbollah - within 24 hours of the attack.[35]
On July 26, 1994, eight days after the community center bombing, the Israeli Embassy in London was car bombed by two Palestinians. The United Kingdom, Israel and Argentina blamed Hezbollah for the attack.[36]

The Wikipedia conclusion on the
AMIA bombing states this:

"Nobody has yet been convicted of the bombing and there have been many allegations made, including those blaming the government of Iran. There have also been allegations that former President Carlos Menem accepted money from the Iranian government to block the investigation, and even that Menem knew of the bomb plot beforehand.

On September 2, 2004, all suspects in the "local connection" of AMIA case were found to be not guilty.[5]

On August 3, 2005, judge Juan José Galeano's impeachment was successful and he was formally removed from his post as a federal judge for irregularities and his mishandling of the investigation. Argentinian newspaper Clarín reports that charges will be pressed against him shortly. [6]"

Suffice it to say that it remains inconclusive even after all this time, so it seems that your analysis is wishful thinking at best.

Al qaeda is a terrorist network. They say so, and they act that way. Hezbollah, aside from unproven alegations of exactly two terrorist activities in all these years has done little but work to defend lebanon. After Israel pulled out of Lebanon there was relative peace, except for the occasional border skirmishes aimed at causing prisoner exchanges. Keep in mind that Israel had hit teams out assasinating their leaders during the period you mentioned as well.

You both keep suggesting that Hamas and Hezbollah threaten to destroy Israel and I'm sure that from strictly verbal standpoint, they do. I would feel pretty negatively towards anyone who would do to America what the Isrealis have done in Palestine and Lebanon.

Israel, however, has ACTUALLY destroyed Lebanon on two ocaasions and occupied their country for a protracted period. Israal has destroyed the lives and futures of entire generations of the palestinian people and continue to do so right up to this day. The lives the palestinians lead is unimaginable for US minds to comprehend.

The pullout from the gaza was a very small, but in and of itself, utterly inadequate beginning to cause any expectation of peace. 8000 settlers were removed (although they occupied %30 of the land in Gaza where 1.4 million palestinians lived on the very tiny remaining 70%) Israel still controls them from just about every perspective. They even collect all their tax money, which is why they were able to start starving the entire country when the Palestinians voted Hamas into power.

The West Bank has 450,000 settlers currently, and more than 8000 have been added there since the gaza pullout, with plans to build many new settlments in the works. To suggest that handing over the tiny, totally isolated little gaza while creating a net GAIN of settlers in the West bank which constitutes that vast majority of the Land that the Palestinians consider home was cause for celebration is ridiculus.

By the way, The real bombing started from Gaza only after Israel started to Literally starve the whole country in an effort to punish them for actually excersizing their democratic rights.
That bombing is so ineffective that it constitutes almost no real threat to Israel.

Israel, however, killed 30 innocent people (many children included) with rocket fire in the Gaza in the two weeks before the war in lebanon started
alone. They killed many more before that.
In fact, they have killed 3 times as many Palestinians in comparison to Israeli casualties.

During all of this time, the vast majority of Israeli people live lives comaprible to our own here, in a prosperous and well armed country. Not so, for the Palestinians and the Lebanese, all due to Ridiculus Israeli/US policies which both countries have now admitted were flawed policies. the Israelis have voted in the Kadima party with the intention of removing the settlements and allowing a free palestine to emerge. It makes sense for every one there except the Religious extremeists and ultranationalist whackos (you know, like the guy who assaniated Rabin, and the settler movement and the like)

Most people there don't want their kids to go stand in a circle as human shields around a group of people in the settlements who make the KKK look like the NAACP in comparison. They don't believe in their cause and they want to live normal lives and be a normal country. That is why Kadima was formed.

We here in the US have the ability and the motivation to force Israel to comply with the Road map and to stay out of lebanon.
It's the morally right thing to do, and will reduce terrorism dramatically.

You both seem to want to gloss over the obvious; that Israel still holds the vast majority of Palestine Prisoner and bruatlizes it's people with ghetto style living conditions while continuing to steal more and more land, and that Hezbollah has in all these years, been aimed at keeping Israel out of lebanon, ( with only a few (2) unproven allegations of terrorism against them (almost 15 years ago), while Israel has destroyed their country twice now. Who is really a threat to whom here?

Frankly, If the US wises up and we get leaders in power here that would take the bull by the horns, we could force Israel to help itself in a way that it cannot by itself; Give back all occupied territory, stay out of lebanon and allow a free palestine to emerge. I can think of so many more things we could spend the Billions we give to Israel every year and the trillions we will have spent on WWIII and the war on terror that will both go on indefinitly if we don't get our act together.

J

J you are an idiot if you believe that Hezbollah and Iran had nothing to do with the bombings in Buenos Aires. If you knew anything about Argentina at all you would be less sanguine about the lack of a verdict from the Argentine judiciary, and what a surprise, Menem is a Syrian. Why won't Iran produce its "diplomats" for questioning? Hopefully one day your family will have Hezbollah shrapnel rip their faces and then you can post your lovely justifications for their activities. Frankly, if the US gets a leader that will deal forthrightly with Islam then we will not have to concern ourselves very much with the fate of your precious muslims.

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

September 7, 2006

How Human Rights Watch Lost Its Way in Lebanon
The Israel Lobby Works Its Magic, Again
By JONATHAN COOK

Nazareth.

The measure of a human rights organisation is to be found not just in the strides it takes to seek justice for the oppressed and victimised but also in the compromises it makes to keep itself out of trouble. Because of the business that human rights defenders are in, they must be held to a standard higher than we demand of others.

Unfortunately, one of the best -- Human Rights Watch -- has failed that test during the war in Lebanon this summer.

To its credit, HRW has risked much opprobrium for taking Israel to task for systematically breaking international law during its assault on Lebanon. That has culminated in a predictable campaign of harassment by pro-Israel organisations in the US -- as well as by the usual suspects like Alan Dershowitz -- that have accused its researchers of libelling Israel and being anti-Semitic.

Such attacks reached an obscene pitch after HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth, observed in publicity material accompanying a recent report that Israel appeared to have treated south Lebanon as a "free-fire zone" and that its strikes had failed to distinguish between civilians and Hizbullah fighters.

Roth, a Jew whose father fled Nazi Germany, was accused in typical hyperbolic fashion of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism" (New York Sun), being "an ally of the barbarians" and "reflexive Israel basher" (David Horowitz), and resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust" (Jonathan Rosenblum).

I do not underestimate the damage that such criticism risks doing to the reputations of HRW and Roth. But I also know that no concession to such intimidation can be justified, not if we are to search for the truth or hope to defend the principal victims of violations of international law, the civilian populations of poor and weak nations.

Name-calling, however distasteful, cannot justify HRW distorting its findings to placate the Israel lobby. But that seems to be just what is happening.

The most egregious example is to be found in a post-war interview between the New York Times and a senior HRW researcher, Peter Bouckaert, about a recent report, "Fatal strikes", in which the organisation provides evidence that Israel fired indiscriminately on Lebanese civilians during the fighting.

Rather than concentrating on HRW's findings of war crimes in Lebanon -- the focus of the research -- Bouckaert digresses: "I mean, it's perfectly clear that Hezbollah is directly targeting civilians, and that their aim is to kill Israeli civilians. We don't accuse the Israeli army of deliberately trying to kill civilians. Our accusation, clearly stated in the report, is that the Israeli army is not taking the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets. So, there is a difference in intent between the two sides. At the same time, they are both violating the Geneva Convention."

After an observation like that -- stuffed in a brief space with so many double standrads -- HRW should not complain if one day it finds itself short of friends prepared to come to its aid when next the likes of Dershowitz batter it with the anti-Semitism canard. Those who indulge in slurs (against Arabs) can hardly call on our sympathy when they themselves are victims of the same kind of innuendo.

First, how does Bouckaert know that Israel's failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets was simply a technical failure, a failure to take precautions, and not intentional? Was he or another HRW researcher sitting in one of the military bunkers in northern Israel when army planners pressed the button to unleash the missiles from their spy drones? Was he sitting alongside the air force pilots as they circled over Lebanon dropping their US-made bombs or tens of thousands of "cluster munitions", tiny land mines that are now sprinkled over a vast area of south Lebanon? Did he have intimate conversations with the Israeli chiefs of staff about their war strategy?

Of course not. He has no more idea than you or I what Israel's military planners and its politicians decided was necessary to achieve their war goals. In fact, he does not even know what those goals were. So why make a statement suggesting he does?

Similarly, just as Bouckaert is apparently sure that he can divine Israel's intentions in the war, and that they were essentially benign, he is equally convinced that he knows Hizbullah's intentions, and that they were malign. Whatever the evidence suggests -- in a war in which Israel overwhelmingly killed Lebanese civilians and is still doing so, and in which Hizbullah overwhelmingly killed Israeli soldiers -- Bouckaert knows better. He admits that both violated the Geneva Conventions, a failure he makes sound little more than a technicality, but apparently only Hizbullah had evil designs.

How is it "perfectly clear" to Bouckaert that Hizbullah was "directly" targeting Israeli civilians? It is most certainly not clear from the casualty figures.

It is also not clear, as I tried to document during the war, from the geographical locations where Hizbullah's rockets struck. My ability to discuss those locations was limited because all journalists based in Israel are subject to the rules of the military censor. We cannot divulge information useful to the "enemy" about Israel's myriad military installations -- its army camps, military airfields, intelligence posts, arms stores and Rafael weapons factories.

What I did try to alert readers to was the fact that many, if not most, of those military sites are located next to or inside Israeli communities, including Arab towns and villages.

At least it is now possible, because some army positions were temporary, to reveal that many communities in the north had artillery batteries stationed next to them firing into Lebanon and that from Haifa Bay warships continually launched warheads at Lebanon. That information is now publicly available in Israel, and other examples are regularly coming to light.

I reported, for example, the other day that the Haaretz newspaper referred to legal documents to be presented in a compensation suit which show that the Arab village of Fassouta, close to the border with Lebanon, had an artiller battery stationed next to it throughout much of the war. A press release this week from a Nazareth-based welfare organisation, the Laborers' Voice, reveals that another battery was positioned by an Arab town, Majd al-Krum, during the war. Arab member of Knesset Abbas Zakour has also gone publicly on the record: "During a short visit to offer condolences to the families of victims killed in Hizbullah's rocket attacks, I saw Israeli tanks shelling Lebanon from the two towns of Arab Al-Aramisha and Tarshiha."

In other Arab communities, including Jish, Shaghour, and Kfar Manda, the Israeli army requisitioned areas to train their troops for the ground invasion of south Lebanon. According to the Human Rights Association, based in Nazareth, army officials justified their decision on the following grounds: "The landscape of Arab towns [in Israel] is similar to Arab towns in Lebanon."

Aside from the fact that this effective use of Israeli civilians as human shields by the army outdoes any "cowardly blending" (in the words of Jan Egeland of the United Nations) by Hizbullah in Lebanon, it also makes any attempt at second-guessing the targets of the Shiite militia's rockets futile. Unless Bouckaert was given a private audience with Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, or drove around with a Katyusha rocket team, his talk is pure hot air.

It might be possible to dismiss Bouckaert's comments as the private opinion of one researcher (even if one of HRW's most senior) were it not for the fact that the organisation has stood by his statements in correspondence with me. I have been told that Bouckaert's assertions are justified because "we generally conclude that the use of weapons that can't be targeted / are not precise, eg. are indiscriminate, when fired into civilian areas, are in and of themselves evidence of targeting civilians."

In fact, I know from conversations with Israeli journalists that Hizbullah's rockets were not as inaccurate as HRW would like to assume. Several important military sites were hit by Hizbullah rockets, though none of those incidents were reported and apparently cannot be as long as the military censorship rules apply.

I have also seen the deep scarring and charred brush on a hillside in northern Israel where an important army bunker used by military planners is located -- evidence that Hizbullah knew exactly what was there and successfully aimed many of its rockets at the site.

Is it still possible to presume that Hizbullah is "directly" targeting civilians, as Bouckaert claims? HRW again: "We can conclude that they [Hizbullah] are targeting civilians and not just failing to discriminate sufficiently because the weapons themselves are not capable of being targeted with any real degree of precision, according to our arms division, so they know full well that the likelihood is that the weapons will not hit their target / will kill civilians."

What are we supposed to make of this argument from the world's foremost human rights organisation? HRW is accusing Hizbullah of committing graver war crimes than Israel, even though it killed far fewer civilians both numerically and proportionally, because its rockets are "less accurate". HRW is saying, in effect, that whatever Hizbullah's and Israel's respective intentions and whatever the respective outcomes of their attacks, Hizbullah must be treated as the greater pariah because its technology is inferior. Whether or not Hizbullah was aiming for military targets is irrelevant, says HRW, because its primitive rockets were likely to hit civilians -- as opposed to Israel, which struck at Lebanese civilians with precision weapons.

And all of this, of course, entirely ignores Israel's use of as many as 100,000 cluster bombs, leaving an indiscriminate legacy of bomblets across south Lebanon that will kill and maim for months, and possibly years, to come. Is that not "clear" proof that Israel was "deliberately" targeting Lebanese civilians?

HRW's logic appears to be arguing that Hizbullah had no right -- given its inadequate rocket technology -- to defend its country from Israel's massive bombardment of Lebanon's civilian population. In other words, it had no right of self-defence because its military arsenal was inferior. It should have sat out the weeks of aerial attacks, refusing to engage Israel until the Israeli army decided it was time to mount a ground invasion. Only at that point, HRW implies, did Hizbullah have the right to strike back.

Such an argument effectively legitimises the use of military might by the stronger party, thereby making a nonsense of international law and the human rights standards HRW is supposed to uphold.

This sophistry is fooling no one, least of all, of course, Israel's apologists. They will keep up their relentless defamation of an organisation like Human Rights Watch as long as Israel comes under its scrutiny. By trying to appease them, our human rights champions damage only themselves and those they should be seeking to protect.

Matamoros,

The real point is not that the bombing you mention was perpetrated by a few rouge agents or not. It's that Hezbollahs main goal and reason why they enjoy a great deal of support in Lebanon ( a recent Poll I posted here earlier suggests even Israelis find Nasrallah more trust worthy than they do their own government when it comes to detailing the current conflict)
Is because they are primarily aimed at protecting Lebanon from Israel.

There was no rain of rockets on Israel until they started invading Lebanon, started killing its citizens and destroying it's infrastructure. The event that Israel used to justify this massive overreaction had played out in just the same way many times in the past and it had always resulted in a prisoner exchange, just as it's going to this time. Unfortunately, Israel's reaction caused massive damage to both countries, thousands of casualties, and did not acheive any sort of substantial change in Hezbollahs stance in Lebanon except to strenghten their support and popularity in Lebanon and world wide.

If your upset about shrapnel hitting any of your family members (as you suggest that you would like to see happen to mine) Then you ought to take it up with the Israeli (and US) governemt, because up until they greenlit the 2006 invasion and bombing of lebanon, these was very, very little going on between Israel and Lebabnon that could not have been solved in a more peaceful and intellligent manor.

That is precisely why the people of Israel are screaming for an investigation of this debacle, which has served absolutely no purpose and has caused so much suffering on both sides.

You want to ensure that Hezbollah does not attack Israel any more? try convincing Israel not to destroy Lebanon for at least another generation or two. perhaps then they will lay down their arms and get back to being regular citizens. In the mean time, ridiculus, empty actions like the one Israel just perpetrated will only serve to strengthen Hezbollah and increase actual terrorist recruitment and funding world wide for groups like al qaeda.

This also stands in the way of accomplishing what the majority of Israelis (and most normal people in the world, for that matter) would like to see; the removal of the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settler movement has led to more terrorist recruitment and funding than just about any other single cause and serves no ones purposes except the settlers, who make the KKK look like the NAACP in comparison. It also played a large role in the initial invasion of lebanon (by giveing greater credibility to the PLO leaders who were hiding there)and therefore the very formation of Hezbollah.

So raze the settlements(the majority of Israelis and Jewish Americans would like to see this happen) quit the occupation and let a free palestine emerge. Let the US help fund a new Palestinian state and get it off the ground. Let the international community participate. This would do more to undermine the radicals in Iran and to persuade Hezbollah to go completly political than just about any other single action Israel and the US could take.

Perhaps then, none of us, whether in Israel, New York, the US in general or the world over, will have to worry quite as much about family members taking shrapnel.

J

Just when I had given up on the republican party altogether, Here comes lincoln Chafee, A republican senator From Rhode Island. Here He gives it good to Condoleeza Rice;

"CHAFEE: . . . you said that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and confronting it is a pillar to our success in the region. Those are your words. Now, I was at a dinner -- I think it was Gridiron or something like that -- and humor was encouraged. And the president ran a video of looking for weapons of mass destruction, looking under chairs, looking under the table, where are they, where are the WMD?And, obviously, it was a joke. There were no WMD. It was all a joke. And the laugh was on us. Now the president is talking about the road map. And he's saying, in his words, in May, "Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. "Are we going to someday see the same movie, where's the road map? It must be under here somewhere. It's under this table. It's under this chair. Or are we really working to do what the president's saying? And that is: Remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion?

RICE: Well, interestingly, Senator, we've had the only return of territory to the Palestinians in the entire history of the conflict. The Israelis are out of the Gaza. And that. . .

CHAFEE: I'm asking about settlement expansion. I'm asking that question.

RICE: Senator, I understand, and I will answer that question. But we can't lose sight of the historic change that has taken place and that the Palestinians are actually now in control of the Gaza. We're working with them on issues of international egress and ingress and matters of that kind. But let's remember that the Israelis took an historic decision to actually leave the territory.

CHAFEE: While 8,000 settlers moved out of Gaza, while 30,000 moved into the West Bank in opposition to the president's stated objective; that's why I'm asking the question.

RICE: Actually, Senator, I don't think 30,000 have moved into disputed territories. . .

CHAFEE: Probably more."

He also recently beat up John Bolton in a very similar manor (the truth really stings when you get slapped with it), but you can look that one up for yourselves.

enjoy,

J

What the heck, Heres Chafee beating up Bolton, (does anyone else see this guy as Yosemti Sam with a little less self control?) and telling the truth about the occupies territories.

Enjoy.

J

OK -- Something interesting is going on with Lincoln Chafee. He just shoved John Bolton all over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Room floor.

Must have had spinach and Wheaties this morning. Chafee was dogged in questioning John Bolton on his views about Israel-Palestine, about the root causes of the crisis in the Middle East, about Bolton's simple-minded use of the term "terrorism", and about Bolton's views of "shaping the Middle East" as one of the greatest challenges America faces.

Senator Chafee started off reading a Bolton statement that he made in the past where Bolton essentially blamed terrorism as the fundamental problem in the Middle East. Chafee said to Bolton: "You are a brilliant man. Terrorism is a device. Your statement makes no sense. Explain it."

Bolton gave a long and convoluted response but also stated: "There is no basis for peace in the Middle East now." He suggested that one of the reasons why the U.S. has resisted calls for immediate cease fire in the region is that it wants to generate a "comprehensive solution". He said "we need to use current circumstances as a fulcrum to move towards a more stable, longer term solution."

Chafee jumped back: "Can't you go any deeper? This isn't just terrorism. What about the history of terrorism in the region? What are the root causes?"

Bolton continued to duck the question. And jumped back to focus his answer on Hezbollah -- which he said has one foot in as political party, one foot in as military movement and that it would have to abandon its military part for peace to move forward.

Bolton sounded reasonable but still ducked Chafee's question.

So Chafee charged AGAIN.

Chafee said, "We have serious problems now. This is a conflagration. You are not answering my question. What are the root problems? What do we have to get to -- to get to a permanent peace? Is there anything deeper than just terrorism that you can identify as the root cause of the conflagration?

Bolton finally began to yield to Chafee's impressive pressure and focus.

Bolton said that the problem in the region is mostly that some nations continue to question "the right of israel to exist." Bolton stated that "the peace process is incomplete." He continued, "Israel is not able to complete full peace agreeements with its neighbors," and the leadership of Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Chafee then told Bolton that the American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad had recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and made the statement: "Shaping the Middle East is the defining challenge of our time."

Chafee asked Bolton if he agreed with Ambassador Khalilzad.

Bolton stated that he thought "shaping the Middle East" was 'one' of the significant challenges of our time, but intimated that WMD proliferation was another definining challenge that he worried about as much. He then turned his response into more criticism of Iran.

Then Chafee came out with a whopper on Palestine/Israel.

He asked Bolton if "he believed in a viable, contiguous Palestinian state existing side-by-side Israel."

Bolton repied that he does believe in a Palestinian state, but then obscured his answer with more about Hezbollah and its destabilization of the current situation.

Chafee then came back, again: "What has the US done about a contiguous Palestinian state?"

Chafee asked John Bolton if he thought that one of the root causes of our problems in the Middle East is our failure to make progress on a viable, contiguous Palestinian state existing peacefully, side-by-side next to Israel.

This is a remarkable and brave statement and query for Chafee to offer in these times.

Bolton responded somewhat constructively suggesting that "This is the time to look at "broader solutions" that could very well make progress on the Palestinian front as well." Bolton stated that discussions at the UN regarding Lebanon often include as well the Occupied Territories (Bolton's term).

While I happen to think that these issues ought not to be lumped together -- the fact that Chafee compelled Bolton to agree that a comprehensive solution was needed that resulted in a viable, contiguous Palestinian state was a very important exchange.

I would have been thrilled with Chafee's performance just as it was -- but THEN HE WENT ONE BETTER.

Lincoln Chafee said to Bolton that "he disagrees" with Bolton and does not see the administration putting "the effort put behind the rhetoric" that Bolton provided today.

Lincoln Chafee seems back in play to me. It may not be enough for him to reverse his vote -- but Chafee has certainly done more to open new territory in this battle than anyone else this morning.