Beirut Live

US studies Israel's cluster bomb use in Lebanon

2007-01-29T14:51:00.000+02:00

The legal side of this is nothing we didn't know already. But you can be sure that despite international laws there will be no sanctions from the US or anyone against Israel for their blatant violation of human rights and the laws of war. At least one paper publishes the story. See how many others will.

US studies Israel's cluster bomb use in Lebanon

Mark Tran
Monday January 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The location of an Israeli cluster bomb is marked with red paint near the village of El Maalliye in southern Lebanon. Photograph: Sergey Ponomarev/AP

Israel may have violated agreements with the US on the use of cluster bombs during the war in Lebanon last summer, the state department is expected to report to Congress today.
The Bush administration must now decide what action, if any, to take against Israel for its use of the weapons against towns and villages from where Hizbullah fired its rockets.

Opinion among US officials was divided, the New York Times reported at the weekend. The paper said some middle-ranking officials at the Pentagon and the state department were arguing that Israel had violated prohibitions on using cluster munitions against civilian areas.

But others in both departments thought Israel's use of the weapons was justified on grounds of self-defence in a conflict that cost the lives of 159 Israeli soldiers and civilians, the paper said.

Tough action from the US is believed to be unlikely, however, as the White House staunchly supports the Israeli government.

Cluster bombs scatter over a wide area hundreds of small "bomblets", many of which fail to explode. Inquisitive children may later pick these up, or civilians may step on them.

Israeli forces dropped an estimated 1m cluster bomblets in southern Lebanon last summer, 90% of which were dropped in the last three days of the conflict, the group Landmine Action reported in October.

Even if Israel is found to be in violation of its agreements with the US, it is up to the president, George Bush, to decide whether to impose sanctions - unless Congress decides to take legislative action, which is highly unlikely.

The state department is required to notify Congress even of the preliminary findings of possible violations of the Arms Export Control Act, the statute governing arms sales. It began an investigation in August.

Whatever the US decides, Israel makes its own cluster munitions, so a cutoff of US supplies would be mainly symbolic. The Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on cluster bombs sales to Israel in 1982 after a congressional investigation found Israel had used the weapons in civilian areas during its invasion of Lebanon in that year.

The UN and human rights groups strongly criticised Israel's use of cluster bombs at the end of the Lebanon conflict last summer.

"What is shocking and completely immoral is 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution," the UN humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, said soon after the war ended.

But Israel said the use of cluster bombs was in accordance with international law, and that its forces had not targeted civilians. "The IDF [Israel Defence Force] does not deliberately attack civilians and takes steps to minimise any incidental collateral harm by warning them in advance of an action, even at the expense of losing the element of surprise," the Israeli foreign ministry said at the end of the war.

Still, Israeli television reported in December that the military's judge advocate general was gathering evidence for possible criminal charges against military officers who may have given orders for cluster bombs to be fired into populated areas.

According to the UN mine action coordination centre for South Lebanon, by December 19, 18 people had been killed and 145 injured since the August ceasefire.

The casualty rate has come down sharply. Immediately after the war, there were more than 30 casualties a week; the figure now is about three or four.

The Wise

2007-01-28T00:20:00.000+02:00


This is probably one of the strongest messages I have seen so far. Large video, but much worth the wait. This is how all Lebanese have to think. Dont follow your leaders, follow your nation.

A Perfect Day

2007-01-06T13:48:00.001+02:00

This is a fantastic animation about the current situation in Lebanon and a plea for peace. This was created by Grey Worldwide office in Beirut.

Huge protest brings Beirut to a standstill

2006-12-02T04:00:00.000+02:00

· Muslims and Christians demand new government
· Corruption and lack of inclusion prompt rally

Clancey Chassay in Beirut
Saturday December 2, 2006
Guardian

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians waving Lebanese flags poured into central Beirut yesterday as opposition leaders gave impassioned speeches calling for the resignation of the cabinet and the formation of a new, more inclusive government.
A tent city was set up for the thousands who vowed to stay outside the government offices where the prime minister, Fouad Siniora, and most of his ministers were holed up behind barbed wire and barriers until the cabinet stepped down.

"I call on the prime minister and his ministers to quit," said opposition leader Michel Aoun, to roars of applause. Mr Aoun, who fought a 15-year campaign to rid Lebanon of Syrian influence and commands the largest Christian following, led the opposition speeches. The Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, seen by many as a driving force of the opposition, did not make an appearance.

"Our government are in their offices hiding from us - the Lebanese people. We will stay on the streets until they leave," said 22-year-old Ali.

Since the early morning demonstrators had been streaming into the city centre, where organisers were handing out water and refreshments. Amid the carnival atmosphere, many expressed frustration at their lack of representation. "We are not asking only for a government of the opposition, but we want to be part of the decision-making process. We will not accept anything less than partnership," said 37-year-old architect Rana.

Saha Samat, 30, whose family had come from the north of Lebanon, said she was fed up with the exclusion of much of the country's Christian community. "We want a government that represents all Lebanese. I'm not with any political party; we have come as Lebanese. It's not just the economic situation; we want a unified government. It's not fair that all these people are not represented," she said, pointing at tens of thousands of Lebanese flags fluttering in the sun.

People lined the bridges and walkways entering the city as those arriving from the south reported a traffic jam running all the way back to the southern town of Tyre.

Many protesters believe the government is corrupt and has failed to address the country's nearly £20bn debt.

"These are the same people that ruled under the Syrians - the same crooks. We want a new government that is responsible and actually works for the good of the country," said 36-year-old electrical engineer Raymond Khouri.

"This government had a year and a half and they didn't do anything for Lebanon. There is no work, there is no security, and there is no honesty from the Siniora governmenta" said Hussein Fawaz, a 40-year-old stonemason from the south.

The government also came under fire over its relationship with Washington and its conduct during the summer's 34-day-war between Israel and Hizbullah.

"Our people were being killed everyday by Israel and they [the government] were taking orders from its ally, America. No one from this government has even visited the south yet," says Khaled Khadash, a 47-year-old marketing manager.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

Julie Flint in the Guardian/There's no accounting for it

2006-11-25T16:39:00.000+02:00

There's no accounting for it

Julie Flint

November 24, 2006 08:58 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julie_flint/2006/11/post_700.html

On Tuesday last week, Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon's Maronite Christian Minister of Industry, died after an unidentified assailant pumped dozens of bullets into his body through the window of his car. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asked the United Nations for help in investigating the assassination. On Thursday, UN investigators began assisting the Lebanese inquiry into Gemayel's murder.

Now cast your minds back a few months.

Between 12 July and 14 August, more than 1,100 Lebanese civilians died - a third of them children - after the Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on as many targets in Lebanon. The Israeli Navy unleashed another 2,500 bombardments. Amnesty International said Lebanon's infrastructure suffered destruction on a "catastrophic" scale. The US rights group Human Rights Watch accused Israel of launching "indiscriminate" attacks against civilians, in response to the kidnapping by Hizbullah of two Israeli soldiers, and of a "systematic failure" to distinguish between civilian and military targets.

More than three months later, there is no investigation into Israel's war. Nor is there any real pressure for one, from any side. It is hard to escape the conclusion that there will be no justice for the Lebanese killed in the summer war - 1,183 of them, at last count - just as there was no justice for the victims of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent massacre in Beirut's Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Chatila.

And yet there was - and still could be, perhaps - a chance of justice this time round. The International Criminal Court is an independent court, set up in 2002 to try those accused of the gravest crimes - genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes - when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Lebanon did not ratify the Statute of Rome that set up the ICC. But under Article 12.3 of the Statute it can ask the Court to consider whether war crimes have been committed in Lebanon, and then to investigate and prosecute them. All it would take is a fax to The Hague, signed by someone with the authority to represent the State.

Lebanese lawyers who know better say they cannot move until they have a water-tight case, until every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed. This is nonsense: if the ICC accepts the case, it is the ICC that will investigate. That is the Court's job, not Lebanon's.

Why this reluctance to seek justice for what many consider to have been war crimes committed by Israel? Siniora is concerned that Lebanon might lose US support if he goes after its ally Israel. (Can he have forgotten how Washington "supported" Lebanon by providing Israel with cluster bombs and delaying a ceasefire at the UN in the summer?) Hizbullah is concerned that it, too, could be charged with war crimes. Among ordinary Lebanese, the mood is one of uninformed resignation. "Why bother?" they ask. "When was Israel ever punished, for anything?" They answer themselves: "Never."

Sooner or later, however, there has to be a first time - and the ICC could be the vehicle for it. The international reaction to Israel's July offensive was unlike any previous reaction. Under attack was not the Lebanon of the "rag-tag militias" of the 1980s and 1990s, but the Lebanon of old cliché - of beach clubs, night clubs and sexy women; a reconstructed, post-war Lebanon whose people had stopped slaughtering each other and were dancing the night away again. Day after day, week after week, the photographs of dead children - poor children in poor clothes - won sympathy for Lebanon where previously there had been little. It was the perfect moment to take the initiative. It was missed.

Lebanon today is a dangerously, and increasingly, polarised place. Pierre Gemayel's assassination has been turned into a show of political strength by the country's anti-Syrian factions, who have won the battle for a UN tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and who accuse Damascus of murdering Gemayel too - without, it has to be said, a shred of evidence. Precedent, certainly, but not evidence.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, announced on Thursday that the Court is close to launching prosecutions against some of those suspected of committing war crimes in Darfur. Sudan refused to allow the ICC to investigate in Sudan, just as Israel would, in all probability, if Lebanon referred the July/August war and the ICC agreed to open a criminal investigation into it. But the ICC has got what it needs despite Khartoum's lack of cooperation. There will be indictments of Sudanese officials and, hopefully, prosecutions. There could be of Israelis, too. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

Many Lebanese have lost their lives at the hands of the governments of Syria and Israel and have suffered torture in their jails. Both states should be called to account. The life of a poor Shia child is no less precious than that of a wealthy Christian politician. A demonstrator at the funeral of Gemayel carried a banner saying: "See you in court." He was addressing himself to Damascus. He should have added: "All of you, whoever you are."

Brian Whitaker in the Guardian/ A smoking gun

2006-11-25T16:35:00.000+02:00

A smoking gun

Brian Whitaker

November 24, 2006 05:30 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/11/why_shoot_gemayel.html

Amid all the comment on the assassination of Lebanese industry minister Pierre Gemayel, one very obvious fact seems to have escaped everyone's attention: the fact that he was shot. I'm not sure how significant this may be but we ought, at least, to consider it.

Look at the pattern. Serge Brammertz, the Belgian prosecutor appointed by the UN to investigate the killing of former prime minister Rafik Hariri has also been looking into 14 other attacks which are probably related and have been widely blamed on Syria or its agents. Brammertz has now added the killing of Pierre Gemayel to his list, making 16 cases in total.

Spot the odd one out. Gemayel's killing was the only one that involved a gun. All the other attacks used explosives. In a report to the UN on June 10, Brammertz explained why, in his view, the first 15 cases were connected: there was linkage by motive and linkage by modus operandi.

Looking at the political background, it seems very likely that Gemayel's murder had a similar motive to all the rest. We can't be certain of that at present, however, because the Gemayel family, over the years, have made plenty of other enemies besides the Syrians.

The modus operandi is much more problematic. Gemayel was followed, his car was rammed, then he and his bodyguard were shot at close range, apparently with silenced guns. The killer, or killers, then vanished. In most countries we would assume it was a professional hit job.

It is reasonable to deduce from this that the attackers were not Syrians themselves but local people who knew the lie of the land and were confident of melting away once the job was done. This, of course, does not rule out a Syrian connection. But if Gemayel's assassination was linked to the other attacks and/or commissioned from Damascus, how can we explain the different modus operandi?

One possibility is that it was treated as an urgent job. Bombings and booby-trapped cars take a lot of planning and preparation. A shooting is quicker and simpler to organise. The risk of being caught in the act may be higher, but that can be dealt with by farming it out to a criminal gang (and presumably taking care to conceal the ultimate paymaster in the event that it goes wrong).

Another possibility is that the ongoing UN investigation prompted a change of methods. The original team responsible for earlier attacks may well have been shut down and dispersed as Brammertz follows their trail. The most recent progress report from Brammertz, last September, was generally dismissed as a damp squib - mainly because it did not contain any new or sensational revelations. But what his report did reveal was the painstaking nature of the investigation and its vast scale, including the analysis of millions of mobile phone calls.

On reading the report, anyone involved in the earlier attacks might easily have concluded they were too complex for safety, giving far too many clues away in the planning stages. A straightforward shooting (almost impossible in the case of a highly protected figure like Hariri but practicable in the case of Gemayel) might therefore be a wiser option. The conclusions that can be drawn are rather limited, but I think they are the following.

First, although the killing of Gemayel did not fit the usual pattern, that is not sufficient reason in itself to rule out a Syrian connection.

Second, we should not, at the same time, assume a Syrian connection, either. The different modus operandi means, at the very least, that other possibilities must be thoroughly explored by the UN investigators.

Finally, remember the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 which some instantly blamed on Islamists - though they turned out to have no part in it. If Syria is blamed prematurely for killing Gemayel but later cleared, you can bet your bottom dollar that Damascus will exploit it ruthlessly to cast doubt on the 15 other cases where the evidence, so far, is considerably more persuasive.

Syria is a convenient fallguy for Gemayel's death

2006-11-25T16:30:00.000+02:00

Whatever the truth, without proof and with all the hatemongering I heard against Shi'ites, Lebanese people not Syrians from fellow Lebanese, coming from the speeches the other day, which is so frightening and depressing and dangerous for Lebanon, it is really worth asking other questions. Thus the following articles which raise alternative and valid points from respected writers.

Syria is a convenient fallguy for Gemayel's death

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

11/24/06 " Information Clearing House" -- -- Commentators and columnists are agreed. Pierre Gemayel's assassination must have been the handiwork of Syria because his Christian Phalangists have been long-time allies of Israel and because, as industry minister, he was one of the leading figures in the Lebanese government's anti-Syria faction. President Bush thinks so too. Case, apparently, settled.

Unlike my colleagues, I do not claim to know who killed Gemayel. Maybe Syria was behind the shooting. Maybe, in Lebanon's notoriously intrigue-ridden and fractious political system, someone with a grudge against Gemayel -- even from within his own party -- pulled the trigger. Or maybe, Israel once again flexed the muscles of its long arm in Lebanon.

It seems, however, as if the last possibility cannot be entertained in polite society. So let me offer a few impolite thoughts.

As anyone who watches TV crimes series knows, when there is insufficient physical evidence in a murder investigation for a conviction, detectives examine the motives of the parties who stood to benefit from the crime. Better detectives also consider whether the prime suspect -- the person who looks at first sight to be the guilt party -- is not, in fact, being turned into a fallguy by one of the other parties. The murderer may be the person who benefits most clearly from the crime, or the murderer may be the person who benefits from the prime suspect being fingered for the murder.

As most of our politicians and the media's commentators have deduced, suspicion falls automatically on Syria because the Christian Phalangists are one of Syria's main enemies in Lebanon. Partly as a result, they have opposed recent attempts by Syria's main ally in Lebanon, the Shiite group Hizbullah, to win a greater share of political power.

They are also -- and this seems to clinch it for most observers -- part of the majority in the pro-American government of Fuad Siniora that supports a United Nations tribunal to try the killers of Rafik Hariri, an anti-Syria politician and leader of the Sunni Muslim community, who was blown up by a car bomb more than a year and a half ago.

After all six Shiite ministers walked out of the Siniora cabinet two weeks ago, and now with Gemayel's assassination, the government is close to collapse, and with it the tribunal that everyone expects to implicate Syria in Hariri's murder. If Syria can "bump off" another two cabinet ministers and the government loses its quorum, Syria will be off the hook -- or so runs the logic of Western observers.

But does this "evidence" make Syria the prime suspect or the fallguy? How will Syria's wider interests be affected by the killing, and what about Israel's interests in Gemayel's death -- or rather, its interests in Hizbullah or Syria being blamed for Gemayel's death?

In truth, Israel will benefit in numerous ways from the tensions provoked by the assassination, as the popular and angry rallies in Beirut against Syria and Hizbullah are proving.

First, and most obviously, Hizbullah -- as Syria's main political and military friend in Lebanon -- has been forced suddenly on to the back foot. Hizbullah had been riding high after its triumph over the summer of withstanding the Israeli assault on Lebanon and routing an invasion force that tried to occupy the country's south.

Hizbullah's popularity and credibility rose so sharply that the leaders of the Shiite community had been hoping to cash in on that success domestically by demanding more power. That is one of the reasons why the six Shiite ministers walked out of Siniora's cabinet.

Despite the way the Shiite parties' political position has been presented in the West, there is considerable justification for their demands. The system of political representation in Lebanon was rigged decades ago by the former colonial power, France, to ensure that power is shared between the Christian and Sunni Muslim communities. The Shiite Muslims, the country's largest religious sect, have been kept on the margins of the system ever since, effectively disenfranchised.

With their recent military victory, this was the moment Hizbullah hoped to make a breakthrough and force political concessions from the Sunnis and Christians, concessions that indirectly would have benefited Syria. With Gemayel's death, the chances of that now look slim indeed. Hizbullah, and by extension Syria, are the losers; Israel, which wants Hizbullah weakened, is the winner.

Second, the assassination has pushed Lebanon to the brink of another civil war. With a political system barely able to contain sectarian differences, and with the various factions in no mood to compromise after the spate of recent assassinations, there is a real danger that fighting will return to Lebanon's streets.

This will most certainly not be to the benefit of Lebanon or any of its religious communities, who will be dragged into another round of bloodletting. Hizbullah's underground cadres who took on the Israeli war machine will doubtless have to come out of hiding and will pay a price against other well-armed militias.

The benefits for Syria are at best mixed. A possible benefit is that a bloody civil war may increase the pressure on the United States to talk to Syria, and possibly to invite it to take a leading role again in stabilising Lebanon, as it did during the last civil war.

But, given the continuing ascendancy of the hawks in Washington, it may have the opposite effect, encouraging the US to isolate Syria further.

Conversely, civil war may pose serious threats to Syrian interests -- and offer significant benefits to Israel. If Hizbullah's energies are seriously depleted in a civil war, Israel may be in a much better position to attack Lebanon again. Almost everyone in Israel is agreed that the Israeli army is itching to settle the score with Hizbullah in another round of fighting. This way it may get the next war it wants on much better terms; or Israel may be able to fight a proxy war against Hizbullah by aiding the Shiite group's opponents.

Certainly one of the main goals of Israel's bombing campaign over the summer, when much of Lebanon's infrastructure was destroyed, appeared to be to provoke such a civil war. It was widely reported at the time that Israel's generals hoped that the devastation would provoke the Christian, Sunni and Druze communities to rise up against Hizbullah.

Third, Syria is already the prime suspect in Hariri's murder and in the assasination of three other Lebanese politicians and journalists, all seen as anti-Syrian, over the past 21 months.

The US exploited Hariri's death, and the widespread protests that followed, to evict Syria from Lebanon. Syria's removal from the scene also paved the way, whether intentionally or not, for Israel's assault this summer, which would have been far more dangerous to the region had Syria still been in Lebanon.

Despite the looming threat of the UN tribunal into Hariri's death, from Syria's point of view the accusations have grown stale with time and threatened to prove only what everyone in the West already believed. With the walk-out by the Shiite ministers from the Lebanese government, the investigations were looking all but redundant in any case.

Gemayel's assassination, however, has dramatically revived interest in the question of who killed Hariri and brings Syria firmly back into the spotlight. None of this benefits Syria, but no doubt Israel will be able to take some considerable pleasure in Damascus's discomfort.

Fourth, the Israeli government has been under international and domestic pressure to engage with Syria and negotiate a return of the Golan Heights, an area of Syrian territory it has been occupying since 1967.

With it would be resolved the fraught question of the Shebaa Farms, still occupied by Israel but which Hizbullah and Syria claim as Lebanese territory that should have been returned in Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. The status of the Shebaa Farms has been one of the main outstanding areas of dispute between Israel and Hizbullah.

President Assad of Syria has been hinting openly that he is ready to discuss Israel's return of the Golan Heights on better terms for Israel than it has ever before been offered.

According to reports in the Israeli media, Assad is prepared to demilitarise the Golan and turn it into a national park that would be open to Israelis. He would probably also not insist on a precise return to the 1967 border, which includes the northern shoreline of the Sea of Galilee. Traditionally Israel's leaders balked at this idea, and provoked popular fears by conjuring up the vision of Assad's father, Hafez, dipping his feet in the lake.

But if negotations on the Golan are desperately sought by the young Assad, Israel shows no interest in exploring the option. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has repeatedly ruled out talking to Damascus. That is for several reasons:

* Israel, as might be expected on past form, is not in the mood for making territorial concessions;
* it does not want to end Syria's pariah's status and isolation by making a peace deal with it;
* and it fears that such a deal might suggest that negotiations with the Palestinians are feasible too.

Peace with Syria, in Israeli eyes, would inexorably lead to pressure to make peace with the Palestinians. That is most certainly not part of Israel's agenda.

Gemayel's death, and Syria being blamed for it, forces Damascus back into the fold of the "Axis of Evil", and forestalls any threat of talks on the Golan.

Fifth, pressure has been growing in the US Administration to start talking to Syria, if only to try to recruit it to Washington's "war on terror". The US could desperately do with local local help in managing its occupation of Iraq. It is unclear whether Bush is ready to make such an about-turn, but it remains a possibility.

Key allies such as Britain's Tony Blair are pushing strongly for engagement with Syria, both to further isolate Iran -- the possible target of either a US or Israeli strike against its presumed ambitions for nuclear weapons -- and to clear the path to negotiations with the Palestinians.

Gemayel's death, and Syria's blame for it, strengthens the case of the neoconservatives in Washington -- Israel's allies in the Administration -- whose star had begun to wane. They can now argue convincingly that Syria is unreformed and unreformable. Such an outcome helps to avert the danger, from Israel's point of view, that White House doves might win the argument for befriending Syria.

For all these reasons, we should be wary of assuming that Syria is the party behind Gemayel's death -- or the only regional actor meddling in Lebanon.

Jonathan Cook is a journalist and writer based in Nazareth, Israel. His book " Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State " is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

What about the Shia opinion?

2006-11-25T03:50:00.000+02:00

In the wake of Lebanese anti-Syrian Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel's assassination on Tuesday the debate is raging on who was behind the killing and why.

Thursday saw hundreds of thousands of Lebanese from all sects on the streets turn out for his funeral.

They were there in genuine sadness at the murder of an elected cabinet minister and to show their disgust at the continued way violent killings are being used to conduct politics in Lebanon.

The protest also saw calls for pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to resign and much anger directed against the also pro-Syrian Shi'ite group Hizbullah - whose supporters stayed away from the proceedings.

While the majority of voices publicized in the media have cast blame for Gemayel's assassination at Damascus' door, the less reported voice of the majority of Shi'ites in Lebanon reveals a startling contrast to those on show in Martyr's Square Thursday, an indication of the sharp polarization of opinion in Lebanon, which is more exposed today than at any time since the end of the 1975-90 civil war.

One 25 year-old woman, a moderate Shi'ite whose home in the southern suburbs of Beirut was blown up by Israel fighter planes in last summer's Israeli-Lebanon war, does not buy the argument that Tuesday's killing was an attempt by Syria or its agents to scupper the upcoming UN tribunal into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, as the March 14 government forces led by Hariri's son Saad believe.

'Gemayel's murder was calculated to damage Syria and reinvigorate the waning power of the March 14 coalition which has been losing ground since Hizbullah successfully defended Lebanon against Israel,' the woman who wished not to be named says.

'The current government is dominated by supporters of American manipulation in Lebanon and is not a national unity government. Where are our representatives? The Shi'ites are 40 percent of the Lebanese population yet Hizbullah are sidelined by the Siniora government with no representation now.

'Why does no one point the finger at Israel or America in this terrible murder of Pierre Gemayel? Where is the security provided by Siniora's government? These are the questions I want answered. My home was destroyed by Israel in July, people I know were murdered by Israel in July. Why is there no UN investigation against Israel into their unlawful deaths?'

Rana Ballout, 32, a middle class Shi'ite and managing editor of luxury brand magazine Bespoke, was equally dismayed by Thursday's demo.

'I think the murder of Gemayel has to be investigated first before any accusations are made. But Prime Minister Siniora's government has not managed to put together any findings into the deaths of any of the five political figures who have been assassinated under their watch since 2005. How can Syria be blamed so easily?' she says.

Ballout agrees with Hizbollah's line that the current government needs to go and a new national unity government must be formed with increased representation for Lebanese Shi'ites.

'With the resignation of the five Shi'ite ministers the government no longer represents the majority of the people, and over the last 18 months they have done nothing to ensure security in the country,' Ballout argues. 'They did very little really to stop the war in the summer, even going so far as to have lunch with Condoleezza Rice while Lebanese were dying in the south.'

It is actions like that which Hizbullah's supporters associate with Pierre Gemayel during the Israel-Lebanon war in July and August. They ask where was he when the people in the south were being killed by Israel. Over 1,000 Lebanese civilians were killed in the war.

Like many Hizbullah supporters Ballout is of the opinion that the real people who benefit from Pierre Gemayel's death are Fouad Siniora's government and the March 14 forces.

'Those that benefited were certainly not Syria, Hizbullah or (Christian Presidential candidate and Hizbullah ally) Michel Aoun or any opposition party. The assassination added wind to the sails of the March 14 boat - it was about to capsize - as rumours of a thaw in Syrian-US relations were starting to spread after Syria's overtures to Iraq in the last few days,' she says. 'Now the government is boosted.'

Despite these strong opinions there are Shi'ites who find themselves in the middle, not pro-March 14 but not pro-Hizbullah either.

'I was on the streets today (Thursday) to protest against the continuing method of using political assassinations. It must stop,' says Tarek El Zein, 27, a research analyst with mobile telephone company MTC in Beirut.

'But I believe in Siniora's government. It has not underachieved as Hizbullah claim. It has not been allowed to function properly with the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and Hizbullah working against it. The Siniora government, with all its defects, is unjustly being hijacked,' El Zein says.

'All the people who have been assassinated since Prime Minister Hariri was killed in February 2005 have unfortunately been outspoken critics of Syria, including Pierre Gemayel. Is that a coincidence? Maybe but maybe not.'

November 23, 2006: Lebanon's Day

2006-11-23T15:06:00.000+02:00

Picture taken on November 23, 2006 from the An-Nahar offices.

This is our day. Not that of the March 14 coalition, nor that of the March 8 coalition! This is the day when Lebanon shouts to the criminals:
"Enough. Lebanon will not die today, it will not die tomorrow. No bombs or bullets from Israeli, Syrian or Iranian regimes will ever bring us down."
It is time for all Lebanese, from all religions and all sides to join hands to uphold and save our bleeding Lebanon.

Analysis from fellow blogger CC

2006-11-22T15:57:00.000+02:00

'This is the most panicked I've seen Lebanon'

· Killing could be attempt to bring down government
· Christian leader predicted murder of three ministers

Brian Whitaker, Clancy Chassay in Beirut and Hugh Macleod in Damascus
Wednesday November 22, 2006
The Guardian

Amid all the destruction that Lebanon has witnessed over the years, the bulletholes in the window of Pierre Gemayel's car yesterday seemed almost insignificant - but their consequences may be tremendous.
"This is the most panicked I have ever seen Lebanon," said 27-year-old Habib Batah as anxious Beirut residents left work early, causing huge traffic jams.

Pierre Gemayel, the young industry minister assassinated as he drove through Jdeideh district, was the sixth public figure to be targeted since the explosion that killed former prime minister Rafik Hariri and 20 others in February last year.

Article continues

Mr Gemayel's death comes at a time of political tension unprecedented since the Lebanese civil war, and inevitably fingers are being pointed, once again, at Syria, the meddlesome neighbour accused of trying to destabilise the country.
At 34, Mr Gemayel was by no means among the most important or prominent of politicians - though that, perversely, may have made him an easier target. His real significance, as often in Lebanese politics, lay in his family name: he was the son of a former president, Amin Gemayel, and grandson of the late Pierre Gemayel, founder of the Christian Phalange party.

The immediate question is what impact his death will have on the anti-Syrian government led by Fouad Siniora. His cabinet was severely weakened earlier this month by the resignation of six ministers, including all five Shia members, and the Shia Hizbullah movement has been threatening to topple it.

With yesterday's killing, Mr Siniora lost a seventh minister. If nine are absent, cabinet meetings become inquorate - triggering the government's collapse. A few days ago Samir Geagea, a Christian leader, warned that three ministers might be assassinated to achieve just that. With Mr Gemayel's death, his prophecy seems to have been partly confirmed.

All this comes at a critical moment for Lebanon as it strives to recover from the month-long bombardment by Israeli forces triggered by a border incident last July when Hizbullah's militia seized two Israeli soldiers.

The government is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid for reconstruction and has been hoping to kickstart the economy with new investment, but these efforts could be stymied if the political uncertainties continue.

Though there is no hard evidence so far as to the motive for Mr Gemayel's killing, there were few yesterday who doubted that it was political - though bombs rather than bullets are the usual method in Lebanese assassinations. As in the 14 other attacks since the Hariri assassination, many immediately suspected a Syrian connection - though Syria has denied involvement and the attacks are all subjects of a UN investigation.

Following the Hariri assassination, Syria came under intense international pressure which forced it to withdraw from Lebanon, and the Bush administration - which earlier imposed sanctions on Damascus - made threatening noises.

Syrian observers argued that killing Mr Gemayel would not serve the interests of Damascus. "Syria has a lot to lose by killing Gemayel," said Jihad Yazigi, editor of the Syria Report. "Damascus has the upper hand in Lebanon now after nearly a year without any assassinations and Hizbullah are getting stronger by the day."

Essam Dari, deputy editor of Tishreen, a government daily, said the assassination would hurt Syria's interests. "This crime comes at a time when the US and Europe are considering reopening talks with Syria," he said. "Like the Hariri killing, Syria will be badly affected."

One theory advanced yesterday is that in the wake of the Republicans' midterm electoral defeat, and with George Bush's Iraq policy in tatters, Syria may be feeling sufficiently emboldened to turn up the heat in Lebanon again.

Meanwhile, Hizbullah - the main representative of Lebanon's marginalised Shia population and a key ally of Syria - has also been emboldened by the war with Israel. Basking in the kudos of its claimed military "victory", it is now seeking to assert itself more in Lebanese politics.

The sectarian breakdown of Lebanon's population is so sensitive that no official figures have been released since 1932, but there is little doubt that Christians - who once accounted for around 50% - are declining, while the Shia have been increasing. According to some estimates, the Shia may have reached 40%. Under the constitution, any group that can command more than 30% of cabinet posts has a veto on government decisions - which, in effect, would hand power to Hizbullah.

Hit list

Major political attacks in Lebanon during the last two years:

· February 14 2005 Former prime minister Rafik Hariri, killed in a bombing.

· June 2 2005 Anti-Syrian journalist Samir Kassir, killed by a car bomb.

· June 21 2005 Anti-Syrian politician George Hawi, killed by a car bomb.

· July 12 2005 Deputy prime minister and defence minister Elias Murr, survives car bombing in Beirut.

· September 25 2005 Prominent television anchorwoman May Chidiac of the leading anti-Syrian TV station LBC, loses an arm and a leg from a car bomb.

· December 12 2005 Prominent anti-Syrian newspaper editor and parliamentarian Gibran Tueni killed by a car bomb.

· November 21 2006 Prominent Christian politician Pierre Gemayel, shot dead by gunmen in a Beirut suburb.

Assassination triggers fresh crisis in Lebanon

2006-11-22T15:50:00.000+02:00

Assassination triggers fresh crisis in Lebanon

Clancy Chassay in Beirut and Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday November 22, 2006
The Guardian

Furious supporters of prominent anti-Syrian Christian politician Pierre Gemayel, who has been assassinated in a suburb of Beirut, raise aloft posters of Gemayel in Beirut, Lebanon. Photograph: Ben Curtis/AP

Lebanon lurched closer to a fresh round of sectarian bloodletting yesterday with the assassination of its industry minister, Pierre Gemayel, a member of the country's most powerful Christian family and a leading opponent of Syrian influence.
The killing shook Lebanon's beleaguered government and sent tremors across the Middle East, further complicating attempts to find a regional solution to the Iraq war. The Bush administration, under pressure to negotiate with Syria and Iran, yesterday hinted at the responsibility of both countries' governments, accusing them of trying destabilise Lebanon.

Article continues

Speaking at an air force base in Hawaii, the US president, George Bush, called for a full investigation and pledged US support for Lebanon's government leaders and their efforts "to defend their democracy against attempts by Syria, Iran and allies, to foment instability and violence in that important country".
In Beirut, Maronite Christian crowds tried to march on the residence of the president, Emile Lahoud, who they revile for his ties to Damascus.

Clashes also broke out between Christians and the police near the hospital where Mr Gemayel's body was taken after being shot in his car on a busy street. Outside the hospital, the dead man's father, the former president Amin Gemayel, appeared to stagger under the shock of the death of an heir who had widely expected to take over the mantle of the Phalange movement that his family helped found.

"My son died for a cause," he said. "I want all those who loved my son to keep that cause alive."

Yesterday's killing was the latest in a string of assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians and journalists, which many fear may be the opening salvos in a new cycle of political violence.

Mr Gemayel's car was rammed by another vehicle before a gunman walked up to him and opened fire at close range, hitting him in the head and torso and wounding his bodyguards.

The assassination came at a time of high political tension. Mr Gemayel and other ministers had just approved an international tribunal to judge those responsible for an earlier assassination, the February 2005 murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri - a killing in which Syrian officials have been implicated by a UN investigation.

Last night, the UN security council approved plans for a special court to try suspects in the Hariri assassination.

In the days preceding this latest death, pro-Syrian politicians had walked out of the government led by Fouad Siniora, while Hizbullah, a Shia movement backed by Syria and Iran, was threatening street protests to bring down the government.

News of the killing spread across Beirut as Saad Hariri, the son of the murdered prime minister and the leader of the anti-Syrian coalition, was giving a press conference to reject Hizbullah's demands and restate his support for the formation of an international tribunal into his father's killing.

Mr Hariri said "the hands of Syria are all over the place" in Mr Gemayel's assassination, and argued that Damascus was prepared to do anything to stop a tribunal. Syrian troops left Lebanon under a UN-negotiated deal after Hariri's assassination, but Damascus is still thought to wield considerable influence through its allies and secret service.

In Washington, the killing appeared likely to strengthen the hands of those in the administration, led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, who oppose negotiations with Syria or Iran over Iraq. The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, went further than Mr Bush in linking Syria and Iran to the killing.

"The White House warned about two weeks ago that Syria and Iran, acting through Hizbullah, might be on the verge of an attempted coup d'etat in Lebanon. One has to wonder whether this despicable assassination is not the first shot," Mr Bolton said.

Syria's ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, rejected the allegations. "We are part of the solution, not part of the problem," he said. Mr Gemayel's killing came as Syria and Iraq restored diplomatic ties for the first time since 1982, and before a summit involving Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi leaders, to discuss Iraq.

The "real" fighting begins

2006-11-06T15:39:00.000+02:00

This article by the NYT highlights probably Lebanon's most crucial moment in recent times. It is the fight between Iran and the USA over who controls the smallest country in the area. And we stand smack in the middle...still emotionally recuperating from the summer 'heat'.
mrtez

By Michael Slackman
The New York Times
November 5, 2006

BEIRUT: Not long before the 34-day war with Israel, political groups in Lebanon aligned with the United States sat at a table with Hezbollah and tried to get it to give up its weapons and to help remove the pro-Syrian president from office.
On Monday, most of those same political leaders will sit down again, but this time the issues of Hezbollah's weapons and the president's tenure are not even on the agenda.
Instead, having proclaimed itself the victor in the summer war with Israel, the tables have turned. Hezbollah is pressing its case for effective control of the government and a new election law - warning that if it does not have its way, it will move to bring down the government and force a new parliamentary election.
On one level, this is a parochial fight over who runs a Mediterranean nation of four million people. But Lebanon has long been a proxy chessboard in the great global game of geopolitics, its people often finding their own interests subjugated to the interests of more powerful foreign nations.
Hezbollah, an ally of Iran and Syria, has been emboldened. The U.S.-backed coalition in control of the government is on the defensive. The outcome of the tug- of-war could have lasting impact on the international order - boosting or slowing Iran's ascent in the region, buttressing or undermining Syria's leadership.
"We are now calling for unity and accord, not for score-settling and vengefulness," Hezbollah's general secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, said in a recent appearance on his party's Al Manar television. "We are suggesting a national unity government in a positive spirit."
But his call has not been received that way. It has been described by the governing coalition as a "coup d'état" and has raised fears of possible violence.
"They are making a profit from the strength of their guerrilla force to come into the capital and to pressure the political apparatus, to impose their will on the government," said Amine Gemayel, a former president and leader of the small Christian Phalange party, part of the governing coalition. "I am quite anxious about this meeting."
Hezbollah's demands, including veto power over cabinet decisions, are the latest development in a constant jockeying for power between political groups organized along religious lines. While over the generations, power has essentially shifted from Sunni Muslims, to Christians, and now, perhaps to the long-neglected Shiite Muslims - often with political alliances between the different factions - the conflict has underscored the combustible nature of a system that demands allegiance to sects and promises each of Lebanon's 18 sects an equal say in decision-making.
"In many ways it is a system of coexistence, of compromise," said Walid Sharara, an opinion writer with the newspaper Al Akhbar. "But it is also, in a way, a cold civil war. In order for sectarian elites to maintain their power, they have to incite sectarianism."
The political fight has complicated efforts at rebuilding, a task already complicated by its balkanized population. There are effectively no true political parties in Lebanon. Sunni Muslims belong to a Sunni Muslim party. Shiites to a Shiite party. Druse to a Druse party. Christians to a Christian party.
Lebanon is a state built on a promise that all sects will share power, that Muslims and Christians will each control half the Parliament. The president must be a Christian. The prime minister a Sunni. The speaker of the parliament a Shiite. Public loyalty is to sect leaders - and not the state.
Khaled Arab, 53, a Sunni Muslim, lives in the largely Druse and Christian village of Choueifat, about 45 minutes outside of Beirut. The village square and shops sport pictures of Druse leaders, such as Walid Jumblatt. But when Arab's father had a heart attack, he turned for help to Saad Hariri, the leader of the largest party representing Sunni Muslims. "The leader of my sect looks after my interests," he said. "This applies to all other sects, too. This is how the country is and there is nothing we can do about it."
There is fear now that the latest fight will spill into the streets, that Hezbollah will hold true to its threat and call its supporters to demonstrate if it does not get its way. Many fear that could spark violence.
"The reality is the country is not changeable," said Timur Goeksel, the former long-time spokesman for UN forces in Lebanon. "If you push too hard, it will collapse. Let's keep what we have and not shoot at each other."
Hezbollah says it wants a national unity government that would drain power from the so-called March 14th coalition, which is backed by the United States. Nasrallah has been forceful and threatening in making his demands.
"We can instigate civil disobedience, topple the government, and bring about early elections," he said in his television appearance. "But we are not threatening to do this, so don't scare us with talk of civil strife or civil war, since neither of these is a possibility."
In concrete terms, it is impossible to say if Hezbollah has emerged stronger or weaker from the war with Israel. Polls show it has the most public support, but even political analysts here acknowledge it is impossible to truly trust any assessment in a country where it appears no one is a neutral observer.
Hezbollah has gained strength from its alliance with General Michel Aoun, leader of a large Christian party. But it is impossible to know if General Aoun has maintained or lost support of his followers for having forged an alliance with Hezbollah.
"Hezbollah is now drawing support from Christians," said Abdo Saad, director of the Beirut Center for Research and Information. "That was not thinkable before the war."
But Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at American University in Beirut said, "Hezbollah thinks if there is an election now, they will win a majority. Absolutely not."

Murder in Beirut

2006-10-22T17:39:00.000+03:00

Nick Blanford, a respected colleague who writes for The Times and Christian Science Monitor among other publications, has finally seen his book on Hariri published. It's a solid, serious understanding of the man and the political situation in Lebanon over the last 15 years up to his death in February 2005 and one that makes the realities of Lebanese politics more able to be understood by people who don't know the country or live there. Below is a recent review bu Jonathan Steele in The Guardian. Buy the book.

Murder in Beirut
Nicholas Blanford gives a stimulating account of a country in turmoil in Killing Mr Lebanon, says Jonathan Steele

Jonathan Steele
Saturday October 21, 2006
Guardian

Killing Mr Lebanon: The Assassination of Rafik Hariri and Its Impact on the Middle East
by Nicholas Blanford
256pp, IB Tauris, £17.99
This summer's ferocious Israeli offensive against Lebanon was the most unusual of wars. There was no visible build-up of tension, no preliminary sabre-rattling, none of the gathering clouds that leave anxious observers arguing whether the storm will really break and if there's time to find shelter.

War erupted out of the blue. It was as though a whole country had been mugged. Successfully rebuilt after years of civil war and with Beirut back in place as the Arab world's most sophisticated multicultural metropolis, the country was unexpectedly knocked to its knees.

The crisis eclipsed everything that had gone on in Lebanon over the previous two years, which, as this authoritative book makes clear, was also a time of great turbulence. No physical destruction occurred, but the fabric of communal harmony that had kept the peace since 1990 came under severe strain with the murder of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's charismatic Sunni leader.

Nicholas Blanford has lived in Beirut for more than a decade, working for the Christian Science Monitor and the Times. He is widely recognised as the best-informed outside expert on Lebanese politics, and his account of Hariri's life and death is stimulating but measured. He rejects the simplifications that informed many interpretations of the "cedar revolution" of 2005, when huge crowds came into the streets demanding the departure of Syria's troops after Hariri's murder.

He points out that the phrase was invented by Paula Dobriansky, US undersecretary for global affairs, to try to make it more understandable to western viewers, with its overtones of people's power in former Soviet republics. The phrase Blanford and most Lebanese preferred was the "independence intifada", an analogy less palatable to Washington.

Blanford does not go into detail on the investigation into who killed Hariri, though he clearly supports the view that Syria thought it had most to gain from Hariri's removal and that senior figures in Syrian intelligence probably organised it. His book's main value is the light it sheds on this gregarious businessman-turned-politician and the real nature of politics in Lebanon.

Like barons in medieval England or caudillos in 19th-century Latin America, the strongmen of Lebanese politics were hard-riding communal leaders who demanded unstinting loyalty from their followers even as they switched their own allegiances and made deals with previous rivals with breathtaking lack of principle. Hariri had no militia, but used money in its place. "He was a corrupter rather than corrupt," as Blanford quotes one Hariri admirer saying. During his rise to power, eventually emerging as prime minister, he would lavish money on people he felt could be useful, even supplying new cars and jewellery to the secretaries of powerful figures so that they would put him through to their employers whenever necessary.

His campaign against Syria was not motivated by prejudice or ideology or even by a desire to play down the confrontation with Israel, and for years he was close to the Syrians himself. He dithered and hesitated, but in the end felt that Syrian influence was preventing domestic Lebanese politics from developing.

With the hindsight of this summer's war, some of the best passages in this book (which was completed in February) cover Hariri's discussions with the Hizbullah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. The two men used to meet frequently for secret late-night talks, which Blanford describes as "relaxed and peppered with jokes". They both came from humble origins. Both were Arab nationalists with a vision going beyond Lebanon. Both had lost 18-year-old sons - though the manner of the two deaths marked a profound contrast in lifestyles. Hariri's son was killed in a car crash in the United States, Nasrallah's as a resistance fighter in a clash with Israeli commandos in occupied south Lebanon.

Although lionised by the Americans, particularly in death, Hariri did not share their view that Hizbullah had to disarm. As Blanford puts it: "Hariri understood that forcing Hizbullah to disarm would have perilous consequences for Lebanon's stability." He favoured a gradual approach under which Hizbullah would become more enmeshed in the domestic political framework and slowly cease to be a militia, provided of course there was a just settlement of the central Middle Eastern conflict, Israel's relationship with the Palestinians.

Hariri's death produced a temporary polarisation within Lebanon, made worse by pressure from France and the United States, but by the time of this summer's war, deals among the disparate politicians had restored a surprising degree of unity about the country's priorities. This did not mean that the rawness of Hariri's death had been forgotten. Rather it was that Hariri-style compromises and his view that people should focus on the bigger picture beyond communal politics had won out again. Not a bad legacy.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

Catalogue of mistakes saw hundreds of Lebanese civilians dead

2006-10-19T14:35:00.000+03:00

This extract from a report from Middle East Newswire says a lot. With a thousand plus in a war managed under these circumstances one wonders how many would have died if it it had been properly coordinated.

TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military, refusing to treat the 34-day battle with Hizbullah as a war, kept its commanders away from the front and sent soldiers on poorly-planned missions in Lebanon.
An investigation by an outside panel concluded that the General Staff did not treat the Hizbullah rocket strikes against Israel as a war, rather a security exercise. The report by a team led by [Res.] Maj. Gen. Yoram Yair said commanders relayed unclear orders and failed to fulfill even tactical missions.
Yair focused on the army's Division 91, commanded by Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, but examined system-wide failures during the war. He said the Israel Army was hampered by inadequate training, preparations and logistics.
The report said Division 91 failed to define missions and sometimes changed orders on an hourly basis. Yair said this generated confusion and resulted in aborted operations.

How Britain loses friends in Lebanon

2006-10-15T19:29:00.000+03:00

The timing was ‘a little bit tight’ apparently. That was the excuse Margaret Beckett gave as to why no criticism of Israel’s war on Lebanon last July was included in the British Foreign Office’s annual human rights report released last Thursday.
There was enough time however to include criticism of Hizbullah for its rocket attacks on Israel during the same war, as well as listing the number of Israeli casualties.
The wording goes: “We remain deeply concerned by Syria’s ongoing support for Hizbullah. Hizbullah’s role in the major outbreak of violence this year with Israel included abducting and detaining two Israeli soldiers and firing unguided rockets into Israeli towns and cities. In total Hizbullah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into Israeli territory.”
What is not mentioned is the 1489 buildings, 535 road sections, 21 of the 29 bridges over the Litani River and 545 cultivated fields were destroyed or damaged in South Lebanon; the 326 residential buildings damaged or destroyed in the southern suburbs of Beirut; the damage to Beirut Airport’s runways and 6 strategic highway sections; and the over 1,000 civilian dead.
Since it’s difficult to treat much that comes out of the FO or the PM’s office on the subject of Iraq, Iran, Israel and the Middle East as truthful these days it’s tough to believe the omission was a mere oversight as the report’s authors claimed last week.
One of the writers said that the British embassy in Damascus had sent information on Syria and Hizbullah for inclusion in the report but there were was no such communication from the British embassy in Israel. Funny that… What about from the British Embassy in Beirut?
Either this was blatant neglect or a policy choice - during the war Tony Blair was accused of bias towards Israel by most in Lebanon and the Arab world as well as many in the UK, for refusing to call for an immediate cease-fire.
The point is that this omission in a 356-page report which lists countries the British government views as being of major concern with regard to human rights, including Burma, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and Israel - in regard to the Occupied Territories - continues to damage Britain’s reputation in Lebanon, an educated and literate country which probably has more admirers and supporters of Britain and its democratic and cultural values than any other Arab nation, by furthering the belief of pro-Israeli bias.
The facts of the summer’s conflict - which dominated the foreign news and front pages of the global media in July and August - are clear. Viewed as war crimes by the Lebanese and corroborated by reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published immediately after the war, Israel illegally targeted Lebanese infrastructure including economic targets, directly attacked civilian areas massacring countless men, women and children in just over 30 days, and used some of the most powerful and devastating cluster bombs known to man.
Reporting in Beirut this summer, seeing the damage, the fear and the terror caused by Israel’s relentless over flights, spy drones and bombing raids, running through the southern suburbs of Beirut to the site of a bomb which had leveled a residential apartment block killing over 60 civilians it is absolutely right and proper that Israel should come in for heavy criticism in the FO’s report.
It is incredibly depressing that it doesn’t.
The omission merely undermines the report especially considering the criticism tabled against Hizbullah and Syria and serves to enforce the opinion on the street in Beirut certainly that Britain tacitly supported Israel’s actions.
If it really was a case of not having enough time as Beckett claims then it comes at a great (and unnecessary) cost to Britain’s reputation in Lebanon and the Muslim world, when it is already at an extraordinarily low point
Or perhaps the FO just doesn’t care anymore and open pro-Israel bias today is acceptable.

RS

Maliban Bottling Factory film

2006-10-11T20:17:00.000+03:00

Above is footage I took during the war in Lebanon, an interview with the manager and foreman of the Maliban bottling factory in the Beqaa Valley, which was bombed to kingdom come by the Israelis for no other reason but that it was an economic target. There were no militias, or fighters there - not that that would have been justified either. One man was killed. See the Maliban post about a month and half ago for more details.
It is still not known whether the factory will rebuild and the business will continue.

U.N.: Israel Should Face War Crimes Probe Over Lebanon

2006-10-04T09:39:00.000+03:00

Israel should be held to account for possible war crimes during its offensive in Lebanon, the United Nations' food rights expert said in a report obtained on Tuesday. Jean Ziegler, who reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council, called for an international probe to determine whether Israel was responsible for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and "possibly, war crimes" under the rules of the International Criminal Court. The controversial Swiss sociologist, who has regularly crossed swords with Israel in the past, visited Lebanon from September 11-16. He is due on Wednesday to present his findings to the 47-nation Council, which is currently in session. In his report, which was obtained by AFP, Ziegler said that during its July 12 to August 14 offensive Israel appeared to have forgotten that the Geneva Conventions which govern conflicts bar warring parties from attacking food and water supplies. "According to international jurisprudence, the government of Israel should be held responsible under international law for any violation of the right to food of the Lebanese civilian population," he said. He said that victims of such breaches should receive compensation for the losses suffered during the conflict as well as the post-war impact of the disruption of livelihoods. During its campaign to dislodge and destroy Hizbullah, the Israeli military destroyed roads and barred aid convoys, hampering efforts to supply the population of southern Lebanon, which bore the brunt of the offensive, Ziegler said. The immediate destruction of the war is set to have a longer-term effect because of the unexploded cluster bombs that litter farmland, he said. In addition, the Lebanese fishing industry has been hit by an oil spill sparked by Israel's bombardment of fuel depots. Israel should pay the Lebanese government for the clean up and compensate fishermen for their economic losses, said Ziegler. He also called on the Lebanese government and aid organizations to ensure that the post-war effort to rebuild the country includes programs to help farmers, agricultural laborers and fishermen. "The right to food and water must be a central part of the reconstruction effort," he said. He said that the Lebanese authorities should institute a moratorium on debt for small-scale farmers to reverse the cycle of poverty that is set to be caused by the loss of this year's harvest. The Lebanese government, with support from donors, should also accelerate efforts to clear cluster bombs from farmland, and Israel should provide full details of where it used such munitions, Ziegler said.(AFP)

Beirut Live

2006-10-01T18:37:00.000+03:00

It has been a while since I have posted on Beirut Live due to travel engagements and other work. Despite the fact that Lebanon has become a page 10 story or later in most broadsheets in recent weeks Beirut Live and other sites still have a purpose in providing current news from Lebanon, covering important stories and breaching otherwise undiscussed topics. The situation in Lebanon is not stable and far from ideal and so we at Beirut Live will continue to endeavour to provide a strong insight into all things regarding the situation as it is on the ground, the people here, media stories from the around the globe and the nature of writing and reporting itself. We hope that the readers of this blog will continue to read it and participate in the Middle East and Lebanese debate.
RS

U.S. Congress okays $500m for defense projects with Israel

2006-09-30T15:21:00.000+03:00

Another donation to Israel from the US taxpayers - more than double the US$240 million donation to Lebanon.

Haaretz
The United States Congress on Friday approved an additional $500 million for developing joint defense projects with Israel. The funds will be allocated between many different projects, including the development of a short-range missile interception system, navigation systems for missiles and combat aircraft, and aerial drones.The money is not part of the regular military aid to Israel, which currently stands at over $2 billion.
The Senate authorized the funding after it was approved by the House of Representatives on Thursday. The amount approved by Congress is well in excess of the $270 million submitted for approval by the U.S. Government.

Lebanon hopes UN force can boost tourism

2006-09-26T12:30:00.000+03:00

Fascinating to see the little economy that the UNIFIL has created in Lebanon. A total of $120 million a year at least for south Lebanon.

By Yara Bayoumy
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon will lose about $2 billion in tourism revenues this year due to a month-long war but the tourism minister is hoping a 15,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force will help revitalise the industry.
A U.N. resolution that ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hizbollah last month called for beefing up UNIFIL, a 2,000-strong U.N. force in south Lebanon, with up to 13,000 extra peacekeepers from various countries.
Tourism Minister Joseph Sarkis is counting on parents, other relatives and friends of the troops to boost visitor numbers.
"We are now preparing a sort of campaign in these countries, to show that Lebanon, the country where their children have come for a peaceful mission, is also a beautiful country, it has an image that is not only war and destruction," he told Reuters.
Sarkis, who said he expects around $10 million a month in revenues from UNIFIL soldiers' personal expenditure in southern Lebanon, was already receiving requests for license permits to open restaurants, clubs and coffee shops in the area.
"When they have their leave, they go to enjoy a glass of beer or lunch or dinner," Sarkis said, adding that the figure did not include army expenditure on rent or fuel.
Sarkis had been expecting $4 billion in revenues from tourists' expenditure and investment in tourism projects but said "we will probably lose around $2 billion because of ... war in Lebanon".
Sarkis said he had been expecting over 1.6 million tourists to visit Lebanon this year and on the eve of July 12, around 730,000 tourists had already come to the country.
But Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12 sparked a war in which Israeli air strikes caused $3.6 billion in damage to bricks and mortar. It came at the height of Lebanon's summer tourist season.
"The tourists came and on the 12th of July, they received bombs on their heads and they were obliged to escape in a very humiliating way," he said.
Sarkis said he expected 300,000-350,000 tourists in the four months to December, providing stability continues and improves.
In 2005, tourism was hit by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and other high-profile political killings. With arrivals to Lebanon 24 percent higher in the first half of 2006 than even in 2004, Lebanese foresaw a major recovery but the war made it impossible.
"I would say the main thing that has been damaged is confidence in the country. I say it's easier to rebuild a bridge than to rebuild confidence in a country," Sarkis said. "Tourism needs stability, if there is no stability there is no tourism."
But seasonal festivities, including the Eid al-Fitr Muslim feast in late October, should help the recovery, he said.
Forty percent of tourists to Lebanon are Arabs and Sarkis said "many hotels, travel agencies and car rentals are informing us they've started receiving bookings from now for the Eid period which shows it's a good thing".

For the Pet Lovers

2006-09-23T09:51:00.000+03:00

Pets Abandoned During War to be Flown to the U.S. for Adoption!

Some 300 homeless dogs and cats, many left behind by owners who fled Lebanon during the Hizbullah-Israel war, will be heading to new sanctuaries in the United States for adoption, an animal rights activist said Friday.
About 150 dogs and a similar number of cats will be flown out on a special flight Monday, said Mona Khoury, co-founder of the humane society Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or BETA.
"They will be in transit sanctuary," she said in a telephone interview, referring to the many requests for adoptions.
BETA is involved in the project with the American animal society Best Friends. A statement from Best Friends issued in Kanab, Utah, said the homeless pets from Beirut will be airlifted to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, America's largest refuge for abused and abandoned pets.
Michael Mountain, president of Best Friends, said that the pets will undergo a complete health and behavior evaluations, "and then they'll be off to their new homes."
"We've already had lots of adoption offers," Mountain said, adding that "by bringing these homeless pets to this country, we're enabling the good people at BETA to rebuild their shelters and restart their rescue work."
BETA has collected many pets that were left behind by people who had to leave the country. Tens of thousands of foreigners or Lebanese with foreign passports left the country in July and August during the heavy fighting, many on the recommendations of their governments which organized evacuations by land or sea.
Pets were not accepted in the evacuations and many had to be left behind.
At the start of the 34-day hostilities July 12, BETA had to move dogs and cats from a shelter near a Hizbullah stronghold in Beirut that was repeatedly pounded by Israeli warplanes to a hilltop farm in Monteverde in the hills overlooking Beirut.(AP)

Patrolling the Sea

2006-09-22T09:43:00.000+03:00

These are other exclusive pictures from Beirut Live depicting the UNIFIL controlled EU-navy patrolling Lebanon's territorial sea as required under UN Resolution 1701. The pictures taken on 22 Sept. '06 at around 9 in the morning clearly show the navy stopping a cargo ship to check its contents before allowing it to dock at Beirut Port. The massive cargo ship might be more suspect than it looks as by 9h10 some three different military ships suddenly surrounded it. It is not clear which navy the military ship belongs to nor where the cargo ship originated from. (The third picture has lines in the middle of it due to a construction crane which was in the way).

No weapons import

2006-09-19T14:42:00.000+03:00

This is for the skeptics who always claim that Lebanon is the aggressor and who think that the blockade was necessary. According to the IDF, Hizbullah is not importing new stocks of weapons and is abiding by the cease-fire, an act which the IDF cannot claim it has done.

Jerusalem Post
Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz declared that Hizbullah was strictly adhering to the cease fire in the North. "Since the end of the war Hizbullah guerillas have openly appeared without weapons or uniform," said Halutz. The chief of staff added that as far as the IDF was aware there were no meaningful attempts by the movement to smuggle arms into Lebanon from Syria since the end of the war. Halutz then declared that "if everything goes according to plan, there will be no IDF troops left in Lebanon by Rosh Hashana."
Meanwhile, earlier Tuesday, the report investigating the management of the Northern Command with regards to the capture of the two IDF soldiers on the northern border was published. The report, submitted to Halutz on Monday, highlighted serious failures and operational errors in the command. Furthermore, the report claimed that the IDF's intelligence on the intention of Hizbullah to kidnap soldiers was not up to date. The report also criticized the management of the pursuit immediately after the kidnapping.

IDF working on creating new war plans

2006-09-18T16:42:00.000+03:00

This is a very worrisome article as I am sure that Hizbullah is also energetically preparing for the next war. The fact that Israel is expecting Hizbullah to respond to attacks against Iran or Syria and that neo-cons are pushing Bush to bomb Iran makes the situation in this part of the world very volatile. We just came out of a devestating war, and yet they are already talking about the next one even before the multi-national force is set in place. Is this cease-fire a mirage and the quietness the silence before the storm?

Jerusalem Post
By YAAKOV KATZ

Amid growing discontent with UNIFIL and its commander, Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the defense establishment has been working on creating new operational plans for war with Hizbullah that take into consideration the existence of new players in southern Lebanon - the Lebanese army and the UN multinational force.
"Next time it will be much more complicated," a high-ranking officer in the Northern Command said Sunday.
The IDF would not be able to simply invade southern Lebanese villages like it did during the past war and would have to take into consideration that conflicts and clashes could evolve with the Lebanese army and troops from the multinational force, the officer said.
A source of IDF concern was the decision by the UN that Pellegrini would remain in his post and become the commander not only of the 2,000-strong UNIFIL force but of the new multinational force in Lebanon. Officers expressed skepticism regarding Pellegrini's ability to aggressively enforce the cease-fire and prevent Hizbullah from rearming itself and launching attacks against Israel.
"In the past, UNIFIL proved that it did not deal well with Hizbullah," one officer said. "If Pellegrini takes the same approach again it could endanger the cease-fire and create a conflict sooner than expected." Military Intelligence recently completed drafting its assessments for 2007 and predicted that Hizbullah, which it believed was currently interested in quiet so it could rebuild itself, would be ready within a year to again wage war against Israel. War with Hizbullah could break out earlier, officers said, if Iran or Syria were attacked by Israel or the United States.
"If that happens, Hizbullah will definitely need to respond," one officer said.
Hizbullah, MI further assumed, was also working on changing its military tactics and plans to abide by the UN resolution that forbids its fighters from carrying weapons openly along the border with Israel. "They will operate in the villages and their bunkers discreetly," the officer said.
Meanwhile on Sunday, the Northern Command received new orders from the General Staff Operations Directorate regarding the final withdrawal date of the remaining IDF troops still operating in Lebanon.
The soldiers, a Northern Command officer said, were currently deployed within two kilometers of the border with Israel and were mostly conducting patrols as well as laying ambushes to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel.
The Northern Command said it was prepared to withdraw troops from Lebanon within two days of receiving such orders from the General Staff. Last week, officers said, it appeared that the troops would be brought back to Israel by Rosh Hashana, which falls this weekend. But officers said Sunday, new orders were received over the weekend indicating that the diplomatic echelon was interested in delaying the withdrawal.
UNIFIL has already taken up 80 percent of the territory the IDF was in control of on August 14, the day the UN-brokered cease-fire went into effect, senior officers said. As of last week, some 5,000 multinational troops had arrived in Lebanon. UN Resolution 1701 discusses the deployment of up to 15,000 multinational troops alongside the Lebanese army, which has already fully deployed in southern Lebanon.
"We are waiting to see how the multinational force deploys itself in southern Lebanon," the Northern Command officer said. "It is possible that the IDF will need to remain in Lebanon until after Rosh Hashana and beyond."

UN Deployment

2006-09-18T10:57:00.000+03:00

This weekend French troops under the UN banner have begun heading towards south of Lebanon (as depicted in above picture taken on Saturday16th Sept.)
Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Salle said the troops will move first to Deir Kifa, east of the southern port of Tyre, before eventually relieving a Ghanaian contingent in Bint Jbeil. They will join hundreds of Italians, Spanish, Indians and Ghanaians and other French already deployed in the area.The battalion, which will be supported by around a dozen Leclerc tanks, will have two roles -- to control the area around Bint Jbeil and to act as a rapid-reaction force.
According to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), around two-thirds of the French troops will be based in Baraashit, in the hills above Bint Jbeil, which saw some of the heaviest fighting in the 34-day war that ended in a UN-brokered truce on August 14. At the headquarters of the 28-year-old UNIFIL, in the southwest coastal village of Naqoura, troops already settling in erected an 8-meter (25 foot) model of the Eiffel Tower -- a memory of home.
Many French troops said they feel welcomed, with all sides encouraging their presence. But they are well aware of the potential danger they face in working to keep the peace."We're ready for any eventuality, but of course it could inflame again at any time," said Lt. Eric Lemee, a Foreign Legion officer from Brittany in western France. "If we have to raise our level of alert, we'll do it."
The French will be deploying with haunting memories of the October 23, 1983 suicide bomb attacks on barracks in Beirut that killed 58 French peacekeepers and 241 American servicemen and led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. France initially hesitated to commit its troops in large numbers to Lebanon and said it would only send an additional 200 soldiers to reinforce its 200-strong contingent in the existing UNIFIL force.
But a week later under heavy international pressure, and after Italy put France to shame by announcing it would send 3,000 troops, Chirac did an about-face and said that 2,000 French troops would serve in Lebanon. Now, France is at the forefront of the foreign efforts to preserve a cease-fire that went into effect after 34 days of fighting between Hizbullah and Israel. Besides its ground forces, it has 1,700 naval personnel that are helping to patrol the waters off Lebanon's shores.
Chirac has pressed for tough rules of engagement for the enhanced U.N. force, and has scored political points at home, winning the backing of an array of political parties for the expansion of the French role. In an effort to deter any aggression, French forces have at their disposal Leclerc tanks, sophisticated Cobra radar systems and 155 mm artillery cannons. Nonetheless Chirac last week told Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero he was "a bit worried" that situation in Lebanon could deteriorate in the coming months. Israeli aircraft have repeatedly made over flights, while Hizbullah is believed to have hidden weapons. In Bint Jbeil, a Hizbullah stronghold where the French are to center their operations, the group's yellow banners proclaim "Our blood has won" in French and English. There are concerns about the risks of a terrorist attack on French forces. A top French anti-terrorism official, Christophe Chaboud, has said that his country's decision to participate in the U.N. force on such a scale "could be exploited from outside and used as a pretext" for reprisals.
In Lebanon, "anything can happen" in the aftermath of the conflict and "in particular concerning the especially difficult issue of Hizbullah's demilitarization," he said in an interview with French daily Liberation this week. An additional 170 French troops arrived on Saturday, and a second French battalion is to arrive in Lebanon in the coming weeks.

Arab MKs in Beirut and Damascus

2006-09-15T18:26:00.000+03:00

What are your thoughts on this following issue? Do the Arab MKs have the right to visit other Arab nations and if so (or not) why? Should Israel stop them from opening ties with Arab nations or use them to reach agreements with them? Is it right that there is a law with a 4-year sentence against such visits? Your thoughts on this are valuable.

Balad MKs praise Hizbullah resistance in Beirut visit

JPost

By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL

Three Arab Knesset members met with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora in Beirut on Friday, where they expressed their sympathy for the plight of the Lebanese during the war - as well as their support for Hizbullah.
Hizbullah's resistance to Israel has "lifted the spirit of the Arab people," Balad MKs Azmi Bishara, Jamal Zahalka and Wasal Taha told the prime minister.
The MKs' arrival in Lebanon on Thursday following a week-long trip to Syria has become one of the most controversial "solidarity missions" in the history of the Israeli legislature.
The three Balad MKs coordinated their visit with the speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, who is close to Hizbullah.
"Their visit is blatant treason... it is an act of espionage," said Israel Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who has already called for the three to be dismissed from the Knesset.
During their week in Syria, the lawmakers met with political and religious leaders, making headlines when they told Baath party officials that Israel was likely to attack Syria to recover its military deterrence.
Bishara expressed support for Syria's struggle to free "occupied Arab land" and praised Syrian support for "resistance to the occupation."
Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz has opened an investigation against the three for the visit to Syria. Police said Thursday that the investigation would be carried out by the International Serious Crimes Unit.
Knesset members are prohibited from traveling to enemy countries under a 2001 law that carries sanctions of up to four years in jail. That law was passed after Bishara visited to Syria but escaped legal action after it was determined that there was no law prohibiting his trip.
"We passed a law specifically against this type of thing five years ago, and that law was hand-written for Bishara," said one NU-NRP MK. "Now he has the gall to travel to Syria again? They [the Balad MKs] don't deserve to be in the Knesset."
The Balad legislators have responded to the outcry against them by saying in a statement that they were prepared to "face the consequences" of their visit.
"This trip is to express solidarity with the victims of the war," a Balad spokesman said. "It is our right, and the right of Arabs in Israel, to remain in contact with Arab nations."
In Syria, Zahalka met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who told the MK that Syria was committed to the 2002 Arab League peace initiative and that he would establish official ties with Israel only after Israel accepted the initiative.

Hizbullah's deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians

2006-09-14T14:50:00.000+03:00

Amnesty International Report
Hizbullah committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes, in its deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians during the recent conflict, according to a briefing published today by Amnesty International.
Combined with the organisation's earlier publication on Israel's targeting of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, the latest findings make clear the urgent need for the UN to establish a full and impartial investigation into violations committed by both sides in the conflict.During the month-long conflict, Hizbullah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 civilians, seriously injuring 33 others and forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to take refuge in shelters or flee. Around a quarter of all rockets were fired directly into urban areas, including rockets packed with thousands of metal ball bearings. In meetings with Amnesty International, Hizbullah argued that its rocket attacks on northern Israel were a reprisal for Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon and were aimed at stopping such attacks."The scale of Hizbullah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians, make it all too clear that Hizbullah violated the laws of war," said Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan."The fact that Israel has also committed serious violations in no way justifies violations by Hizbullah. Civilians must not be made to pay the price for unlawful conduct on either side."The briefing, Under fire - Hizbullah's attacks on northern Israel, is based on Amnesty International field research in Israel and Lebanon, interviews with victims, official statements, discussions with Israeli and Lebanese government officials and senior Hizbullah officials.Amnesty International's briefing includes evidence of:
Hizbullah's firing of some 900 inherently inaccurate Katyusha rockets into urban areas in northern Israel in clear violation of the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets under international law;
Hizbullah's use of modified Katyusha rockets packed with metal ball bearings, designed to inflict maximum death and injury; one such rocket killing eight railway workers;
Statements from Hasan Nasrallah and other senior Hizbullah leaders that the group intended to target civilians as a form of reprisal, violating the prohibition on direct attacks on civilians as well as the prohibition on reprisals against the civilian population;
The flight of civilians from northern Israel and the existence of shelters preventing a higher death toll than the 43 civilian fatalities recorded.
"In the conflict between Hizbullah and Israel, the suffering of civilians on both sides has been repeatedly ignored with those responsible escaping all accountability. Justice is urgently needed if respect for the rules of war is ever to be taken seriously -- and that means accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes and reparations for the victims," said Irene Khan.Amnesty International is calling for a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry to be urgently established by the UN into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. It should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population, and should be undertaken with a view to holding individuals responsible for crimes under international law and ensuring that full reparation is provided to the victims. Further aspects of the war, including charges that Hizbullah used Lebanese civilians as a cover and attacks by Israeli forces that resulted in heavy civilian casualties, will be addressed in future publications.

For a copy of the briefing, Under fire - Hizbullah's attacks on northern Israel, please see: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde020252006

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon

2006-09-13T11:44:00.000+03:00

This is another damning article regarding the controversial use of cluster bombs and phosphorous munitions by the IDF. Apparently over 1 million cluster bombs were fired towards Lebanon, with the majority being launched at the end of the war. It is such actions which make the IDF a reckless force despised by all Lebanese. Even the IDF head of the rocket unit believes such actions are "insane and monstrous".
In the meantime, the IDF is already working on collecting money and hiring lawyers since they are expecting a wave of war crime trials for actions commited in the war on Lebanon.

By Meron Rappaport
Haaretz
"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war. Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.
The rocket unit commander stated that Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) platforms were heavily used in spite of the fact that they were known to be highly inaccurate. MLRS is a track or tire carried mobile rocket launching platform, capable of firing a very high volume of mostly unguided munitions. The basic rocket fired by the platform is unguided and imprecise, with a range of about 32 kilometers. The rockets are designed to burst into sub-munitions at a planned altitude in order to blanket enemy army and personnel on the ground with smaller explosive rounds. The use of such weaponry is controversial mainly due to its inaccuracy and ability to wreak great havoc against indeterminate targets over large areas of territory, with a margin of error of as much as 1,200 meters from the intended target to the area hit.
The cluster rounds which don't detonate on impact, believed by the United Nations to be around 40% of those fired by the IDF in Lebanon, remain on the ground as unexploded munitions, effectively littering the landscape with thousands of land mines which will continue to claim victims long after the war has ended. Because of their high level of failure to detonate, it is believed that there are around 500,000 unexploded munitions on the ground in Lebanon. To date 12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by these mines since the end of the war.
According to the commander, in order to compensate for the inaccuracy of the rockets and the inability to strike individual targets precisely, units would "flood" the battlefield with munitions, accounting for the littered and explosive landscape of post-war Lebanon. When his reserve duty came to a close, the commander in question sent a letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz outlining the use of cluster munitions, a letter which has remained unanswered.
'Excessive injury and unnecessary suffering'It has come to light that IDF soldiers fired phosphorous rounds in order to cause fires in Lebanon. An artillery commander has admitted to seeing trucks loaded with phosphorous rounds on their way to artillery crews in the north of Israel. A direct hit from a phosphorous shell typically causes severe burns and a slow, painful death. International law forbids the use of weapons that cause "excessive injury and unnecessary suffering", and many experts are of the opinion that phosphorous rounds fall directly in that category.
The International Red Cross has determined that international law forbids the use of phosphorous and other types of flammable rounds against personnel, both civilian and military.

IDF: No violation of international law
In response, the IDF Spokesman's Office stated that "International law does not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs. The convention on conventional weaponry does not declare a prohibition on [phosphorous weapons], rather, on principles regulating the use of such weapons. "For understandable operational reasons, the IDF does not respond to [accounts of] details of weaponry in its possession. "The IDF makes use only of methods and weaponry which are permissible under international law. Artillery fire in general, including MLRS fire, were used in response solely to firing on the state of Israel."The Defense Minister's office said it had not received messages regarding cluster bomb fire.

'The Best Guerrilla Force in the World'

2006-09-13T01:09:00.000+03:00

This is a month old article which is still much worth the read as it gives interesting insight into what makes Hizbollah such a strong force. Maybe there can be one or two things that can be learned from this.

Analysts Attribute Hezbollah's Resilience to Zeal, Secrecy and Iranian Funding

By Edward Cody and Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 14, 2006
BEIRUT, Aug. 14 -- Hezbollah's irregular fighters stood off the modern Israeli army for a month in the hills of southern Lebanon thanks to extraordinary zeal and secrecy, rigorous training, tight controls over the population, and a steady flow of Iranian money to acquire effective weaponry, according to informed assessments in Lebanon and Israel.
"They are the best guerrilla force in the world," said a Lebanese specialist who has sifted through intelligence on Hezbollah for more than two decades and strongly opposes the Because Hezbollah was entrenched in friendly Shiite-inhabited villages and underground bunkers constructed in secret over several years, a withering Israeli air campaign and a tank-led ground assault were unable to establish full control over a border strip and sweep it clear of Hezbollah guerrillas -- one of Israel's main declared war aims. Largely as a result, the U.N. Security Council resolution approved unanimously Friday night fell short of the original objectives laid out by Israel and the Bush administration when the conflict began July 12.
As the declared U.N. cease-fire went into effect Monday morning, many Lebanese -- particularly among the Shiites who make up an estimated 40 percent of the population -- had already assessed Hezbollah's endurance as a military success despite the devastation wrought across Lebanon by Israeli bombing.
Hezbollah's staying power on the battlefield came from a classic fish-in-the-sea advantage enjoyed by guerrillas on their home ground, hiding in their own villages and aided by their relatives. Hasan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, summed up the guerrilla strategy in a televised address during the conflict when he said, "We are not a regular army and we will not fight like a regular army."
The group's battlefield resilience also came from an unusual combination of zeal and disciplined military science, said the Lebanese specialist with access to intelligence information, who spoke on condition he not be identified by name.
The fighters' Islamic faith and intense indoctrination reduced their fear of death, he noted, giving them an advantage in close-quarters combat and in braving airstrikes to move munitions from post to post. Hezbollah leaders also enhanced fighters' willingness to risk death by establishing the Martyr's Institute, with an office in Tehran, that guarantees living stipends and education fees for the families of fighters who die on the front.
"If you are waiting for a white flag coming out of the Hezbollah bunker, I can assure you it won't come," Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, a member of the Israeli army's general staff, said in a briefing for reporters in the northern Israeli village of Gosherim. "They are extremists, they will go all the way."
Moreover, Hezbollah's military leadership carefully studied military history, including the Vietnam War, the Lebanese expert said, and set up a training program with help from Iranian intelligence and military officers with years of experience in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The training was matched to weapons that proved effective against Israeli tanks, he added, including the Merkava main battle tank with advanced armor plating.
Wire-guided and laser-guided antitank missiles were the most effective and deadly Hezbollah weapons, according to Israeli military officers and soldiers. A review of Israel Defense Forces records showed that the majority of Israeli combat deaths resulted from missile hits on armored vehicles -- or on buildings where Israeli soldiers set up observation posts or conducted searches.
Most of the antitank missiles, Israeli officers noted, could be dragged out of caches and quickly fired with two- or three-man launching teams at distances of 3,200 yards or more from their targets. One of the most effective was the Russian-designed Sagger 2, a wire-guided missile with a range of 550 to 3,200 yards.
In one hidden bunker, Israeli soldiers discovered night-vision camera equipment connected to computers that fed coordinates of targets to the Sagger 2 missile, according to Israeli military officials who described the details from photographs they said soldiers took inside the bunker.
Some antitank missiles also can be used to attack helicopters, which has limited the military's use of choppers in rescues and other operations. On Saturday, Hezbollah shot down a CH-53 Sikorsky helicopter in Lebanon, killing all five crew members, according to the Israeli military. As of late Sunday, Israeli troops still had been unable to retrieve the bodies because of fierce fighting in the area of the crash.
The Hezbollah arsenal, which also included thousands of missiles and rockets to be fired against northern Israel's towns and villages, was paid for with a war chest kept full by relentless fundraising among Shiites around the world and, in particular, by funds provided by Iran, said the intelligence specialist. The amount of Iranian funds reaching Hezbollah was estimated at $25 million a month, but some reports suggested it increased sharply, perhaps doubled, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over as president in Tehran last year, the specialist said.
Fawaz Trabulsi, a Lebanese professor who helped lead Palestinian-allied militia forces against the Israeli army in 1982, noted that Hezbollah's fight has differed in several respects from that mounted by the Palestine Liberation Organization during the 1980s. In that war, Israeli forces punched straight northward and reached Beirut in a few days with only minor resistance, he recalled, saying Israeli officers seemed to think they could duplicate that performance against Hezbollah.
One reason for the sharp difference is that Israeli intelligence had much less detail on Hezbollah forces, tactics and equipment than it had on the PLO, which was infiltrated by a network of spies, said Trabulsi, now a political science professor at Lebanese American University. "Hezbollah is not penetrated at all," he said.
Nehushtan, the Israeli general, said the Israeli military had enough information to appreciate the fighting ability and weaponry of Hezbollah as the conflict opened. In addition, Israeli warplanes have hit pinpoint targets throughout the fighting, presumably on the basis of real-time intelligence reaching the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv through drones and other surveillance equipment. Other observers, however, said the sweep of fighting over the last month -- when Israel on several occasions said it controlled the terrain, only to continue fighting in the same border villages -- suggested intelligence had not provided an adequate appreciation of the battlefield.
"I think it's no secret that the Israeli military didn't have the intelligence on this," said Richard Straus, who publishes the Middle East Policy Survey newsletter in Washington. "They didn't know what Hezbollah had, how it had built up, what it was capable of."
Another difference that gave Hezbollah fighters an edge is the experience they acquired in combating Israeli troops during the nearly two decades of Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon that ended in 2000. In contrast, Palestinian guerrillas had gained most of their experience fighting Lebanese militias in the civil war here -- using nothing more than assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades -- and were unprepared and unequipped to resist the advance of Israel's modern army.
"The difference is in training, the difference is in weapons, but the big difference is that most of the Palestinians had never engaged in fighting Israel," Trabulsi said. "They were used to fighting a civil war in Lebanon."
Hezbollah's resistance to penetration by Israeli intelligence was part of a culture of secrecy extreme even by the standards of underground guerrilla forces. The code fit with a tendency toward secrecy in the Shiite stream of Islam, called faqih . It also fit with a sense of solidarity against others that Lebanese Shiites have been imbued with since the beginning of their emergence as a political force in the mid-1970s, when their first organization was called the Movement of the Deprived.
One young Lebanese doctor learned that her brother had been a Hezbollah fighter for several years only when the movement notified her he had been killed, colleagues said. Similarly, a Lebanese man found out his brother was a senior Hezbollah militia officer only when informed of his death; the brother had cloaked occasional trips to Tehran by saying he was trying to start an import-export business.
Reporters who over the last month went to the bombed-out sections of southern Beirut suburbs where Hezbollah had its headquarters were approached within minutes by young men asking who they were and what they were doing there. Interviews with the people living there, most of whom were ardent Hezbollah supporters, were not allowed, the young men said. Around the battlefields of south Lebanon, however, the militia was busy fighting Israeli troops and hiding from airstrikes.
Reporters were free to move as much as they dared, since they, too, feared being hit by Israeli jets.
Even the movement's political leadership was kept in the dark about many military and intelligence activities, Trabulsi noted. Ghaleb Abu-Zeinab, a member of Hezbollah's political bureau, said in an interview, for instance, that he was not informed about operations on "the field," Hezbollah shorthand for the villages and hillsides across southern Lebanon where the battle raged.
"They have a military and intelligence organization totally separated from the political organization," Trabulsi said.
A dramatic example of the secrecy and careful preparations for conflict with Israel was Hezbollah's al-Manar television. The station has kept broadcasting its mix of news and propaganda from hidden studios throughout the fighting, despite repeated Israeli airstrikes against relay towers and antennas across the country. Lebanese said some of the broadcasts seemed to include coded messages to Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon. But as with most things about Hezbollah, they were not really sure.
Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, used al-Manar to make a number of speeches rallying his followers and explaining his strategy. With his cleric's turban and student's mien, appearing on the screen in pre-taped broadcasts, he was perhaps the biggest secret of all, hunted by Israeli warplanes and hiding in a location about which Lebanese could only guess.

Anti-Tank Missiles

2006-09-12T00:59:00.000+03:00

(The Russian-made, Syrian-supplied Kornet missile)

By Andrew McGregor
As the world waits to see if the UN-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon holds, the Israeli army will begin assessing its disappointing performance against Hezbollah guerrillas. Among the many aspects to be investigated is the vulnerability of Israel's powerful armored corps to small, hand-held, wire-guided anti-tank weapons. Indeed, Hezbollah's innovative use of anti-tank missiles was the cause of most Israeli casualties and has given the small but powerful weapons a new importance in battlefield tactics.
In a recent statement, Hezbollah's armed wing, al-Moqawama al-Islamia (Islamic Resistance), described Israel's main battle-tank as "a toy for the rockets of the resistance" (al-Manar TV, August 11). Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons consist of a variety of wire-guided missiles (usually of Russian design and manufactured and/or supplied by Iran and Syria) and rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs). The missiles include the European-made Milan, the Russian-designed Metis-M, Sagger AT-3, Spigot AT-4 and the Russian-made Kornet AT-14. The latter is a Syrian supplied missile capable of targeting low-flying helicopters. Iraqi Fedayeen irregulars used the Kornet against U.S. forces in 2003. The most portable versions of these weapons are carried in a fiberglass case with a launching rail attached to the lid.
On July 30, the Israeli army published photos of various anti-tank missiles they claim to have found in a Hezbollah bunker (see: http://www.hnn.co.il/index.php?modul...sk=view;id=967). The weapons include Saggers and TOW missiles. The TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) missile is a formidable weapon first produced by the United States in the 1970s. These missiles were of interest as their packing crates were marked 2001, suggesting that these were relatively new additions to Hezbollah's arsenal and not part of the shipment of TOW missiles from Israel to Iran that was part of the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 (the shelf-life of the TOW is roughly 20 years).
On August 6, Israeli Major-General Benny Gantz showed film of BGM-71 TOW and Sagger AT-3 missiles he reported were captured at one of Hezbollah's field headquarters (Haaretz, August 6). The primary target of Hezbollah's battlefield missiles is the Israeli-made Merkava tank. The Merkava was designed for the maximum protection of its crews, with heavy armor and a rear escape hatch. The emphasis on crew survival is not simply a humanitarian gesture; the small country of Israel cannot provide an endless number of trained, combat-ready tank crews if casualties begin to mount. The tank is also designed to be easily and quickly repaired, a specialty of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The modular armor plating can be easily replaced if damaged, or replaced entirely with upgraded materials when available.
The first generation of Merkavas was built in the 1970s and was soon deployed in Lebanon in 1982. The much-improved Merkava Mk 4 has been Israel's main battle-tank since its introduction in 2004. Current battlefield reports suggest that Hezbollah fighters are well-trained in aiming at the Merkava's most vulnerable points, resulting in as many as one-quarter of their missiles successfully piercing the armor (Yediot Aharonot, August 10). Hezbollah attacks on Merkava tanks during the November 2005 raid on the border town of Ghajar were videotaped and closely examined to find points where the armor was susceptible to missile attack. While some of their missiles have impressive ranges (up to three kilometers), the guerrillas prefer to fire from close range to maximize their chances of hitting weak points on the Merkava. Operating in two- or three-man teams, the insurgents typically try to gain the high ground in the hilly terrain before selecting targets, using well-concealed missile stockpiles that allow them to operate behind Israeli lines (Jerusalem Post, August 3).
Without artillery, Hezbollah has adapted its use of anti-tank missiles for mobile fire support against Israeli troops taking cover in buildings. There are numerous reports of such use, the most devastating being on August 9, when an anti-tank missile collapsed an entire building, claiming the lives of nine Israeli reservists (Y-net, August 10). Four soldiers from Israel's Egoz (an elite reconnaissance unit) were killed in a Bint Jbail house when it was struck by a Sagger missile (Haaretz, August 6). TOW missiles were used effectively in 2000 against IDF outposts in south Lebanon before the Israeli withdrawal. There are also recent instances of anti-tank weapons being used against Israeli infantry in the field, a costly means of warfare but one that meets two important Hezbollah criteria: the creation of Israeli casualties and the preservation of highly-outnumbered Hezbollah guerrillas who can fire the weapons from a relatively safe distance.
It was suggested that the IDF helicopter brought down by Hezbollah fire on August 12 was hit by an anti-tank missile. Hezbollah claimed to have used a new missile called the Wa'ad (Promise), although the organization occasionally renames existing missiles (Jerusalem Post, August 12). At least one of Israel's ubiquitous armored bulldozers has also fallen prey to Hezbollah's missiles. The Syrian-made RPG-29 was previously used with some success against Israeli tanks in Gaza. Hezbollah also uses this weapon, with a dual-warhead that allows it to penetrate armor. On August 6, the Israeli press reported that IDF intelligence sources claimed that an improved Russian-made version of the RPG-29 was being sold to Syria before transfer to the Islamic Resistance (Haaretz, August 6). In response, Russia's Foreign Ministry denied any involvement in supplying anti-tank weapons to Hezbollah (RIA Novosti, August 10).
The IDF reports that anti-tank missiles and rockets continue to cross the border into Lebanon from Syria, despite the destruction of roads and bridges in the area (Haaretz, August 13).The Merkava tank has assumed an important role as a symbol of Israeli military might. Their destruction in combat has an important symbolic value for Hezbollah. Hezbollah's tactical innovations and reliance on anti-tank missiles over more traditional infantry weapons will undoubtedly prompt serious introspection on the part of the IDF in anticipation of renewed conflict along the border.

For Lebanon or Iran?

2006-09-11T18:43:00.000+03:00

This is a detailed story written by Debka Files on the military build-up in Lebanon and its territorial waters. According to this source, the build-up is more in relation with the upcoming confrontation with Iran and the USA rather than the creation of a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. If the details in this article are exact and that Europe is mobilizing its most impressive force since WWII, then I would tend to believe the story of a Europe attempting to contain a possible war with Iran.

“Lebanese Security” Is the Pretext for the Naval Babel around Lebanon’s Shores

DEBKAfile
Exclusive Military Report
September 4, 2006, 11:37 AM (GMT+02:00)
The extraordinary buildup of European naval and military strength in and around Lebanon’s shores is way out of proportion for the task the European contingents of expanded UNIFIL have undertaken: to create a buffer between Israel and Hizballah. Close investigation by DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources discloses that “Lebanese security” and peacemaking is not the object of the exercise.
It is linked to the general anticipation of a military clash between the United States and Israel, on one side, and Iran and possibly Syria on the other, some time from now until November This expectation has brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe has ever assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15 warships of various types – 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Green, 3-5 German, and five American; thousands of Marines – French, Italian and German, as well as 1,800 US Marines. It is improbably billed as support for a mere 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hizballah militiamen from coming to blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs.
A Western military expert remarked to DEBKAfile that the European naval forces cruising off Lebanese shores are roughly ten times as much as the UNIFIL contingents require as cover, especially when UNIFIL’s duties are strictly non-combat. After all, none of the UN contingents will be engaged in disarming Hizballah or blocking the flow of weapons incoming from Syria and Iran.
So, if not for Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for? First, according to our military sources, the European participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-US-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hizballah from opening a second front against American and Israel from their eastern Mediterranean coasts. Numbers alone do not do justice to the immense operational capabilities and firepower amassed opposite Lebanon. Take first the three fleet flagships. From France’s nuclear-powered 38,000-ton Charles De Gaulle carrier, 40 Rafale M fighter craft whose range is 3,340 km can take off at intervals of 30 seconds. The ship also carries three E-2C Hawkeye surveillance craft. The combat control center of the French carrier can handle 2,000 simultaneous targets. The carrier leads a task fore of 7 warships carrying 2,800 French Marines. Charles De Gaulle s also a floating logistics center operating water desalination plants for 15,000 men and enough food to feed an army for 90 days. The USS Mount Whitney has the most sophisticated command and control suite in the world. Like the French Charles De Gaulle , it exercises command over a task force of 1,800 sailors, Marines, Air force medical and other personnel serving aboard the USS Barry, the USS Trenton , HSV Swift and USNS Kanawha.
Available to the fleet commander, US Vice Admiral J. “Boomer” Stufflebeem, formally titled commander of Joint Task Force Lebanon, is the uniquely advanced C41 command and intelligence system through which he can flash intelligence data to every American commander at any point between the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf and Iran. USS Mount Whitney communications are described as unsurpassed for the the secure transmission of data from any point to any other point in the world through HF, UHF,VHF, SHF and EHF.
The third carrier joining the other two is the Italian aircraft-helicopter carrier Garibaldi , which has launch pads for vertical takeoff by 16 AV-8B Harrier fighter-bombers or 18 Sikorsky SH-3D Seak King sea-choppers (or Italian Agusta Bell AB212 helicopters), designed to attack submarines and missile ships. Military experts estimate that the Garibaldi currently carries 10 fighter planes and 6 helicopters.
The new European naval concentration tops up the forces which permanently crowd the eastern Mediterranean: the Italian-based American Sixth Fleet, some 15 small Israeli missile ships and half a dozen submarines and the NATO fleet of Canadian, British, Dutch, German, Spanish, Greek and Turkish warships. They are on patrol against al Qaeda (which is estimated to deploy 45 small freighters in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean). The British have permanent air and sea bases in Cyprus. This vast force’s main weakness, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources, is that it lacks a single unified command. A sudden flare-up in Lebanon, Syria or Iran could throw the entire force into confusion.
On paper, it has three commanders:
1. French General Alain Pellegrini is the commander of the expanded UNIFIL ground, naval and air force in Lebanon. In February 2007, he hands over to an Italian general who leads the largest of the European contingents of 3,000 men. It is hard to see France agreeing to place its prestigious Charles De Gaulle flagship under non-French command.
2. The American forces opposite Lebanese shores are under direct US command. Since the October 1993 debacle of an American peace force under the UN flag in Somalia, Washington has never again placed its military under UN command. (There is no American contingent in the UNIFIL ground force either.) In other words, USS Mount Whitney , while serving the European fleets as their operational and intelligence nerve center will stay under the sole command of Vice Admiral Stufflebeem in all possible contingencies.
3. Similarly, the NATO fleet will remain under NATO command, and Israel’s air and naval units will take their orders from Israeli Navy Headquarters in Haifa and the General Staff in Tel Aviv.
The naval Babel piling up in the eastern Mediterranean may therefore find itself at cross purposes when action is needed in an armed conflict. Iran, Syria and Hizballah could be counting on this weakness as a tactical asset in their favor.

People Behind Bars

2006-09-11T09:32:00.000+03:00

(A video of Ron Arad aired during a special documentary on the Lebanese Broadcasting Channel)

Free them, now
By Gideon Levy
Haaretz

If I were, heaven forbid, the father of a soldier who had been abducted to Lebanon or Gaza, I would bitterly raise my voice as loud as possible and tell the government: Free prisoners, now. The parents of the abducted soldiers have so far refrained from making such a public demand. Instead, they have focused their protests against lifting the siege of Lebanon. Only this weekend did they finally issue a call for negotiations with Hezbollah. In their pain, they cannot be judged, but they can be told the following: Neither war nor sieges will free your children. The only way to free them is to free many Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Does Noam Shalit, father of Gilad, think the bombing of bridges and the power station in Gaza advanced the release of his son in any way, or does he know it caused only more suffering and hatred? Does Shlomo Goldwasser, father of Udi, believe the destruction and siege of Lebanon will bring about the release of his son? The tens of thousands of demonstrators who gathered in Rabin Square a few days ago should also be asked: What exactly do you want? To sound off emotionally but uselessly, or to bring about the release of the boys? They, too, should have made the resolute demand for the release of prisoners. Israel must decide which way it is going. Either it announces it will not conduct negotiations for the release of prisoners, as the prime minister did with much bravado when the war broke out, and then every soldier and Hebrew mother will know that if, heaven forbid, a soldier falls into captivity, the state will abandon him to their sighs; or they'll know the state will do everything to get an abducted soldier back. "Everything" means paying a price. There is no other way.

The Ron Arad affair should have taught us another important lesson: Move quickly. Those who don't want another faded film in another 20 years should act immediately. What can be achieved now might not be possible in another few months. The Lebanese movie about the abductees broadcast last week held a mirror up to Israeli society. Suddenly it was possible to see that there are anxious and loving parents on both sides of the border. Not only in Israel do the families weep, but also in Lebanon and the occupied territories, and with the same terrible pain. There are abductees from both sides. We and they both use the same methods to try to free the boys. Hezbollah and Hamas abducted Israeli soldiers, Israel abducted Lebanese civilians. Hassan Nasrallah said in the movie that kidnapping the soldiers at Har Dov was the only way left to him to bring about the return of the abducted Lebanese. What other route did he have? Israel abducted, Hezbollah abducted, both hid information about the fate of the abductees. The vicious cycle must be broken.

Israel also cannot announce it won't negotiate and at the same time abduct 15 Lebanese civilians or half a Palestinian government and a quarter of its parliament. If it won't negotiate, why does it conduct abductions? And if Israel will negotiate, why not frankly say so and conduct negotiations quickly and with flexibility? If the Lebanese civilians were not abducted to serve as bargaining cards, which anyway did not work, maybe soldiers Omar Suwad, Adi Avitan and Benny Avraham wouldn't have been abducted. And if Samir Kuntar had been released from prison in an earlier deal, after 27 years in an Israeli prison, maybe Hezbollah would not have kidnapped Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. These questions must be answered honestly and courageously, instead of with bravado and bragging.

The issue of the security prisoners is not supposed to come up only in the context of freeing the abducted soldiers. Israel has long had an interest in freeing them. More than 9,000 Palestinians are in Israeli jails nowadays; it is a nightmarish number. Anyone who knows the Shin Bet security service and the military justice system can safely assume a significant proportion of them are imprisoned for no reason. Israeli society doesn't even ask why so many are jailed. Some 750 of them have been held in prison without trial for months and years as administrative detainees, a scandal unto itself. The number of minors is also nightmarish: some 300 boys and youths, about half of whom have never been put on trial. A democratic society cannot exist if it denies freedom to so many prisoners, whose main fault was that they fought the occupation with the means used to fight occupations everywhere, including by us in the past. In the eyes of many in the world, at least some of them are rightly considered political prisoners. What are the imprisoned Palestinian parliamentarians if not political prisoners? But this is not only a matter of values. It is also a matter of interests. A prisoner release could provide a breath of fresh air.

There is hardly a family in the territories that has not had one of its sons in prison, and it is difficult to describe how such a battered society would respond to such an Israeli gesture. It would not be considered weakness, but the generosity of the occupiers. Does anyone understand what kind of dizzying political change could develop from the release of Marwan Barghouti, for example? There is no step that could change the atmosphere as quickly as the release of prisoners. Therefore, it is time to demand the government free many prisoners, as part of the negotiations and even as a unilateral gesture. Our sons will return home, their sons will return home, and if we show some generosity, maybe we can turn over a new leaf and raise some hope in this land.

Bush's dirty secret

2006-09-09T04:14:00.000+03:00

Reading a selection of stories from British papers yesterday dealing with Middle East issues provided a clear sense for me - if it wasn't obvious already - that we are in deep, deep trouble in the world, and Lebanon has been merely a small part of the American obsession with the war on terror. It is deeply depressing. Especially for the Palestinians who must look around the world and go mad that no one responds to the absolutely despicable, abhorrent and murderous war of attrition Israel is waging on them and has been for since 1948.

As the world's attention has been focused on Lebanon and Iraq, Gaza has become like a "jail". Gaza is a densely populated area with an estimated 1.5 million people. Israel's brutal siege of Gaza has left many dead and the rest of the Palestinians feeling hopeless and barely able to survive. (The Independent)

Much to the anger of many Israelis, Israel lifted its air and sea blockade of Lebanon yesterday. The family of the two kidnapped soldiers have said this may hinder the process of finding the soldiers. (The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Financial Times)

As the anniversary of September 11th comes up, another tape of Osama Bin Laden has been released showing him meeting some of the September 11th attackers. (The Telegraph, Financial Times, The Independent)

The EU demands Washington reveals the sites of the alleged CIA "secret prisons" where Bush admitted that many "terror suspects" are being held in what have been described as "foreign jails". (The Telegraph)

It is this last issue - that of Bush's secret prisons - that is also particularly worrying. How this man who has lied so blatantly can remain president is beyond words. That he has no credibility left with any thinking people is certain, if he ever did. Below is yesterday's Guardian leader on the subject which among other things points out that dedicated journalists, human rights activists and lawyers deserve praise for not giving up on investigating this story until the truth came out. It is such journalists and others who are the protectors of the American people's liberty - not President Bush nor the Republican party.

CIA prisons
Bush's dirty secret

Leader
Friday September 8, 2006
The Guardian

Not many people will have been taken aback by George Bush's admission that the CIA has been secretly holding suspected terrorists at "black sites" across the world. Nor will many feel that it represents a fundamental change of heart about the morality, legality and political wisdom of aspects of the US "war on terror." The methods used in these facilities, were "tough but lawful", the president asserted, even as the Pentagon was announcing that methods such as hooding, electric shocks and "waterboarding" - torture by any definition - are to be outlawed in future. And these prisons, reported to be in Romania and Poland as well as Arab allies such as Morocco and Egypt, have not been closed. It would now be useful to know, as Euro MPs insisted yesterday, just who has been telling lies about this and the related issue of extraordinary renditions.

Mr Bush's sudden, if partial, candour is born of the need to persuade Congress, in the few weeks left before November's mid-term elections, to back his plan for military commissions to try prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, though some of what he wants was ruled illegal by the US supreme court in June. There is also an obvious advantage for him, days before the fifth anniversary of the September 2001 attacks, in telling the American public that 14 "high-value" terrorist suspects are now likely to be facing justice in US custody in the legal twilight zone of Gitmo. These include the alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Indonesian Hambali, the Jemaah Islamiyah operative linked to the Bali bombings. But Democrats and some Republican senators, including John McCain, have made clear they will not approve a military commission system which allows convictions based on secret evidence - ostensibly needed to protect intelligence sources - or evidence obtained as the result of prisoner abuse. The likely demand for the death penalty in some trials is likely to be a contentious issue at home and abroad.
Still, this is a welcome shift. While the Gitmo detainees are classified as enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war, new guidelines do afford them protection under the Geneva conventions and will mean access for the International Red Cross: that will go some way to restoring a sense of the legality that has been one of the principal victims of these last five years. Credit is due to those who have campaigned on this for so long: human rights activists, lawyers - and journalists whose tenacity helped ensure that this murky, important but unfinished story did not just fade away.

What Lies Beneath

2006-09-08T15:47:00.000+03:00

The following is a damning article written in the Haaretz criticizing the way in which the IDF used cluster bombs over Lebanon and how it fired indiscriminately into south Lebanon. The writer even got very interesting feedback from reservists who refused to be named in fear of being criticized by the army. This is a must read article.

By Meron Rapoport
Haaretz
S. is a reservist in an artillery battalion, and he is not at ease with what he did during the second Lebanon war. He fired shells, sometimes at a rate of one per minute. He and his fellow soldiers fired 200 shells one night and on other nights, "only" 50 or 80. S. doesn't know what damage was done by the shells he fired. He didn't see where they fell. He doesn't even know exactly where they were aimed. Artillery gunners like him only receive coordinates, numbers, not names of villages. Even those commanding the team or the battery don't know exactly what they're firing at.
"Tell me, how do the villages there look? Are they all destroyed?" S. asked me after I told him that I was in contact with UN personnel who were patrolling the villages. What really made something inside S. snap was when his battalion was given an entire village as a target one night. He thinks it was Taibeh, a village in what is called the eastern sector, but he's not sure. The battalion commander assembled the men and told them that the whole village had been divided into parts and that each team was supposed to "flood" its alloted space - without specific targets, simply to bombard the village. "I told myself that the people left in that village must be the weaker ones, like in Haifa," says S. "I felt that we were acting like Hezbollah. Taking houses and turning them into targets. That's terror. My soul is important to me. When I hug my girlfriend, I want to feel good about myself. And I don't feel good about what I did in the war. I felt like I really should have tossed my weapon and run away." According to the UN, S. has good reason not to feel at peace with himself. One reservist artillery officer estimated that the Israel Defense Forces fired about 160,000 shells during the recent war. By comparison, in the Yom Kippur War, the IDF fired less than 100,000 shells. Moreover, in addition to the tens of thousands of regular shells, Israel fired several hundred cluster rockets and cluster bombs. These kinds of munition break apart in the air as they approach the ground, and spray dozens or hundreds of bomblets, each about the size of a large battery, within a radius of up to 100 meters. Most of these bomblets explode when they reach the ground, but a significant portion do not, and effectively become something like land mines.
UN personnel who have been patrolling in south Lebanon in recent days say that a good part of the villages and towns there have been turned into large mine fields. As of this past Wednesday, UN mine-sweepers in southern Lebanon had identified 450 sites where cluster shells had fallen, and that's only in settled areas. In open areas, in fields, say the UN people, there are many more such sites. Each of these sites may contain hundreds or even thousands of small unexploded bombs. The UN estimates that about 100,000 of these little mines are now scattered about that part of Lebanon. Since the cease-fire, 12 Lebanese civilians, including two children, have been killed by the explosion of these "duds" and 78 people (22 of them children) have been wounded, some losing limbs in the process.
Bombs all overIn Tibnin, a town in the central part of southern Lebanon, a cluster bomb landed opposite the main entrance to the hospital. A member of the UN's mine-sweeping team told Human Rights Watch that in just 10 minutes, he had counted 100 unexploded bomblets; after that he just didn't bother. David Shearer, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon, toured the Tibnin area on Wednesday. "I saw these kinds of bombs on houses, inside houses and next to houses," he says. "I saw them clear 16 or 17 away from a school soccer field. I saw them on the road and in orchards next to the road, caught in the trees." Since the cease-fire, he adds, nearly every day a death is reported, and three or four people are wounded, as a result of someone stepping on parts of a cluster bomb.
International law expert Dr. Yuval Shani of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem explains that there are international conventions that prohibit the use of chemical or biological weapons, of dumdum bullets and other types of weaponry, but that cluster bombs are not expressly prohibited. However, says Shani, Section 57 of the first protocol of the Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, prohibits the use of "indiscriminate" weapons, a definition that fits the cluster bombs. "Cluster weapons cannot be used in a place where there are liable to be civilians," says Shani. The only justification for using such bombs in an area where there are civilians is in cases when they are the only type of arms by means of which the desired military result may be achieved. "It's hard to believe," he continues, "that in the hundreds of instances discovered in Lebanon, cluster bombs were the only possible weapon." The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which filed a request this week for Attorney General Menahem Mazuz to investigate the matter, puts it more forcefully: "The dropping of cluster bombs in built-up areas, in complete disregard for the danger they pose to the lives of innocent civilians, seems to meet the basic mental requirement for committing a crime that involves deliberate killing or deliberate harming of civilians," says the petition, sent by attorney Sonia Boulos on behalf of the association.
S. did not fire cluster bombs, but he heard over the radio orders being given to use them. He also met a friend from another battalion who excitedly told him that he had fired such bombs. The friend's excitement is understandable given that these weapons are not customarily used in IDF operations and are a rarity even in training exercises. Says one reservist officer: "Cluster bombs are only used in training in one firing range in the south of Israel, and this area is treated as if it's a mine field." Y., a reservist in the same battalion, fired at least 15 cluster shells. "It was in the last days of the war," he says. "They gave us orders to fire them. They didn't tell us where we were firing - if it was at a village or at open terrain. We fired until the forces that requested the shelling asked us to stop."
Another peculiarity involves the type of shells that were used. The 155-mm. artillery batteries use two types: American-made shells, known in the IDF by the acronym matzrash, and Israeli-made shells, called tze'if. Y. learned that with the Israeli cluster shells, the percentage of duds - i.e., of bombs that essentially became land mines - was lower than that of the American-made ones, and yet they fired only the latter kind. But the major portion of the damage wasn't done, apparently, by the 155-mm. guns that S. and Y. fired, rather, apparently, by the new MRLS rocket launchers that the IDF used in operations for the first time in the second Lebanon war. In the late 1990s, the IDF purchased 48 of these launchers from the United States. Each one holds 12 rockets, which act essentially like large cluster bombs. According to the official specifications, each such rocket contains no fewer than 644 tiny bomblets that are supposed to disperse in a 100-meter radius above the target. "Like a soccer field full of bombs," is how one artillery reservist described it.
Y. says that his battalion commander said that when the IDF Apache helicopter came down near Ramot Naftali, killing its two pilots, one suspicion was that it had been hit by such a rocket that had been fired in the area at the time. It was later determined that this was likely not the cause, but the discussion of such a possibility basically amounted to an official admission that such rockets were indeed being used against southern Lebanon. How many exactly? It's hard to know. The UN people have no precise data on the breakdown of unexploded ordnance from MRLS rockets, or American or Israeli cluster shells.
Shearer says it's clear that most use of the cluster weapons was made in the final 72 hours of the war. "In the beginning of the war, too, there were reports on the use of cluster bombs," he says. "But only a few. In the three last days, a tremendous amount of them were fired. It's also hard to know where they were aimed. The dispersion of the bombs is so wide that even if the original target were outside a populated area, many bombs fell amid the houses."
Y. and S. confirm this appraisal of events. "In the last 72 hours we fired all the munitions we had, all at the same spot," says Y. "We didn't even alter the direction of the gun. Friends of mine in the battalion told me they also fired everything in the last three days - ordinary shells, clusters, whatever they had."

To read the rest of the article please click here

Busting the Blockade

2006-09-08T10:55:00.000+03:00

(One of MEA's six Airbus A320 planes descending towards Beirut Rafik Hariri International Airport)

Yesterday Israel lifted its eight week long air blockade on Lebanon which had paralyzed the country's sole international airport and forced thousands to travel in and out of the country via Amman or Damascus. However, the Israeli navy is continuing to enforce the sea blockade even though it had stated earlier that it will halt the entire embargo on Lebanon. Israeli officials declared that the sea blockade will only be removed when an international naval force is in place. Lebanon, which had expected Israel to end the air and sea blockades simultaneously, was told by the UN there was a "small technical problem".
The blockade, which has been costing Lebanon’s economy some $50 million a day, is expected to be removed in the next 48 hours at most – as soon as the UN finalizes working out logistical issues about patrolling Lebanon’s 250km shoreline.
I have to admit that I feel sorow for the Palestinian people who continuously have to suffer from lack of freedom in the world’s largest prison. After living through an 8-week embargo (and counting), I can come to say that there is nothing better than being free. And no, we will not allow Iranians to rule our country as much as we won’t allow Israelis to impose their will on us.

47 to 1

2006-09-07T09:35:00.000+03:00

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 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!

This was an extract from an article written by James Petras in Arab News on 5th Sept. 2006

Watching this war

2006-09-06T12:04:00.000+03:00

This is from Al Jazeera's website:

When assumption trumps objectivity
by Habib Battah

After four weeks of devastating Israeli air raids across Lebanon, American news network NBC began its Nightly News bulletin with its anchorman, Brian Williams, asking: "Does the US really have any influence in this war?"
Hours earlier on sister network MSNBC, anchorwoman Chris Jansing seemed to be at a similar loss. "Can anything be done to stop the violence?" she asked.

But to an American audience, the thought of a Syrian or Iranian news anchor posing the same questions would be fit for a comedy skit.

After all, the Syrians and Iranians wield an obvious "influence" over the course of the conflict according to the NBC channels, which like CNN, Sky and many other Western new organisations reported relentlessly on claims that Hezbollah’s rocket imports were made possible through the help of its two "rogue" allies.

But where was the parallel analysis of multi-billion dollar weapons shipments bound for Israel from the United States? Most Western broadcasters reported religiously on the number of rockets fired at Israel each day of the month-long conflict, often comparing fresh figures with those of previous days and weeks, even peppering the audit with analysis and commentary.

Absent however was almost any accounting of the daily tonnage of US-manufactured munitions dropped from an unknown fleet of US-manufactured jets levelling an untold number of Lebanese homes and villages.

Sanitised

On American television screens, the US role in this conflict was a relatively sanitised one, pictured as diplomatic rather than military; seen across negotiating tables and in visits to foreign capitals — a far less sinister role than that repeatedly attributed to the Iranians and Syrians over allegations of their financial and logistical support.

In fact, so penetrating was the alleged connection that some channels, such as Bloomberg Television, began referring to Hezbollah on second reference as merely "the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group". But why did Bloomberg not choose to identify Israel, the largest official recipient of US foreign military assistance for decades, as "the US-backed state"?

Whether the decision was deliberate or unconscious, the prevailing notion of non-military US involvement is just one of many underlying assumptions communicated by the US media about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, assumptions that were continually reinforced in comments made by anchors and by hired analysts.

Viewed as part of an overall package, the assumptions appear to reflect US foreign policy, particularly the relationship with Israel, much more than the pursuit of journalistic objectivity.

Of course it would be unfair to generalise by suggesting that the Western media did a poor job of covering this war. On the ground in the midst of air strikes, ground fire and naval attacks, American and European journalists, particularly those reporting from south Lebanon, genuinely risked their lives to tell the story.

Contradictory

The efforts of many Western reporters operating out of towns such as Tyre at a time when the Israeli military vowed to fire on any vehicle that moved were no less valiant than those displayed by their colleagues from the Arab media. However, a clear difference emerged between battlefield reporting and the animated conversations that went on thousands of miles away in air-conditioned studios. At some points it even appeared as if the two were completely contradictory.

Beginning with the war in Iraq, American media outlets developed an obsession with hosting former military personnel as analysts, so much so that it now appears as if large American networks have become a sort of retirement programme for the US military’s top brass. An inherent problem with this formula is a tendency to reflect the views and strategic interests of the US government rather than offer critical analyses that shed light on the complex realities of the battlefield.

Take coverage of the Israeli commando raid on Baalbeck during the third week of the conflict on August 2. The Israeli military had reported that it kidnapped five Hezbollah members, but MSNBC's reporter on the scene quoted local villagers who said those apprehended were "just nobodies".

Hezbollah also claimed that ordinary civilians, not fighters, had been kidnapped. Meanwhile Israeli newspaper Haaertz quoted Lebanese sources as saying that more than a dozen civilians were killed in the attack.

Details may still have been sketchy on the ground in the Bekaa valley but in MSNBC's East Coast studio, the view from its military analyst, Rick Francona, was starkly clear. Francona, a former lieutenant-colonel in the US Air Force, swiftly praised the attack as an "excellent raid" and "well done" on Israel’s part. He then began to postulate confidently about the motives behind the operation, saying "Israel obviously had intelligence of high-profile targets" and naming Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, as a possibility.

Optimism

But even Israel’s chief of staff, Dan Halutz, appeared to be playing down the operation, with an article in Haaretz quoting him as saying "the soldiers had not aimed to take any individuals in particular, but rather to demonstrate that the IDF [Israeli military] could reach any part of Lebanon".

Not only does Francona manage to analyse the situation solely from Israel’s point of view, but his optimism even appears to exceed that of the Israelis themselves.

Weeks later, on August 23, the Lebanese press would post pictures of the Baalbeck captives returning home, indicating that all five men had been returned to Lebanon through the International Committee of the Red Cross, which served as a liaison with the Israeli military.

The chief suspect had been Hassan Nasrallah; not the leader of Hezbollah but an elderly village farmer that shared the same first and last name. "They wanted to use us for propaganda about the arrest of Hassan Nasrallah," the former detainee told Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper in a reference to the Hezbollah leader.

Among the other returned captives were relatives and friends of Nasrallah, the farmer that is.

Looking back at the initial coverage, one would wonder why MSNBC and countless others chose to report the claims of the Israeli military machine over those of witnesses on the scene.

Malicious

The Baalbeck incident was by no means isolated. Time and again, the TV generals seemed so confident in Israel's stance that any talk of malicious activity was dismissed regardless of pending investigations.

Another case in point was Israel’s attack on a UN post, killing four observer troops, on July 26. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, quickly condemned the strike as "apparently deliberate", noting "a co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post".

The Irish foreign ministry said one of its officers at the post had made at least six warning calls to the Israelis during their bombardment. Reports also emerged of email correspondence from a Canadian soldier giving warning that the Israelis had been striking near the UN position for "weeks upon weeks", according to the soldier’s wife who was quoted by Canadian TV as calling the Israeli attack "intentional".

Meanwhile UN officials quoted by Reuters said "the firing continued even as rescue operations were under way", while Annan called for a "full investigation" into the "disturbing incident".

But these multiple claims seemed to be of little consequence to the CNN military analysts back home. A retired US Air Force general employed by the station dismissed the controversy outright, saying the Israeli strike was simply "a screw-up, a major screw-up".

Assumptions over Israel’s intentions were not limited to analysts but also to senior journalists, such as Tim Marshall, Sky’s foreign editor, who confidently labelled the attack as "inadvertent" and "an accident waiting to happen" on the same evening as it had occurred. It was almost as if Marshall were pre-empting the Israeli government’s apology and denial of wrongdoing, which would not come until the next day.

'No evidence'

Instead of adopting a cautious approach to a developing story - as any good journalist would - the authoritative voices from CNN and Sky seemed merely to reflect the views of Israel and its allies. Listening to a press statement from the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, it almost seemed as though the press outlets had become a conduit for official statements. "We take them at their word," Bolton said of the Israeli reaction. "There is no evidence to the contrary."

Less than a week after the killing of the UN observers, the headlines shifted to another attack by Israel, this time in Qana where at least 28 civilians, including 16 children, were killed as a result of air attacks. Qana also happens to be the site of an attack by Israel in 1996 that killed more than 100 people - Israel denied responsibility at the time but subsequent UN investigations were inconclusive.

Israeli officials also denied responsibility for the more recent bloodbath, accusing Hezbollah of somehow staging the attack by firing from the area, using the civilians as human shields. Israel's UN ambassador, during a speech at the Security Council, even went so far as to entertain the possibility that Hezbollah "wanted and wished" for the mass killing.

American news outlets began to pick up the claim, despite the absence of ground reporting or any other kind of supporting evidence. As bodies were being carried out of the rubble, a CNN anchorwoman in Atlanta turned to an Arab media analyst and asked if Arab TV channels acknowledged Hezbollah's use of civilians as human shields. The analyst did not refute the claim but merely indicated that Hezbollah criticism was a taboo subject for regional news networks.

Human shields

Later CNN military analysts would describe Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" that breached Geneva Conventions by using human shields. Despite the lack of physical evidence in either direction, it seemed just as easy for the in-studio analysts to assume Israel's innocence as it was for them to assume guilt on the part of Hezbollah, even when the Israeli military did the actual shooting.

Israel’s third "accident" came on August 11 when six innocents were killed as its missiles struck a civilian convoy fleeing the bombardment in South Lebanon.

Three days later, when the smoke began to clear and a shaky ceasefire took hold, the Lebanese death toll had reached 1,100, the vast majority being civilians. On the Israeli side, the majority of deaths were military, 117 soldiers and 40 civilians, according to Reuters. (Hezbollah casualties were quoted as a separate figure with the group claiming no more than 80 and Israel claiming more than 500.)

The vast disparity between Lebanese civilian deaths and those of Israeli civilians remained formulaic throughout the war, but the TV generals seemed to tell a different story, constantly using the adjective "indiscriminate" to describe Hezbollah’s rocket attacks and "very accurate" in describing Israel’s tactics and weaponry.

In fact, on several occasions, Israeli officials interviewed by American broadcasters touted Israel’s policy of restraint and gave warning of the country’s ability to pursue a "scorched earth policy" in Lebanon.

Interviewers often accepted such a response either by ending the interview at that point or moving on to different questions. One can hardly imagine an American interviewer remaining silent if an Arab official spoke of flattening the Jewish state in such genocidal terms.

Unrealistic

Few phrases were repeated more often during this war than that of "Israel’s war against Hezbollah" and "Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets" mainly in South Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut.

The examples of this usage on NBC, CNN, Sky and many, many other channels were simply ubiquitous throughout the month of war coverage — the two phrases used many times a day as an introduction to the whole package of reporting, all framed as a war solely on Hezbollah. However, on the ground, there could not have been a more unrealistic assessment of reality.

According to a report released by Oxfam on August 14, the destruction across Lebanon included "7,000 homes, 160 factories, markets, farms and other commercial buildings, 29 water and sewage-treatment plants, electrical plants, dams, ports and airports, 23 petrol stations, 145 bridges and overpasses; 600 kilometres of roads".

The figures do not include damage to television towers, which were attacked in at least four different places across the country, disrupting signals and causing millions of dollars in damage to the Lebanese broadcasting industry.

Where were the TV generals to explain the threat of media coverage to Israel’s war on Hezbollah? Lebanon’s entire transnational road system was incapacitated by Israeli missiles, but when anchors rationalised this by speaking of "Hezbollah supply lines", where were the military men to explain that weapons could easily be smuggled through back roads and mountain passages?

Was it clear that Hezbollah did not have its own discreet transportations routes to begin with?

And when the Lebanese international airport was struck repeatedly, where were the generals to explain that rockets had traditionally been carried into Lebanese territory on flat beds and not commercial airliners?

The battlefield analysts seemed so transfixed on analysing Israel's invasion tactics that they rarely looked at the conflict from the opposite end of the map. So much airtime was devoted to Israeli commanders and military spokesman claiming victory, but Hezbollah representatives seemed to have been boycotted by the American press much as they had been boycotted by the American government.

Basic

In reality, Hezbollah was claiming victories of its own, but at times it seemed as if the American media were too busy reflecting their government’s viewpoint to have noticed.

The TV generals dutifully relayed Israel’s daily claims of destroying rocket launchers and medium-range missiles by shading overhead maps with digital pens. But rarely did they discuss Hezbollah's attacks on scores of Israeli Merkava tanks in what was seen as valiant effort at resisting one of the world's most powerful military machines.

If the shading of military maps proved too complicated for the American public to comprehend, broadcasters and commentators often broke down their assumptions in more basic terms. When Israel, for example, decided to launch a land invasion to claim all Lebanese territory south of the Litani river, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer simply referred to the attack as "what some are calling a new Normandy," and "Israel’s D-Day"; a reference to the Allied powers' invasion of Nazi territory in World War II.

When Blitzer began to discuss that day’s events on the battlefield, he, like dozens of other American broadcasters, spoke of Hezbollah rockets landing in "Israeli neighbourhoods". Israel on the other hand, retaliated by bombing "Hezbollah strongholds".

But in reality, these strongholds were also neighbourhoods and support among their residents for Hezbollah could not have been any less than Israeli citizens' support for their own military. If Hezbollah areas cannot be considered neighbourhoods, then why not refer to Israeli neighbourhoods as "Israeli military strongholds"?

After all, a recent report in the Guardian newspaper in Britain by Jonathan Cook alleged that Israel also built military installations and mortar batteries near residential areas. In any case, the lack of balance is problematic: it conveys humanity on the one side and vague militarism on the other.

Omitted

As another example, Blitzer conducted one of two CNN interviews with the grieving wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah. But where were the parallel interviews with the families of Lebanese held by the Israelis? How could audiences really identify with the other side if all of its emotive, humanising details were repeatedly omitted?

In a show that aired on MSNBC during the first week of the conflict, Chris Matthews illustrated daily life in Haifa by comparing it with a city in California; "very modern", he explained. Cosmopolitan Beirut, on the other hand, where the nightlife rivals any capital in Western Europe, did not get a mention in the entire show.

Detail from Israel also entered the religious realm during a separate broadcast with Rita Cosby, an anchorwoman who qualified a report of rocket attacks on the city of Nazareth as an attack on the "home town of Jesus".

But where was the mention of Jesus’s wine-making miracle in the Lebanese town of Qana during the mass killings that took place there? And what of the many other biblical references across Lebanon, in Tyre and Sidon when the two cities were subjected to continuous Israeli shelling?

In the end, some broadcasters ditched the metaphors altogether. Tucker Carlson, an MSNBC talk-show host, actually criticised Israel’s tactics in fighting Hezbollah while interviewing an Israeli spokesperson. But he made no qualms with objectivity during his concluding statement. "I hope you succeed," he told the Israeli official. "And I hope you do it quickly."

Can one imagine an American broadcaster ever conveying such enthusiastic support to a Hezbollah official?

French Troops Beefing Up

2006-09-06T09:45:00.000+03:00

(French Leclerc tank in action)

To the surprise of many, the French troops in Lebanon are beefing up their weaponry to unprecedented levels. Actually, the French force, which is to be the second largest contingency after Italy, has deployed the most powerful weapon systems thus making the new UNIFIL a force to be reckoned with.
According to AP, France is rolling out hefty tanks, powerful artillery, and sophisticated radar systems to pinpoint artillery launch sites. French Leclerc tanks will be some of the mightiest vehicles deployed under the U.N. flag -- an answer to critics who have moaned about toothless, ineffectual U.N. peacekeeping deployments over the years. The deployment from France, one of many countries contributing to an expanded U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, will give new teeth to a force often criticized as ineffective since its creation in 1978.
Amid the pressure, President Jacques Chirac announced Aug. 24 that France would increase its contribution to UNIFIL to 2,000 -- up from 400 -- backed by sophisticated equipment and firepower. The force is to help Lebanon's army extend government authority near the border with Israel, where clashes between Israel and Hizbullah fighters left hundreds of people dead this summer. Heavy armor like the Leclerc is not typically part of the force deployment package for a U.N. peacekeeping operation, although battle tanks have been used in past missions. Attack helicopters, for example, have been deployed for the biggest U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo. Italy has committed the largest contingent of 2,500 troops to UNIFIL, and its forces are backed with VCC armored vehicles, which bear machine guns, and amphibious assault vehicles. Norway said Tuesday it would send four missile torpedo boats with about 100 crew off the Lebanese coast, while Belgium's commitment of up to 400 soldiers will be backed in part by about 40 armored vehicles.
France, so far, has pledged the most powerful weaponry. Thirteen Leclerc tanks were expected to arrive by rail car from central France to the port of Toulon early Wednesday, before being sent across the Mediterranean to Lebanon in the next several days. The tanks, which each weigh 54 metric tons (59.52 tons), feature 120mm smoothbore cannon, anti-tank and armor-piercing rounds, and anti-aircraft machine guns. The Leclerc, operated by a crew of three, has thermal sighting, night vision and automatic loading system for on-the-move firing. It is smaller, lighter and more compact than the formidable U.S. M1 Abrams.
France is also sending four 155mm surface-to-surface AUF1 canons, with a range of up to 28 kilometers, plus short-range anti-aircraft missiles, and Cobra radar which can pinpoint artillery fire in a range of up to 40 kilometers. France, Italy and other nations have called for robust rules of engagement -- which are still being worked out -- to ensure the safety of their forces and their rights of response in Lebanon.
Well one thing for sure, businesses in the South of Lebanon will surely be happy with all the new customers that are set to arrive from Europe.

Blockade Slowly Evaporating

2006-09-05T14:49:00.000+03:00

It seems that the Israeli blockade is slowly evaporating as the first airline landed in Rafik Hariri International Airport on Monday without flying via Amman for security checks and that a commercial shipment from China delivered gantry cranes to Beirut Port on Tuesday (pictured above). The airline, a Qatar Airways flight, was the first to land in Beirut non-stop from Doha since the IAF bombed the country's only international runways and was carrying some 140 passengers on board. On the other hand, the commercial shipment brought in brand new gantry cranes to help alleviate the growing contrainer traffic at Beirut Port (at least before the hostilities).
The appeasment to the blockade was confirmed Tuesday by Annan who stated that it should be lifted within 48 hours. However, Israel said that it will do so when it was sure Beirut was enforcing an arms embargo against Hizbullah. Lebanese officials responded that it has decided to ask UNIFIL to help the Lebanese navy patrol the country's territorial waters and monitor the Beirut airport only after Israel ends its air and sea blockade.
Well to me it still sounds like a whole lot of a mess. Just lift the blockade, there will be no arms shipments coming via sea or air either from Europe or the GCC. And UNIFIL will guarantee the arms embargo in Lebanon.

Hiding in the shadow of death

2006-09-04T11:06:00.000+03:00

It is rather unbelievable that a military state such as Israel keeps on escaping international regulations as and when it deems necessary. The IDF knows that the wars it wages are not morally correct, yet it keeps on continuosly 'erasing villages' without solid evidence that these villages are being used by so-called 'terrorists'. And what are the results of such actions? Well apart for the thousands of dead caused by the Israeli war machine, Israel will continue on being considered a state serving a barbaric war machine. The following article is the latest describing how Israeli officials are trying to escape from being tried as war criminals.

Officials said fearing wave of war crimes suits over Lebanon
By Haaretz Service

The Foreign Ministry fears a wave of lawsuits accusing Israeli military and governmental officials of war crimes, Army Radio said Monday, adding that a report prepared by the ministry's chief legal advisor warns officials against inflammatory statements in connection with the recent war, saying that their words could later be used against them in foreign lawsuits or indictments for alleging them to be war criminals.In the past, a number of IDF generals have deferred visits to Europe, for fear of arrest over allegations of war crimes in connection with the Intifada.Cabinet Minister Yitzhak Herzog, currently traveling in Finland, said Monday that international conventions granted government officials immunity from prosecution, but that the problem was "much more complicated" with respect to IDF officers, especially retired officers.
Advertisement
"There is no question that there is an effort by organizations of various kinds to harm, in particular, [IDF] officers and commanders. This certainly doesn't touch the governmental echelon, but this takes nothing away from the seriousness of the problem." According to Herzog, after the Intifada, Israel approved "an envelope of legal defense to senior officials and officers, and I believe that the outline that the Foreign Ministry is proposing for many of these issues, is a correct one."Cabinet minister Eli Yishai and former justice minister Haim Ramon are among those who have been mentioned as having made especially harsh statements in wartime, during which Israeli ministers were quoted as having advocated "taking down" villages which served as shelters for Hezbollah.Legal authority Yael Ronen said Monday that some officers or government officials who traveled to Europe stood the risk of being arrested."In connection with war criminals, international law holds that due to the severity of the charges, nations may bring the accused to trial, no matter where the crimes were committed, nor against whom," she told the radio.Herzog said he had spoken with Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz on the issue during the war. "He stated that the army was taking all of this under consideration, and was acting according to the rules, and had certainly internalized this consideration in its actions."

Hizbollah's Rockets and Permanent Launch Pads

2006-09-03T16:49:00.000+03:00

The following article published in the Haaretz describes how most of Hizbollah's rockets were fired from permanent positions. If this is really the case, then Israel's onslaught on Lebanon's total infrastructure was more than useless. Actually it is as we always described it, criminal. And if the IDF really didn't know about these permanent positions, then its war on Lebanon was twice more criminal.

How the IDF blew chance to destroy short-range rockets
By Ze'ev Schiff
Haaretz

A large number of the short-range rockets fired at Israel from southern Lebanon were launched from permanent positions, the Israel Air Force discovered by chance toward the end of the war. The discovery was made after an air strike burned away vegetation, revealing a dug-in Katyusha position on a permanent launch pad. Additional permanent positions were subsequently discovered. If the tactical intelligence of the Northern Command was unaware of the existence of hundreds of permanent short-range rocket launching positions in South Lebanon, then this is a major intelligence failure. If the Northern Command knew of them and did not pass on detailed information to the air force, then this is a serious failure in the management of the war. Short-range rockets were one of the biggest problems in Hezbollah's war of attrition against Israeli civilians. The size of these rockets - sometimes small enough to be carried on the back of a donkey, on a motorcycle or by one or two men - made then difficult to pinpoint.
Hezbollah managed to fire a large number of Katyushas during the war - as many as 240 in one day toward the end of the fighting. The rockets, stored near the launch points in underground shelters or houses, were usually aimed with a direction and trajectory precalculated to hit a specific target in Israel. They were usually set up in orchards by arrangement with the grove owners, who were paid by Hezbollah. The two-by-three-meter positions consisted of a hydraulic launch pad in a lined pit. The pad could be raised to fire the 122-mm rockets from a launcher at its center, and then lowered and camouflaged with vegetation. The farmers received instructions by cell phone regarding the number of rockets to launch and in what direction and range. They were often provided with thermal blankets to cover the position in order to keep IAF aircraft from detecting the post-shooting heat signature. If the IAF had had details regarding the permanent positions of these short-range rockets, it is reasonable to assume the results of the struggle against them would have been different at the end of the fighting.

Errors of the war on terror

2006-09-02T20:24:00.000+03:00

By George Soros

Israel's failure to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One weakness is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause. In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in wanting to destroy the movement and to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel, and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them," and denies the fact that our actions may shape their behavior.
A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish between Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations are different and require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because they have deep roots in their societies, yet profound differences exist between them.

Looking back it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected chairman of the PA, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan for the Middle East on behalf of the Quartet (Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt, and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlersinto Arab hands. None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas' electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal with a Hamas government.

The effect has been to impose further hardship on the Palestinians. Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel - which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front. That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress. Israel has been a participant in this game and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to an escalation of violence. The process has advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy. Israel is now more endangered existentially than it was at the time of the Oslo Accord.

Similarly, the United States has become less safe since President Bush declared war on terror. The time has come to realize that today's policies are counterproductive. There will be no end to the vicious circle of escalating violence without a political settlement of the Palestine question. In fact, the prospects for engaging in negotiations are better now than they were a few months ago. Israelis must realize that a military deterrent is not sufficient on its own. And Arabs, having redeemed themselves on the battlefield, may be more willing to entertain a compromise.

Strong voices argue that Israel must never negotiate from a position of weakness. They are wrong. Israel's position is liable to become weaker the longer it persists on its present course. Similarly, Hezbollah, having tasted the sense but not the reality of victory (and egged on by Syria and Iran), may prove recalcitrant. But that is where the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas comes into play. The people of Palestine yearn for peace and relief from suffering. The political - as distinct from the military - wing of Hamas must be responsive to their desires. It is not too late for Israel to encourage and to deal with an Abbas-led Palestinian unity government as the first step toward a better balanced approach.

What is missing is a U.S. government that is not blinded by the war-on-terror concept.

Financier and philanthropist George Soros is author of "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror" (Public Affairs, 2006?).

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.

www.project-syndicate.org

A Dream Comes True

2006-09-02T09:13:00.000+03:00

(Lebanon's Parliament Building in Downtown Beirut where the sit-in is taking place)

Am I dreaming? Has a mosquito with a "national unity" virus stung Members of Parliament (MPs) forcing them to actually do something right for the country hand-in-hand? I just can't believe that our MPs are undertaking an open ended sit-in to protest the continuation of the 7-week Israeli air and sea blockade. I just can't believe that MPs may also launch a hunger strike. I just can't believe that MPs would risk their lives by boarding a plane taking off from Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport and fly over Lebanon in a symbolic gesture to break the blockade. And I just can't believe that the unifying sit-in was called for by the Speaker of Parliament and leader of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri.
Be it the March 14 Forces, Future Movement, the Tripoli Gathering, the Democratic Gathering, the Phalange Party, the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party, the Baath Party, the Reform and Change parliamentary bloc, to name a few, nearly all of the 128 MPs will be gathering at Parliament today to protest the blockade.
Meanwhile, the Higher Shiite Council Vice President Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan urged Lebanon's MPs, ministers, politicians, foreign ambassadors and diplomats of states cooperating with Israel to stage a sit-in in the Rafik Hariri International Airport and board Lebanese and foreign airplanes in an attempt to break the blockade.
According to Riad Salameh, Governor of the Central Bank, if the Israeli blockade is not lifted immediately, Lebanon's economy will recess by at least 5% compared to 2005.
I say bravo to the MPs for undertaking such a bold move and showing solidarity and unity during Lebanon's darkest hours. Maybe we should learn from these experiences for the better of Lebanon's future.

Cease-Fire Violations

2006-09-01T20:20:00.000+03:00

The following are accounts of cease-fire violations by Israel. According to the article, the IDF has violated the cease-fire agreement over 70 times, while Hezbollah has done so only 4 times. And this comes in light that the whole of Lebanon is still under Israeli agression due to the continuation of the air and sea blockade.

Robert F. Worth
New York Times
Sept 1, 2006

AITA AL SHAAB, Lebanon, Aug. 29 — A group of local men were unloading bags of donated food from a truck here Tuesday morning when the tok-tok-tok of heavy machine-gun fire rang out.
Men shouted; children screamed and ran. Then, as it became clear the firing was just the Israeli tanks again up on the hillside above town, they went back to their routines. The shooting — and occasional mortar fire — goes on regularly around this village, a Hezbollah stronghold near the border. To local people, it is sheer provocation, and a flagrant breach of the cease-fire that ended the fighting on Aug. 14.
To the Israelis, it is legitimate self-defense. Aita al Shaab “still has many Hezbollah fighters in it,” said Miri Eisin, an Israeli government spokeswoman. “They don’t wear uniforms and are wary about showing their weapons, and we use all means to differentiate between those with weapons and those without.” More broadly, the shooting underscores two fundamentally different views of the uneasy truce that has held in southern Lebanon for the past two weeks. Secretary General Kofi Annan cited numbers from the United Nations forces on Tuesday indicating that Israel had violated the cease-fire nearly 70 times, while Hezbollah had done so only 4 times.
But the Israelis do not believe there is a cease-fire to violate. “We are at a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, not a cease-fire,” Ms. Eisin said. She added that Israel had the explicit right to self-defense under United Nations Resolution 1701, which does not use the term cease-fire.
That difference is apparent every day across southern Lebanon. Israeli tanks crisscross the dry brown hills, shooting into the fields and smashing up houses and stone walls. Teams of Israeli soldiers have planted their nation’s flag atop bluffs here and sometimes detained Lebanese men, releasing them days later. No one seems to know where the mobile Israeli units are based, or how to avoid them.
Amid all that, the blue-helmeted United Nations soldiers sit in their vehicles like helpless tourists, many unable to speak Arabic or English. Israel has made clear that its troops will not leave Lebanon until the Lebanese Army and a strengthened United Nations peacekeeping force are capable of taking over its positions. But to many in this village — where the war began on July 12 when Hezbollah fighters crossed the border to kidnap two Israeli soldiers — Israel’s recent actions look like intimidation.
“Israel is trying to scare us and make us leave,” said Nuha Srour, a stern-faced schoolteacher in a black robe and head scarf, as machine-gun fire went on in the distance. “They were surprised we came back here after the bombing.”
Perhaps no one has witnessed the confusion of south Lebanon more vividly than Muhammad al-Hussein, a 32-year-old farmer from the village of Qantara. Last week he and his brother were driving to a neighboring village to buy parts for a truck. They knew the Israelis had been operating a checkpoint in the area, but were told they had withdrawn and that the road — an essential link to other towns — was safe. Instead, they found themselves passing a group of Israeli soldiers, who stopped them, Mr. Hussein recalled. The soldiers handcuffed and blindfolded the two brothers, and drove them to Israel. For the next four days, shackled hand and foot, Mr. Hussein was interrogated about his family and village, he said. He was released Monday after United Nations and Lebanese Army officials lodged complaints with Israel.
On Monday evening, sitting on a terrace rimmed with pomegranate trees with a group of relatives and friends back home, Mr. Hussein could smile about his ordeal. He said the Israelis had fed him, and had not struck or mistreated him. But he seemed profoundly nervous about encountering them again, and unsure how to avoid it.
“Even if you gave me a truckload of gold and diamonds, I would not go back to that place,” he said of the road, just a mile or so from his village, where the Israelis had picked him up. At the same time, Mr. Hussein also appeared to be nervous about Hezbollah. Asked whether the Israelis had asked him about the militia, he said no, and then refused to say anything about the subject.
Israel’s activities have mostly taken place at night with patrols staying clear of towns. But on occasion they have made themselves oddly conspicuous. On Sunday, an Israeli flag could be seen flying prominently from a bluff just outside the Lebanese village of Shabaa, where a group of Israeli soldiers were posted with a military bulldozer. Photographers snapped pictures throughout the day, and Israeli soldiers warned approaching reporters to stay clear.
Lebanese Army officials complained about the flag to the United Nations, who contacted Israel about the matter. Israeli soldiers took the flag down, a spokesman for the United Nations force, Alexander Ivanko, said Monday. Skip to next paragraphBut an hour after Mr. Ivanko spoke, the flag was still flying in the same spot. Another Israeli flag was raised over the weekend on a hilltop near the village of Marwaheen. On Tuesday, it appeared to have been removed.
The flags and the continuing presence of Israeli soldiers here have further angered villagers already stunned by the extent of the Israeli bombing. Even some Christians, whose villages were largely spared the destruction visited on Shiite areas, say the war has fueled their support for Hezbollah.
In Aita al Shaab, public support for Hezbollah is almost total. One street where a number of Hezbollah fighters lived — commonly known even before the war as Hezbollah Street — was almost totally destroyed. Several families have returned to the ruins anyway, defiantly insisting on staying in their charred, stinking homes. Others are living alongside the ruins in green tents donated by aid groups.
“They destroyed our school in the village, but we will teach the children under the trees,” said Ms. Srour, the schoolteacher. “And we will teach them to hate Israel and love the resistance.”
Ms. Srour said Israeli tanks had fired so close to her house on Sunday that several of her relatives — who had returned from Beirut only a week earlier — left the village again, fearing the war was on again.
As in many southern villages, the blackened and bomb-scarred ruins here are bedecked with yellow Hezbollah banners proclaiming — somewhat paradoxically — a “divine victory” for the resistance. But not far away, Muhammad Srour, a cleric and cousin of the schoolteacher, offered a slightly different view as he poked through the shattered ruins of his house, gathering a few remaining clothes and books into plastic bags.
“We’ve been beaten so badly that we still don’t want to admit we’ve been beaten,” he said.

Number 9

2006-09-01T09:35:00.000+03:00

Beirut was just ranked in the list of the Top 10 best cities to travel to in the world according to Travel+Leisure's annual "World's Best" awards. The list of award-winners is based on an annual survey of 23,000 readers who provided evaluations for nearly 500,000 destinations, hotels, airlines and other travel entities. Florence, Italy came as number 1, followed by Rome, Bangkok, Sydney, Chiang Mai (Thailand), Cape Town, Buenos Aires, New York, Beirut and San Francisco.
However, Beirut - which appeared in the Top 10 list for the first time - was ranked before the fighting broke out between Israel and Hezbollah. This survey is rather significant first of all due to the sample size and secondly due to the fact that it is ranked by readers rather than writers.
We might be off the list for now, but I assure you we will be back on it within 2 years at most .
To see the results, click here.

America's claim to be Lebanon's 'friend' lacks credibility

2006-08-31T15:12:00.000+03:00

I don't over quote The Daily Star but this editorial rings very true indeed.

America's claim to be Lebanon's 'friend' lacks credibility

Editorial

The current "talking points" of US officials include an assertion that Washington's "support" for Beirut is dependent on the latter's taking bold steps to disarm Hizbullah. This is accompanied by a tacit threat that if Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's organization continues to exist in its current form, Israel will resume its offensive against Lebanon - this time with even more of a green light from an increasingly impatient America. During the 34-day onslaught that ended on August 14, the US government appears to have experienced internal divisions over the extent to which it should encourage and re-supply the Jewish state, but the end-result was a policy of unconditional backing for a campaign that primarily destroyed civilian lives and civilian property. Any suggestion that the current administration is a "friend" to Lebanon is therefore viewed with understandable skepticism.

From the perspective of many Lebanese, being America's friend carries precious few benefits. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has done his utmost to respect US wishes on a variety of fronts, only to be sent away empty-handed whenever he has asked for anything in return. American policy vis-a-vis the devastating war with Israel was no more than a highly purified version of this formula, with Washington repeatedly claiming that it was concerned about the stability of Siniora's government but simultaneously helping the Jewish state to mete out more and deadlier punishment.

Especially in this part of the world and particularly for a tiny country like Lebanon, the absence of effective support means no support at all. The presence, meanwhile, of active and enthusiastic support - diplomatic, economic, military - for a powerful invader is difficult to see as anything other than unabashed betrayal.

Lebanon and the wider Middle East need a powerful force to help local fires from spreading across the region. The United States has the might and the influence to supply such a stabilizing influence, but it has thus far lacked two other necessary qualities: even-handedness and consistency. This is indeed a tragedy of the highest order, for what other nation on the planet has so storied a history upon which to base its credentials as an honest broker and a supporter of democratic freedoms? Washington's selective enforcement of both US and international law - always to the benefit of Israel - robs it of the credibility it needs to be trusted by Arabs and Muslims, let alone to call itself their "friend." The current situation in Lebanon is just the latest episode of a long-running horror show of American inconsistency, and the Lebanese need look no further than Palestine for another recent one: the collective punishment and economic strangling of a people who dared to elect a government that defied Washington's diktats.

War Jokes

2006-08-30T09:54:00.000+03:00

(another of the infamous Johnnie Walker ads in Lebanon prepared by the local office of Leo Burnett)

Abul Abed and Other Jokes Make Post-War Healing Process Easy

Lebanese may have lost homes, loved ones and livelihoods, but one thing they haven't lost in the aftermath of the war is their legendary sense of humor. Jokes helped them survive Israel's devastating military onslaught and are now making the post-war healing process a lot easier.

Anecdotes are to be found everywhere -- in living rooms, text messages, television shows, e-mails and even blogs, where some Israeli users have been less than amused. Amid sad stories about lost loved ones, destroyed homes and impoverished people who had to live in public schools, they joke about everything: the Israelis, the Americans, the Arabs, but mostly they tell self-deprecating gags.

Three Hizbullah fighters run out of Beirut's southern suburbs after Israeli raids, flashing the victory sign. Actually, no. They were really pointing out that there were only two buildings left standing.

Why did rents go up in Ain el-Rummaneh district overlooking the southern suburbs? Because it has sea view now!

Why are coquettish elderly Lebanese women very happy about the war? Because it took them back 30 years.

Why will Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah win the Nobel Prize for Education? Because he is the only man who sent one million people to school in just two days.

But they also tell jokes of bravery against the Israelis.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was sitting in his office wondering how to invade Lebanon when his telephone rang. Beirut's most famous imaginary character announces to him in a heavily accented voice: "This is Abul Abed and I am calling to tell you that we are officially declaring war on you." "How big is your army?" replies Olmert. "Right now," said Abul Abed, "there is myself, my cousin Mustafa, my next-door neighbor Abu Khaled, and the whole team from the tea house. That makes eight!"Olmert paused. "I must tell you Abul Abed, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."Abul Abed paused, then said: "Mr. Olmert, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!""And what equipment would that be Abul Abed?", Olmert asked. "Well sir, we have two Mercedes 180s, and a truck.""I must tell you Abul Abed that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to two million!""Mr. Olmert, we have to call off this war," said Abul Abed."I'm sorry to hear that," said Olmert. "Why the sudden change of heart?""Well," said Abul Abed, "we've come to realize that there is no way we can feed two million prisoners!"

Israel's systematic destruction of bridges in the offensive launched after Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 has also been a source of inspiration.

Olmert sent a commando operation deep into Lebanon. Mission: Capture Lebanese diva Fairuz. He insists on finding the only bridge he did not destroy: an imaginary bridge evoked for decades in a romantic Fairuz aria."On the bridge 'Lawziyeh,' under the shade of the leaves," goes the song.

Early one day, a man rushes desperately to the dentist. "Please take out my bridge, or the Israelis will bomb it!"

Advertising agencies have also entered the game. A gigantic black poster covers the entire side of a five-story building: It shows the golden Johnnie Walker character with his top hat and waistcoast blithely striding after leaping over a gap on a destroyed bridge. Internet users are sharing a picture of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the arms of Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in light summer clothes, standing under the shade of palm trees at a sandy beach. It is a parody of the "Axe Effect" attraction campaign by the namesake deodorant brand.

Jokes are also abundant about the Arabs too. After Saudi Arabia decided to donate half a billion dollars to rebuild Lebanon, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ordered the capture of six Israeli soldiers at the border.

Amid a mass evacuation of foreign nationals from Lebanon, Palestinian refugees who have been stranded in Lebanon for nearly 60 years are ecstatic: the Palestinian Authority has decided to evacuate its nationals as well.

But in a country that has repeatedly been invaded by Israel, the one joke everyone likes to tell remains: An Israeli recently arrives at London's Heathrow airport. As he fills out a form, the customs officer asks him: "Occupation?" The Israeli promptly replies: "No, just visiting!"

(AFP)

Wines of the Bekaa

2006-08-29T12:43:00.000+03:00

I wrote this last week after a trip to the Bekaa Valley. It originally appeared on the guardian blog. There are some pics to go with it but i'll have upload them later.

Message in a Bottle

Ramsay Short

The Guardian

Though Israel bombed economic targets, including dairies, bottling plants and even a chewing gum factory, all over the valley in its war with the Iranian-backed Hizbullah guerrillas, Lebanon's award-winning vineyards were spared.

"Ksara never stopped harvesting during the worst years of the civil war, and we would not have stopped now even if the ceasefire was not in place," says Charles Ghostine, Ksara's managing director.

And how could he? Sales of Lebanese wine in Europe and further afield soared during the recent conflict.

"Buying a bottle of Lebanese wine felt like you were supporting us here," agrees Ramzi Ghosn, co-owner of the French-Lebanese winery Massaya. "People wanted to show their solidarity with the Lebanese cause. And how better to do that than to buy a few bottles? A bottle of wine in Lebanon has its own message, one of tolerance and communication between cultures."

The problem now is getting all the new orders shipped out while Israel still blockades the ports. Ghosn estimates that the war cost Massaya between $5,000 and $8,000 a day. That figure is mounting by the hour, he says, as long as his shipments remain stuck at port.

But Ghostine is more optimistic - as long as the peace holds. "We are considering sending out orders through Syria via the port of Latakia, even though it will cost $2,000 to $3,000 more per shipment. But we are the biggest winery in Lebanon and can handle such costs."

"We are blessed by God. It was a nightmare as we waited for the war to stop. Even now, most of our grape pickers who are Syrian have not returned, having fled the country, and we are using all the vineyard staff and local Bedouin to do the harvesting."

Lebanese wine production is tiny in international terms. Even Israel produces upwards of 11m bottles a year. But its market share abroad and growth in sales in increasing annually.

Ksara, which is also Lebanon's oldest vineyard, founded in 1857 by French Jesuit missionaries, produces 2m bottles of wine a year, of which half are for export, and had a turnover of $8.7m million in 2005. The young upstart Massaya makes 500,000 bottles a year, with 80% going abroad, and had a turnover of $1.8m (nearly £1m) last year. Between them, Lebanon's 12 winemakers produce between 6m and 8m bottles a year and export a total of 2.5m. If the harvest had not begun yesterday, the 2006 vintage might well have been lost.

Ksara aims to produce 2.7m bottles by the end of 2007, while the other elder statesmen of the Lebanese wine industry, Kefraya and Musar, are also increasing their number of vines and output.

The nation's winemakers grow their grapes in the magical Bekaa, an inland plain whose porous, fertile soil yielded native vines millennia before the Romans built a temple to Bacchus, god of wine and nature, 2,000 years ago at Baalbeck, the easternmost point of their empire. (The Bekaa is also, of course, a heartland of Hizbullah.)

Ksara introduced noble grapes to the region in the late 1970s, and all the vineyards concentrate on quality over quantity to increase their international exposure, operating under the rules of the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin.

Despite the ferocity of Israeli bombing throughout the Bekaa, the producers refused to give up on their vines. Over a simple lunch of local halloumi cheese, freshly baked bread and a fine bottle of rose at his Massaya property near Chtoura, in the central Bekaa, Ghosn explains why he would not leave the plantation even when his offices were severely damaged by the massive bombing of nearby factories.

"When I was boy, in 1975, my father took the family and left the country after we had been threatened by local militia at the start of the civil war," he says. "We didn't return until 1992. I could not leave again."

IDF Report Card

2006-08-29T10:38:00.000+03:00

This is a long article that was published in the Jerusalem Post (Aug.24) on the strategy behind the Israeli offensive in Lebanon. It is a fascinating read into what happened, how it happened and why it happened. The original article can be found here.
mrtez

IDF Report Card

On July 11, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz picked up the phone and called a hotel in the North to make a reservation for a family vacation. Two days before that, OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam held a security assessment at headquarters in Safed and decided to lower the level of alert along the northern border, raised two weeks earlier following the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit in the Gaza Strip.
On July 12, however, Halutz's plans for a vacation went down the drain and instead of going up north to relax, the chief of staff flew up to direct Israel's war against Hizbullah. Two reservists had been kidnapped in a cross-border attack and the government had decided to launch a military offensive in Lebanon.
The decision itself was a major shift in Israeli policy. Since the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Israel has largely restrained itself in the face of Hizbullah provocations. The kidnapping of three soldiers in 2000, as well as the attempted kidnapping in December 2005, all went unanswered by Israel and Hizbullah guerrillas were still allowed to maintain their outposts just a stone's throw away from the northern border. This time however, the "Zimmer Policy," according to which Israel turned a blind eye to the Hizbullah buildup as long as the zimmers and hotels in the North were full, was discarded and Israel went to war.
There is no doubt that Israel was completely taken by surprise by the kidnappings of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser on July 12. Halutz claims that he ordered the Northern Command already back in March to begin preparing for an escalation with Hizbullah in the summer of 2006. In June, the Northern Command held a massive exercise during which it drilled scenarios following the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hizbullah, including a massive invasion into Lebanon. Nevertheless, Halutz's call to reserve hotel rooms in the North and Adam's decision to lower the level of alert point in a different direction.
But the lack of intelligence was not the only mistake made throughout the month of fighting in Lebanon. Defense Minister Amir Peretz quickly set up an inquiry commission - led by former chief of staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Amnon Lipkin-Shahak - to investigate the IDF's management of the war. But that panel has now suspended its work as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert deliberates the establishment of another commission, possibly state-appointed.
These are some of the issues whichever commission is ultimately appointed will have to deal with.

Ground Invasion

While there were many disagreements throughout the entire month of fighting, on a whole, the top IDF brass admit that there has never been such a willing and supportive political echelon as the Ehud Olmert-Amir Peretz duo.
On July 12, several hours after the kidnapping, Halutz went to the cabinet and presented the IDF's air campaign, which included strikes on Beirut's International Airport, as a possible response. To the IDF's surprise, the cabinet immediately approved the plan.
But the air raids quickly exhausted themselves and it became clear that Hizbullah would not be sufficiently weakened by air. Instead, the IDF began launching pinpoint raids into Hizbullah strongholds such as Bint Jbail and Maroun a-Ras along the northern border. Those also proved to be ineffective. Dozens of soldiers were killed and Hizbullah continued to succeed in firing over 100 rockets a day at northern Israel. The next natural step was to launch a larger-scale ground invasion. But something delayed both a ground invasion, and the call-up of reservist forces.

This is where the versions become conflicting. Version A: Adam claims that he was ready at the end of July to launch a widespread ground invasion into Lebanon and that for two weeks troops milled outside Lebanon awaiting orders. Troops inside Lebanon were also frozen in place and, according to frustrated brigade commanders, the lack of movement put the forces on the defensive and gave the upper hand to Hizbullah fighters.
Version B: Sources in the General Staff claim that it was in fact Adam who was hesitant in launching the massive ground operation. He was scared, they said, of the results. There was also Halutz, who for the first three weeks of the war repeated in closed-door meetings that he was opposed to a ground invasion, and that he would only recommend one if there proved to be no alternative. The heavy loss of life in Bint Jbail and Maroun a-Ras also assisted in reducing the support for such an invasion.
Then there is Version C: Olmert's version. He claims that the first time he saw a plan to invade Lebanon with tens of thousands of troops was the day before the plan was approved by the cabinet on August 9. (That contradicts Adam's version that the force was in place already by August 1.)
Factually, Olmert might be telling the truth, and it could be that he only saw the plan on a map laid out on his desk at the Prime Minister's Office on August 8, but he was certainly familiar with such a plan way before then. Indeed, Peretz ordered the IDF on August 3 to begin preparing for a large-scale incursion and an advance to the Litani River - 40 kilometers into Lebanon - in a bid to gain control of Katyusha launch sites.
Logically, the Litani Plan made sense and high-ranking members of the General Staff were already pushing it in the first weeks of war. According to Military Intelligence, close to 70 percent of the rockets raining down on Israel were fired from areas just south and north of the Litani River.
It was in these parts south of the Litani that Hizbullah's elite Nasser Unit was waiting with thousands of troops and functioning command and control centers in underground bunkers, spread out in some 130 villages, laying mines, ambushes and just sitting and waiting for the Israeli tanks to come rolling in. Only a ground presence there, IDF officers claimed, could have curbed the rockets.
But when the push to the Litani finally began, it no longer made much sense due to the looming cease-fire. On Friday August 11, the United Nations Security Council convened and approved a French and American-backed cease-fire resolution. Despite the decision, the IDF pressed forward with its invasion and in some of the fiercest fighting during the war, 12 soldiers and some 80 Hizbullah gunmen were killed as a tank column suffered numerous hits from Hizbullah-fired anti-tank missiles as it tried crossing the Saluki Stream.
This all happened a mere couple of hours after the cease-fire was passed and left soldiers from Armored Brigade 401 wondering what their comrades had died for, considering that IDF officers had said from the outset that the Litani Plan would likely take a week. What was the point of the brief and very bloody operation, those artillery soldiers asked, especially considering that two days after crossing the Saluki, they crossed it again - this time heading home?

Anti-tank missiles

Going into this war, the IDF knew Hizbullah was armed with some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in existence. Soviet-built Sagger, Cornet and Fagot anti-tank missiles, the French MILAN and the US-built TOW were all known to be in Hizbullah warehouses. What surprised the IDF was the amounts. They seemed at times to be endless. The anti-tank missiles were not only lethal against tanks, as in the battle of the Saluki, but were also effective when fighting against the IDF's infantry forces, such as during the fighting in the village of Dbil, not far from Bint Jbail, where nine reservists were killed August 9 when a building they occupied was hit by missiles and collapsed.
Contrary to public perception, the number of tanks penetrated by missiles was not as high as it originally seemed during the fighting, when the IDF Spokesperson's Office seemed to be constantly updating reporters of another tank hit.
Thousands of anti-tank missiles were indeed fired during the 35 days of fighting, but while soldiers told stories of deadly missile attacks on IDF tanks, Commander of the Armored Corps Brig.-Gen. Halutsi Rudoy told The Jerusalem Post that out of the almost 400 tanks that operated in Lebanon, only a few dozen were hit by anti-tank missiles and only 20 were actually penetrated. In total, 40 tanks were damaged and 30 tank crewmen were killed.
Altogether, the Merkava tank stood up well against the missiles and the explosive devices Hizbullah planted on roads leading to villages in southern Lebanon. No tank, officers explained, is fully resistant to missiles and bombs, but the Merkava did prove the claim that it is one of the most protected tanks in the world.
What these officers take issue with is the Defense Ministry's refusal to push ahead active-protection projects for the tanks, such as the Rafael-developed Trophy system, which is designed to detect and eliminate a missile threat with a launched projectile. The Trophy, senior officers involved in the design of the Merkava tank told The Post, was capable of neutralizing all of the anti-tank rockets in Hizbullah's arsenal.
"Money is what is killing and injuring soldiers," explained a high-ranking officer involved in the development of the Merkava. "The Trophy system is supposed to be there to provide the answer to this threat but due to budget constraints the soldiers are paying the price."

Navy

Off the coast of Beirut everything looks different. The fighting in Lebanon seems distant as the waves lap against missile ships. The war is certainly not at sea.
That is what the Navy thought until the fateful night of July 14 when an Iranian C-802 radar-guided missile struck the INS Hanit patrolling off the coast of Beirut. The Navy is in the midst of an internal investigation into the attack, in which four soldiers were killed, with the main questions surrounding a decision by commanders not to activate the Barak anti-missile system, designed to intercept incoming missiles like the C-802.
Senior officers claimed this week, however, that since that unfortunate incident, the Navy has proven its effectiveness in the war. On July 13, a day after the kidnapping of Goldwasser and Regev, the cabinet instructed the IDF to impose a sea blockade on Lebanon, which will remain in effect, a high-ranking Naval officer estimated this week, possibly for several more months or until a multinational force completes its deployment in southern Lebanon.
Most of the Navy's vessels are participating in the blockade, which is the longest and most extensive operation the Israeli Navy has ever carried out. According to the officer, the decision by the Lebanese government to send the Lebanese army into southern Lebanon for the first time in over 30 years was partially due to the pressure the blockade created.
"The blockade was effective," the high-ranking officer said. "The Lebanese economy is paralyzed and that was our goal."The Navy has since learned its lesson from the Hanit incident and has activated the Barak systems on all its missile ships operating off the Lebanese coast. A commission of inquiry will, however, have to try and answer why the Navy was unaware that Hizbullah possessed such missiles and why the Barak was not fully activated.

IAF

The first 34 minutes of this war were dazzling. IAF fighter jets swept across Lebanon and wiped out in just over half-an-hour most of the guerrilla group's long-range missiles and launchers. In total, over 94 targets were hit, strikes made possible by precise intelligence and perfect execution by well-trained IAF pilots. Those first 34 minutes were characteristic of the IAF's overall contribution to the war in Lebanon.
In total, the IAF few over 15,500 sorties in Lebanon and struck over 7,000 targets. Pictures now emerging from Beirut and other parts of Lebanon show unprecedented destruction, flattened buildings and split roads and bridges. The Air Force was also behind much of the damage caused to Hizbullah infrastructure, especially in the Dahiya stronghold in southern Beirut. F-16 fighter jets repeatedly bombed Hizbullah command and control centers and destroyed some, although not all of them.
But alongside the successes, the IAF also encountered some difficulties throughout the fighting in Lebanon. One such difficulty was the attempt by the Air Force to copy its successful targeted-killing policy from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon.
These attempts were unsuccessful and at one point, a frustrated head of IAF Intelligence, Brig.-Gen. Rami Shmueli, announced during a press briefing that he had ordered his subordinates to stop analyzing Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's taunting daily televised speeches, implying there was nothing of substance to them. There was also the strike on a bunker in Beirut when a wave of F-16 fighter jets dropped 23 tons on the target after obtaining what turned out to be incorrect intelligence that Nasrallah and other Hizbullah leaders were holed up inside.
The upside to the difficulty in obtaining intelligence, officers explained, was that it caused Israel's three intelligence organizations, Mossad, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Military Intelligence, to forgo their "daily ego wars" and to work together during the war in unprecedented harmony.
The IAF's helicopter squadrons also suffered losses throughout the war in three different incidents: One transport helicopter was shot down over Lebanon, two Apache attack helicopters collided midair over northern Israel and another Apache Longbow crashed in Israel under mysterious circumstances, most probably due to a mechanical failure.
There was also the accidental bombing in Kfar Kana in which 28 people, including children, were killed after what now appears to have been an unexploded IAF bomb blew up and destroyed homes in which Lebanese refugees were hiding. The IDF insisted it had warned residents of Kfar Kana of the imminent air strikes and that the village was a launching pad for Katyusha rockets, some of which were fired at northern Israel from the vicinity of the bombed home.
The Kfar Kana incident demonstrated the weak side of Israel's PR machine. The morning of the bombing, every news network in the world connected to the live feed Al-Jazeera was providing from Kfar Kana which showed rescue workers removing the bodies of children from under the rubble. But while Israeli spokespeople claimed that Kfar Kana was a launching pad for Katyusha rockets, they failed to present proof until a military press conference 12 hours later. An earlier presentation of those pictures might have minimized the damage to Israel's reputation. As it was, the damage wrought by the attack convinced US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that Israel should suspend air activity for 48 hours. Israel acquiesced.

Logistics

This war was definitely the reservists' war. It began with the kidnapping of two reservists in a cross-border Hizbullah attack and continued with the mass recruitment of reservists who fought in Lebanon. In total, 46 reservists were killed during the month of fighting. But while the IDF reported a 100 percent enlistment among reservists, the soldiers who have now taken off their uniforms are complaining of shortages in equipment and entry into battle without proper training.
Possibly one of the greatest disgraces of the war were the shortages in water and food described by reservists. Other soldiers spoke about shortages in equipment. Reservists from the elite Egoz unit were forced to collect donations from abroad after they were sent into battle without flak jackets.
Others spoke about how they were left with no choice but to loot local Lebanese stores. One reservist said he knew beforehand that the IDF would fail to provide for its soldiers and brought US dollars with him, leaving bills in family homes where he and his comrades ate.
Chief IDF Reservist Officer Brig.-Gen. Danny Van-Buren told The Post this week that the military will investigate the run-up to the war and will work to better prepare reservists for future challenges.
"We need to train the reservists more than in the past," Van-Buren said. "We also need to ensure that there is better equipment for reservists and that if they are sent into battle they will be equipped with the best equipment the IDF has."
Responding to reports about reservists who collected money abroad to purchase flak jackets, Van-Buren said: "This is a reality we cannot accept and we need to ensure that our soldiers have everything they need."
The IDF acknowledges that there were glitches in the supply of food, water and equipment to soldiers and reservists but places most of the blame on the current and past governments which over the years have slowly cut away at the defense budget.
"Since we didn't have all the money we wanted, we had to give preferences to soldiers fighting in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank," says head of the IDF Logistics and Medicine Branch Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrachi. "I wish we had money to buy all the equipment we wanted but when there are budget constraints we need to decide what our preferences are." Apparently, the preferences weren't with the reservists.

A Letter by Einstein and Co.

2006-08-28T09:38:00.000+03:00

This is a letter that fell on my lap which was written by famous American Jews including Albert Einstein in the late 1940s. It was written to denounce a visit by Menachem Begin.

Letters to the New York TimesDecember 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)
Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe
New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Post-war Ads

2006-08-27T11:35:00.000+03:00

Just to show you some of the post-war adverstisments that have been covering buildings in Beirut. The resilience of Lebanese to continue on living will never be shattered.

UNIFIL with 'teeth'

2006-08-26T11:13:00.000+03:00

U.N. Resolution 1701 has authorized up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers. Contributions from member nations so far amount to:
-- Italy has agreed to send up to 3,000 troops.
-- France said it will deploy 2,000 troops, including its current 200-member contingent in Lebanon.
-- Finland said it would send up to 250 peacekeepers by November.
-- Germany will not send troops, but will offer naval forces to help patrol the Lebanese coast.
-- Greece has pledged to send naval vessels
-- Netherlands said it would not send troops but may also offer navy a patrol vessel.
-- Spain has reportedly offered between 1,000-1,200 troops.
-- Poland has offered 500 soldiers.
-- Belgium is sending 400 troops, including anti-mine experts, and medical units.
-- Bulgaria said it is willing to send troops, but has not given a number.
-- Turkey has indicated it will contribute troops, but has not given a number.
-- Bangladesh has offered two mechanized battalions with 1,600-2,000 troops. (So far refused by Israel)
-- Indonesia has offered one mechanized battalion and an engineering company totaling about 1,000 troops. (So far refused by Israel)
-- Malaysia pledged one mechanized battalion and Nepal pledged one mechanized infantry battalion, also totaling 1,000 soldiers. (So far refused by Israel)
-- Britain said it would send Jaguar ground attack aircraft and Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, known as Awacs, in addition to a navy frigate. It also offered to help train and equip the Lebanese military and support enhanced command and control technology for the force.
-- The United States said it doesn't plan to participate but does expect to provide logistical assistance to the force.

UNIFIL with 'teeth'
“If, for example, combatants, or those illicitly moving weapons, forcibly resist a demand from them, or from the Lebanese Army, to disarm,” then armed force could be used, Annan said. He added, however, that disarming Hezbollah — a central goal of two United Nations resolutions on Lebanon — “is not going to be done by force.”
The expanded peacekeeping force’s mandate is to support the Lebanese Army in enforcing the resolutions. But disarmament of Hezbollah “has to be achieved through negotiation, and an internal Lebanese consensus, a political process, for which the new Unifil is not, and cannot be, a substitute,” Mr. Annan said. Unifil is the acronym for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

Media control

2006-08-25T12:39:00.000+03:00

Israel's 'Moral High Ground'
It keeps getting lower…
by Justin Raimondo

The other day on CNN's Reliable Sources, Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks revealed the true face of the utter ruthlessness that underlies Israel's actions on the ground in the Middle East:

Howard Kurtz: "And joining us now here [in] Washington [is] Anne Compton who covers the White House for ABC News, and Thomas Ricks, Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and author of the new book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?"

Thomas Ricks, reporter, Washington Post: "I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon."

Kurtz: "Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?"

Ricks: "Yes, that's what military analysts have told me."

Kurtz: "That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here."

Ricks: "Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."

Just when you thought Israel's high moral ground couldn't get any lower, they go and do something like this. Maintaining the moral high ground is always a dicey matter for a brazen aggressor, but making sure some of your own civilians die as you wantonly slaughter your neighbors is unique in the annals of war propaganda. Not even the Nazis pulled crap like that.

I don't like to make such comparisons, but in view of Ricks' reportage it is clearly not hyperbole. And so what has been the response of the Israelis and their American amen corner? On a later program, Howard Kurtz had this to say:

"One other note. On Reliable Sources two weeks ago, Washington Post Pentagon reporter Tom Ricks said he'd been told by U.S. military analysts that Israel was leaving some Hezbollah rocket launchers intact because the killing of Israeli civilians provided an image of moral equivalency in the war. Post editor Len Downie, responding to a letter from former New York mayor Ed Koch, says he told Ricks he should not have made those statements.

"Ricks told the New York Sun that he accurately reported the comments from analysts but that, quote, 'I wish I hadn't said them, and I intend from now on to keep my mouth shut about it.'"

Translation: What I said is true, and I promise never to say it again.

Here is a textbook example of what scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "the Lobby" in action, and some pretty quick action at that. No sooner had Ricks' comments hit the airwaves than the Lobby went into overdrive, screeching the old familiar refrain, the standard response to any suggestion of Israeli government perfidy: "Blood libel!"

That was their "rebuttal" to professors Mearsheimer and Walt when they wrote that the Lobby has effectively seized control of American foreign policy. They've always come back with the "blood libel" canard when confronted with footage of IDF soldiers shooting at Palestinian teenagers armed with slingshots. That was their reply when Fox News' Carl Cameron reported that the Israelis may have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and not told us. It's their stock answer when backed against a wall, and I doubt that anyone takes it seriously anymore.

Besides which, the average human being, reading former New York mayor Ed Koch's blovation addressed to Ricks' editor, hasn't the foggiest idea what a "blood libel" is, historically. Even given this arcane knowledge, how is accusing Israelis of sacrificing their own children the equivalent of the old "blood libel" – which averred that Jews used the blood of Christian children in a religious ceremony involving the making of matzohs? (See, I told you it was obscure, not to mention weird). The difference is that the "blood libel" was popularized by crazed anti-Semites in Czarist Russia, while Ricks was citing "a senior Israeli official." That official, and not Ricks, is the proper object of Mayor Big Mouth's ire. But let's be clear: Ricks' only sin is letting the cat out of the bag.

Koch's letter is revealing in more ways than he intends. In his usual, overwrought style, he tells us that when he first heard Ricks' statements about the IDF deliberately risking Israeli casualties for the sake of public relations,

"I was shocked. … Still, I thought to myself, anything is possible in a war. There are crazy people on both sides of every war, but, Dear God, I hope this never happened."

In other words: he was shocked precisely because he found Ricks' reporting all too believable. As do I.

The reason I believe it is due to the unique position of Israel as a settler state, i.e., a foreign graft affixed to a Middle Eastern tree. While not denying the historical attachment of the Jewish people to Palestine, what I mean to say is that the impetus for the creation of the Jewish state came primarily from abroad: Zionism was a movement founded in the ghettos of Eastern Europe, not a national liberation movement spawned in the Holy Land itself. As such, it has always depended on foreign support, and not only from the Diaspora: military aid from the United States is central to its survival strategy. That's why media coverage, and "the narrative," is so important to the Israelis – important enough to sacrifice a few of their own on the altar of "public relations."

Leave it to the Huffington Post to chime in with the New York Sun, actually celebrating the silencing of a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. And Hollywood is not far behind, with a recent full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times, paid for by Israeli gazillionaire Haim Saban, that attacks the Lebanese for daring to defend themselves and makes no mention of the 1,300-plus Lebanese victims of Israeli aggression. Tears for Darfur, but none for Beirut: that's the "liberal" wing of the Amen Corner for you.

In his interview with Kurtz, Ricks had this to say:

Kurtz: "Tom Ricks, the New York Times reported the other day, quote, 'Israel is now fighting to win the battle of perceptions,' which to me says the battle of headlines. And, in fact, an Israeli cabinet minister was quoted, not by name, as saying, 'That the narrative at the end, is part of the problem.' I'm starting to hear echoes of Iraq."

Ricks: "Echoes of Iraq, yes. But also the Israelis are very sophisticated in their handling of the media. They consider it part of the battlefield, officially. The word 'narrative' always comes up with conversations with Israeli national security officials. They consider shaping the narrative, the battle for the narrative, to be key as part of any war fighting. So they see the media as part of the battlefield. And, in fact, there's some belief from our reporters that they have occasionally targeted the media."

Sure they've targeted the media, and not only on the battlefield – you'll notice that Koch and CAMERA didn't dispute this rather more sensational accusation – but in this country as well. That's what organizations like CAMERA are all about. The minute you say anything about Israel that (a) is true and (b) discredits the Jewish state, a tremendous ruckus is raised, and no slimeball is spared in the slinging. After all, if they'll sacrifice their own citizens for the sake of "the narrative," then what won't they do to foreign reporters who have the gall to expose their methods?

The "narrative" Israel is trying to sell the American public is that the Jewish state is once again being targeted by "terrorists" – yet the pictures coming out of Lebanon show us who the real terrorists are, no matter how hard CAMERA and its allies, including AIPAC, work to "spin" the story in a more favorable direction. Their only alternative is to go into denial mode and claim that the photos are "staged" – a macabre tactic that mocks both the living and the dead. In the case of Ricks' reporting, they can only harass his editor until he issues a one-sentence "rebuke" – in an exercise of power that the Lobby always denies having. Because, you understand, to even write about how they engineered this "rebuke" is, in itself, a "blood libel."

The Killing Goes on

2006-08-25T10:49:00.000+03:00

(Above: A cluster bomb from the 1960's. Below: A map of the locations where cluster bombs have been found in South Lebanon)

Israel is being investigated by its fellow ally’s State Department for the illegal use of American-made cluster bombs on south Lebanon. Apparently Israel not only violated the Geneva Convention for using cluster bombs on civilian areas but also secret agreements with the United States that restricts when it can employ such weapons. According to the New York Times, the investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties, even till today.

The agreements that govern Israel’s use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.
A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

A report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.
The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.
The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.

In 1982, delivery of cluster-bomb shells to Israel was suspended a month after Israel invaded Lebanon after the Reagan administration determined that Israel “may” have used them against civilian areas. But the decision to impose what amounted to a indefinite moratorium was made under pressure from Congress, which conducted a long investigation of the issue. Israel and the United States reaffirmed restrictions on the use of cluster munitions in 1988, and the Reagan administration lifted the moratorium.

The use of these weapons is hotly opposed by many individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross, the NGO Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high proportion of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. The particular threat this weapon poses to civilians exists for two main reasons. First, because of the weapon's very wide area of effect, accidentally striking both civilian and military objects in the target area is possible. The area affected by a single cluster munition, also known as the footprint, can be as large as two or three football fields. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly problematic for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch and Landmine Action. Secondly, depending on type and their use, between 1% and 40% of the bomblets do not explode on impact. These unexploded ordnance (duds) present a particularly dense and dangerous form of post-conflict contamination and may unintentionally act like anti-personnel land mines (which have been banned in many countries under the Ottawa Treaty) for several years.

Death Tourism

2006-08-24T18:25:00.000+03:00

This is probably the most scary advertisement I have ever seen. Israeli officials have been able to turn their "struggle for survival" - as they call it - into a tourism business that costs $1,895 per person excluding airfare. "Experience a dynamic and intensive eight day exploration of Israel's struggle for survival and security in the Middle East today," reads the advertisment (click here to see it). Oh, and mission participants - as they are called - are required to make a tax-deductible donation of $500 to $5,000 to Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center to assist in the funding of the terror victim litigation against the Palestinian terrorist organizations, their leaders and financial patrons. I think it is rather ludicrous to transform such serious situations into a fantasy business that does only one thing: instigate more hate and fear.
One of the testimonials read: "Whether it was observing a terror trial outside Beit El, cruising the Kinneret in the beautiful moonlight, staring down Hizzboulah terrorists across the Lebanese border, or meeting the key policy makers and shapers in Israel, each stop on the odyssey connected me more and more to the tribulations and triumphs of our amazing Israeli brothers and sisters." It feels great that another person now clearly views all of Lebanon as a terrorist organization. Thank you Shurat HaDin for turning the region's crisis into a Disney Middle East where people don't even see that human beings are dying in the thousands, on all sides.
mrtez

The itenerary includes:
- Briefings by Mossad officials and Shin Bet commanders.
- Briefing by officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches.
- Inside tour of the IAF unit who carries out targeted killings.
- Live exhabition of penetration raids in Arab territory.
- Observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court.
- First hand tours of the Lebanese front-line military positions and the Gaza border check-points.
- Inside tour of the controversial Security Fence and secret intelligence bases.
- Meeting Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence.
- Briefing by Israel's war heros who saved the country.
- Meetings with senior Cabinet Ministers and other key policymakers.
- Small airplane tour of the Galilee, Jeep rides in the Golan hights, water activities on Lake Kinneret, a cookout barbecue and a Shabbat enjoying the rich religious and historic wonders of Jerusalem's Old City.

The Aftermath? Maybe not

2006-08-24T11:02:00.000+03:00

The war between Israel and Hizbollah might be over for now, but a new war within Lebanon has just started. We are facing mountains of problems from all sides - be it economically, socially, politically or enviromentally.
Economically the country has lost in total over $15 billion according to a UNDP estimate, out of which $3.6 billion accounts for direct physical damage. All of the 15-years of reconstruction we were so proud of are gone to waste in one month. And add to that the problem of our public debt - which equals over 180% of the GDP or $40 billion - and the situation becomes very strenuous. Hopefully, the donor conference to be held in Sweden on 31st August will raise enough money to pull Lebanon out of an imminent financial and economic disaster.
Socially, the Israeli/Hizbollah war has clearly divided the Lebanese people – the Shias on one side and everyone else on the other (read article below). This new situation can become very dangerous in a country where people are loyal to their sects. If flared up by any miniscule event, the divisions could transform into civil strife – a condition which no one desires in Lebanon.
Politically, apart from the internal divisions between Hizbollah and the rest of the parties, the country is still under a constant blockade by Israel. All planes departing or landing in Rafik Hariri International Airport have to make a forced stop-over in Amman to be searched by Israeli officials. And not a single boat can enter or leave the country. Such a blockade is making the situation much more difficult for anyone to enter into internal dialogue since the country’s sovereignty is still under attack.
Enviromentally our sea shores are completely devestated. Some 15,000 tons of fuel oil have leaked from the Jiyeh Power plant polluting over 150 kilometers of the Lebanese coast - a catastrophe which is beggining to be compared to the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill that devestated Alaska's Prince William Sound. Plans for clean-up are already being sketched out but apparently the operation would take nearly a year to complete and cost some $64 million.

And the worst part is that a lot of people still don’t believe the war is over. It might be for now, but some don’t think for long: “A frightening side to this long-term promise for believers in the UN ceasefire is that Hizbollah has encouraged its Shia population to rent homes in Khalde, south of Beirut, since it intends to delay its entire city construction project for a year - because of its conviction that the ceasefire will break down and that another Israeli-Hizbollah war will only wreck newly built homes.” This was written by Robert Fisk on the 24th of August 2006 (click here to read the article).
mrtez

Rifts over Hizbullah form Lebanon's new green line
Declan Walsh in Beirut
Thursday August 24, 2006
The Guardian

Only in Beirut do war scars and champagne chic blend so easily. In Achrafiye, an upmarket district of hip restaurants and nightclubs where a bottle of bubbly can cost $1,000, a ravaged building totters over a street corner.
Bullet holes pock the walls and the windows have long disappeared. Rubbish and barbed wire clog the front door and weeds sprout from the upper floors. The lonely ruin is what remains of the Green Line, the infamous boundary that divided Christian East and Muslim West Beirut during the 17-year-old civil war of the 1970s and 80s. Until recently it was a reminder of a bitter conflict most Lebanese thought was over. But since this summer's 34-day war with Israel, there are fears of fresh divisions within Lebanese society that could heave the country into a new era of turmoil.
The new green line wobbles uncertainly around the role of Hizbullah. As Israeli warplanes pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and laid entire villages to waste, many Lebanese silently rallied around the fighters' resistance. But since a ceasefire took hold 11 days ago, sectarian dissent has slowly swelled.
Druze, Sunni and some Christian leaders blame Hizbullah for provoking Israel and are demanding the group submit to the national government. "The [political] situation has become dramatically worse since July 12," said Michael Young, opinion page editor at the Daily Star newspaper. "The perception among non-Shia communities is that Hizbullah went to war without consulting with anyone."
Some quietly suggest Israel should have gone further to crush the militant group. "I wish with all my heart this war had not ended," one Christian woman, who asked not to be named, said in the southern city of Tyre.
An exception is the Christian leader Michel Aoun, who has forged an alliance with Hizbullah in what he depicts as an effort to build bridges with Muslims. But this is controversial among other Christians, who say Hizbullah has let countries such as Syria and Iran use Lebanon as a battleground for their interests.
The fiercest argument centres on disarmament. Israel, the US and the UN say Hizbullah must surrender its arms to ensure peace. "To play a patriotic role they don't need weapons," said Elias Attallah of the Democratic Left party. "An army and a resistance movement cannot live side by side. In Lebanon no community can accept domination by another. Otherwise it will lead to war."
Others say such demands may be incendiary. "If the government persists in trying to disarm Hizbullah and if the US keeps pushing them, this will create sectarian tensions, a split in the army, and could very well lead to a civil war," said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a lecturer at the American University of Beirut who has written a book on Hizbullah.
Among its Shia supporters, at least, Hizbullah is riding a wave of popularity. In Beirut yesterday officials handed out thick wads of US dollars to war refugees whose houses had been destroyed. The funding is widely believed to come from oil-rich Iran, Hizbullah's main sponsor.
Musa Trablisi, 57, slipped $12,000 (£6,340) into his pocket, the maximum under Hizbullah's compensation system. His house in Ainata near the Israeli border has been flattened, he said. Even so, his loyalties were clear. "As long as Israel attacks and bombs our country, and as long as our government is paralysed, I am with Hizbullah," he said.
One solution could be to rejig Lebanon's political structures. Under the country's sectarian power-sharing system, based on a 1932 census, Shia are under-represented in the government, civil service and top ranks of the army.
But efforts to reach an internal settlement are constantly buffeted by outside forces. Some feel Lebanon's future lies in the hands of powerbrokers in Washington, Tehran and Damascus. "Geographically we are in the wrong place, like Poland during world war two," said Khaled Daouk, a Sunni businessman.

Who won?

2006-08-23T21:58:00.000+03:00

This is from the Salt Lake Tribune. Seemed appropriate though we must not forget the dead and the families that lost their loved ones. Incidentally I see that Lebanon is nor represented in the caricatures...

Maliban

2006-08-23T18:40:00.000+03:00

The images above are of the Maliban bottling factory in the town of Chtoura on the road to Damascus in Lebanon’s historic Bekaa valley.
Or rather it was the Maliban bottling factory. Now it is a mess of twisted steel, broken glass and shattered concrete. I was there Tuesday on a two-day trip through the battered Bekaa returning Wednesday night.
The destruction of this modern bottling plant was mind-blowing. All the more so as it is owned by British Indian family from Uganda, the Madhvanis. For 40 years they have invested in the plant, and the people of the Bekaa. 360 employees and their families lived from the factory. Now all are unemployed and one who happened to be in the factory at 12.35pm on August 4 when four massive Israeli missiles hit the building, is dead.
The man in the picture above has managed the plant, which was one of the Lebanon’s biggest industrial enterprises exporting to the Middle East and Europe and turning over $26 million annually, for 34 years. His name is Aurobindo Roy Chowdhury.
‘We didn’t even hear the planes. If I hadn’t closed for business three days earlier 150 staff could have been dead. It is a disgrace,’ he says.
‘I lived here throughout the Civil War, the Israeli air raids of the 1990s, never did we close, and never did I think they would hit us. In all my years I can tell you no Hizbullah were ever here. This is a legitimate business enterprise that has been destroyed. Israel must pay to rebuild us.’
There is little doubt in Roy Chowdury’s mind, or Beirut Live’s, that this attack and the one on the Liban Lait milk factory halfway between Zahle and Baabeck (which produced exactly the same results as the pictures above) was designed to attack the people and damage Lebanon’s economy.
‘It would cost between $60 and $70 million to rebuild from here,’ he says, and there is no guarantee that the Madhvanis will do so considering the huge cost and the instability of the region.
One man in the factory told me that Israel always wanted to hit Maliban as the Madhvanis had declined to open their business in Israel way back in the 1960s.
What is certain is that this bombing which Israel has offered no concrete explanation for was designed to inflict maximum damage on the people of the Beqaa and any support they might have for Hizbullah and Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, as well as seriously harm Lebanon’s economy.
The Israeli policy seems to have been (I say seems because Israel never ever takes responsibility for actions it knows to be reprehensible - eg. Rachel Corrie), ‘if we cannot destroy the magical guerillas lets harm business.
45 factories were hit during the July campaign. None were proved to have Hizbullah fighters or any weapons inside. At Liban Lait even the cows were not spared Israel’s wrath.
And after 35 days of conflict no one has won anything and everybody has lost.
There is little doubt that there was a major economic objective to this war. Hurt the nation’s business and financial status as much as possible, put economic pressure on the government and perhaps that will cause them to blame Hizbullah and fight them, seems to have been the Israeli aim. What others are there?
‘There have never been weapons in this factory,’ says Roy Chowdury. ‘Never. And now the lives of hundreds have been placed in the balance. Shame on the Israeli prime minister.’
And oh what a surprise… the British Government, in its duty to its citizens and business wherever they are, hasn’t even bothered to a lodge an official complaint to Israel.

War Crimes

2006-08-23T09:26:00.000+03:00

Amnesty International released its report on the war in Lebanon in which it clearly condemns the Israeli aggression as war crimes. It states that Israel deliberatly targeted civilians and the country's infrastructure as part of its military strategy. Israel's statement that it was targeting Hizbollah who were using civilians as human shields "rings hollow," stated the respected organization. It's time that IDF stops acting as a bully and starts abiding by the Geneva Convention. Why did Israel target a milk factory for example? RS visited the bombed site in the Bekaa yesterday and he will update you on that soon. Some sources claim that the Lebanese milk factory had won a profitable EU contract recently, beating an Israeli milk factory who came in second place. If this is true or untrue, the question still holds: why a milk factory?
Here is an extract of the report by Amnesty International, entitled: Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Deliberate destruction or ‘collateral damage’?
During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home.

The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about 7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.(1) The attacks, though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In addition to the human toll – an estimated 1,183 fatalities, about one third of whom have been children(2), 4,054 people injured and 970,000Lebanese people displaced(3) – the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31 "vital points" (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads.(4) More than 25 fuel stations(5) and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000.(6) Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.(7)

In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than 25 per cent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated 500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.
Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result. Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents. With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave. The lack of fuel also stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps require electricity or fuel-fed generators.

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.

Statements by Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign. On 13 July, shortly after the air strikes began, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz noted that all Beirut could be included among the targets if Hizbullah rockets continued to hit northern Israel: "Nothing is safe [in Lebanon], as simple as that,"(8) he said. Three days later, according to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, a high ranking IDF officer threatened that Israel would destroy Lebanese power plants if Hizbullah fired long-range missiles at strategic installations in northern Israel.(9) On 24 July, at a briefing by a high-ranking Israeli Air Force officer, reporters were told that the IDF Chief of Staff had ordered the military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut for every Katyusha rocket strike on Haifa.(10) His comments were later condemned by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.(11) According to the New York Times, the IDF Chief of Staff said the air strikes were aimed at keeping pressure on Lebanese officials, and delivering a message to the Lebanese government that they must take responsibility for Hizbullah’s actions. He called Hizbullah "a cancer" that Lebanon must get rid of, "because if they don’t their country will pay a very high price." (12)

The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict.

For the full report click here.

The cease-fire may be sticking but Israel's embargo keeps Lebanese and Lebanese goods prisoner

2006-08-22T17:51:00.000+03:00

It's been a while I have not posted. Took the weekend off and travelled to the moutain resort of Faqra though still had to deal with the sounds of Israeli planes and choppers Saturday night as they airdropped commandos into Baalbek after flying over us. It was loud, offensive and of course a continued violation of Lebanese airspace and freedoms. Oh and it killed 5 supposed members of Hezbollah and failed to kill Sheikh Yazbeck which was its stated aim. Same old same old.
Meanwhile British Airways on its British Med subsidiary were supposed to begin flying direct to London this morning but my friend Clancy Chassay of The Guardian who was supposed to be on the flight was told it was cancelled. Why?
Because there was no way for Israel to screen it, its contents or passengers.
All other flights MEA, Lufthansa and more are forced to fly via Amman, the Jordanian capital, so Israeli officials can check all the flights leaving Beirut, adding 4 hours minimum onto any outbound journey.
Now while I can accept, just, Israel's 'need' to check incoming flights to Lebanon for supposed weapons replenishment to Hezbollah, I cannot accept Israel's need to check outbound flights. Are there going to be weapons on them? Does anyone really think that is possible. I can tell you it is not. What else? Terrorists? Please.
This is a continued attack on the Lebanese people and the freedoms of this nation.
No trade is yet moving in and out of Lebanese ports for the same reason. There is no way currently that Israel can examine all in and outbound ships. The result is the continued ruination of numerous businesses and a strangling of trade, aid, and so on.
Are the Lebanese expected to swallow these violations of the nation for months on end on the strength of that reasoning? How long are we expected to fly via Amman to go anywhere? Any countries Lebanese planes fly to will check all goods, etc on arrival methodically and with maximum security no doubt. Is a British Airways plane heading for London going to head directly for Tehran? What laws allow Israel to dictate the where and when of transport out of Lebanon?
And how long do the Lebanese have to suffer such humiliation?
It is unfathomable.

Brothers in Arms?

2006-08-22T09:38:00.000+03:00

(The above flag is that of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards; the lower of Hezbollah)

Even though we all know that Hezbollah is trained and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, it is rather surprising to see the shocking resemblance in their flags. Apart for the colors and the Arabic writing, the rest of the flag (hand, weapon, globe and leaf) are exactly the same.
Hezbollah is such a highly trained guerilla force, that it is now compared to the special forces of the Revolutionary Guards. Any thoughts on this close-partnership?

Above the Clouds

2006-08-21T12:01:00.000+03:00

This week-end we were above the clouds in Faqra resort (as seen in pic). RS and I, along with a member of another blog (arabisraelipeace.blogspot.com) decided we needed a really relaxing time-off from the city, the news and the politics. What better way then to head to the peaceful mountain resort where there is no humidity or heat. It was perfect timing as the war was over and we really deserved some quiet from the 30+ day nightmare we lived through continously.
But it was too good to be true. As soon as we arrived Friday evening to the stunning mountain resort, all we could hear were jet fighters and helicopters flying right above our heads. It was so loud we couldn't believe it was the Israelis. But it was. At that specific moment, the IAF was conducting mock up attacks on the city of Baalbeck, some 30-kilometers from our location. And a couple of hours later, IDF commandos landed in the same area and performed ground operations, over 100-km from the Israeli-Lebanese border. This was a major breach of the cease-fire agreement. I wonder what the Israeli government has planned for what it called "the next round" against Hizbullah.
Maybe we were wrong to dream that the war would be over...

For the record

2006-08-20T01:00:00.000+03:00

Israel broke the cease fire last night by launching a commando operation in the Beka'a Valley. Will the American people remember Condelezza's words as the UN resolution was being passed last week? She said "now we will know who really wants peace."

End games?

2006-08-19T14:20:00.000+03:00

Read this and the link below. Anyone having a party on Monday?

NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Iranian cataclysm forecast Aug. 22
Islamists seeking heaven could spark apocalypse, Princeton expert warns

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A top expert on the Mideast says it is possible Iran could pick Aug. 22, the anniversary of one of Islam's holiest events, for a cataclysm Shiite Muslims believe will forever resolve the battle between "good" and "evil."

Princeton's Bernard Lewis has written an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal advising that the rest of the world would be wise to bear in mind that for those who believe the end of the world is imminent and good, there is no deterrent even to nuclear warfare.

As WorldNetDaily has reported, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged his people to prepare for the coming of an Islamic "messiah," raising concerns a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

He's also said, in a WND report, that Islam and its followers must prepare to rule the world, because it is a "universal ideology that leads the world to justice."

Now comes Lewis, who notes that the world must be concerned about a leader for whom the possibility of death is not a deterrent.

"In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning," Lewis wrote. "At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead – hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers.

"For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint, it is an inducement," he said.

Lewis noted that Ahmadinejad has referred to Aug. 22 several times, including when he rejected – until that date – United Nations requests for nuclear program information.

Lewis, joining several other Mideast experts who have expressed similar concerns, said Aug. 22 corresponds to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427.

"This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back," Lewis wrote.

In Islam, as in other religious, certain beliefs describe the "cosmic struggle" at the end of time. For Shiite Muslims, Lewis wrote, this will be "the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil."

The significance, he said, is that there's a "radical" difference between Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons.

"This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers," he wrote. Iran's leaders now "clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced."

As for intent, a passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, reveals priorities: "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers (i.e., the infidel powers) wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom."

Lewis wrote, "This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadanejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Lewis, the Cleveland E. Dodge professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, specializes in Muslim history and interaction between Muslims and the West.

His comments echoed those made just a few days earlier by Robert Spencer, another scholar of Islamic history, theology and law and the director of Jihad Watch.

In an article for FrontPageMagazine.com, he wrote that Farid Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria, noted the commemoration of Muhammad's ascent to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

Spencer said the Night Journey, or Miraj, is what makes Jerusalem a holy site for Islam, and Islamic tradition believes Muhammad, along with the angel Gabriel, went to the Temple Mount, and then to heaven in a bathing of light over Jerusalem.

Spencer reported that Ghadry talked of Ahmadinejad's plans for an illumination of the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the light of that Islamic belief.

Ghadry said what the Iranian president is "promising the world by August 22 is the light in the sky over the Aqsa Mosque," Spencer said.

He said a nuclear attack on Jerusalem, or even a conventional attack, would be consistent with the references that have been made, including Ahmadinejad's talk that Israel "pushed the button of its own destruction" by returning fire for Hezbollah's rocket barrage.

Also, "Atomic Iran" author Jerome Corsi notes that it's less significant whether Hezbollah survives, "but it's really the first chapter in the play for Iran and the Shiite Islam nation to come to ascendancy in the Muslim world."

First is the battle against Israel and the United States, he said, then against Sunni Islam. Where that group is more dominant, he said, is in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where group members are "not unhappy to see Iran contained."

"They may launch an attack, but I still think if they had a weapon they would just go ahead and use it," Corsi said. "Terrorists don't brag about things they're going to do until after they do it."

He said the recent comments are more typical of terrorists' efforts to get attention.

"When Ahmadinejad is capable of taking action he will do it without any warning or bravado; he'll just do it," Corsi said.

In the updated edition of "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," now available in paperback from WND Books, Corsi discusses many of the disturbing developments related to Iran.

Meanwhile, Tanzanian customs officials have uncovered an Iranian smuggling operation transporting large quantities of bomb-making uranium from the same mines in the Congo that provided the nuclear material for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima 61 years ago, according to a recent report in the London Sunday Times.

A United Nations report, outlining the interception last October, said there is "no doubt" the smuggled uranium-238 came from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province.

The smuggled uranium discovered by Tanzanian customs agents was hidden in shipment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. According to the manifest, the coltan was to be smelted in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan after being shipped to Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest port.

Uranium-238, when used in a nuclear reactor, can be used to create plutonium for nuclear weapons.

For further reading, more on religous side check this out:http://armageddoncocktailhour.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/ahmadinejad-august-22-and-irans-new-mission/

Back to "normal"

2006-08-17T18:26:00.000+03:00

(downtown Beirut)

Driving to work seemed oddly ordinary today. Traffic was not stopped as it would normaly have been at 9:00AM, but there were plenty of cars on the roads. I was coasting along the highway when the sound of sirens interrupted my thoughts. Suddenly a black suburban with black tinted windows aggressively passed on my right, followed quickly by a second, third and a fourth all identical vehicles revving fast with identical plates, diplomatic ones, characteristically yellow. A gun barrel hung out the window of the last vehicle.The Americans are so obvious, I thought.

Although things seemed to be getting back to normal, I wondered how the mission would be received today. Usually the motorcade, which has been dramatically scaled down over the past ten years, featured a mix of white and tan suburbans—ten years ago they had gun turrets cut out of the roofs. But today they were all black, somber, like a funeral procession or perhaps something more sinister, at least in the eyes of some, maybe most. I remembered the bartender from last night, so brash in his socio-political commentary, accusing me of being unable to comprehend reality, when I questioned his view that “the Americans, the British, the French, all those who fucked us should be kicked out!” In particular, the American mission, he restated. The Lebanese prime minister would have done well, he said, to kick them “the fuck out”.
Joe is a bartender at one of the trendiest pubs in town. He is tattooed, light skinned, muscular, and loud, his accent vaguely American. Rumor has it that he often takes on work as a shipman to make a few extra bucks. He probably wouldn’t have much trouble fitting in as a New Jersey mechanic either.
“I saw you on CNN” he bellowed at me when I ordered a beer. “You’re on my shit list,” he said seriously, producing a mischievous smile. Later he would come around the bar and slap me five, saying he was just joking. The conversation seemed to deteriorate though when I suggested that Lebanese were a mix of all cultures and that Lebanon, by default, should be open to the rest of world. “What do we need from America,” he demanded. “We have oil, we have all the countries from here to North Africa.”
Do you like rock and roll? I asked. He hesitated, as if they question was irrelevant, but finally answered yes balefully, then waived me off. “You don’t understand,” he sputtered, his tone hardening. “You, you, you,” gesturing with his hands over his head as if to indicate some kind of indoctrination. “We are all a mix, aren’t we?” I asked. He winced, then briskly walked off with our spent ashtray and a couple of empty beer bottles.
Earlier I spoke to the bar owner, another stoic character but somewhat milder-- soft-spoken and aloof. He is an Italian-Lebanese and a well known entrepreneur in the local club scene.
He explained to me how he had forbidden many foreign news crews from filming at his bar. When I asked about a threat from militant groups, he recalled 1984 when in the midst of civil war the party of God had shut down many liquor stores in West Beirut. “It was my birthday,” he recalled, “and it was so hard to find alcohol.” Joe was more blunt. “Why?” he cried, when I asked about having the pub filmed. “Because people will be pissed off if they show us partying and drinking here while others are dying.”
I guess it was Joe’s attitude that I remembered most, perhaps unconsciously, when I looked upon the American motorcade as if it they would be seen more of as merchants of death rather than diplomats. After parking my car, I took the usual route to the office, walking in front of Lebanon’s largest mosque adjacent to the tomb of its founder, former prime minister Rafik Hariri. It’s not exactly clear when the mosque will open. Final touches on the ornate yellow stone building, which dwarfs all surrounding edifices with its towering minarets, have been ongoing for the last few months, just over a year after Hariri’s assassination. A man holding a hose pumped water at the landscaping out front as traffic passed by on a green light at the intersection behind him. Could I be wrong about worrying about all this stuff, I wondered. Is it right to just carry on now, as if nothing really had happened?

No time to waste, time to reconstruct

2006-08-17T12:10:00.000+03:00

(Clean up crew in Dahieh)

Only a couple days since the end of the war and people have already focused their efforts on reconstructing the country and aiding the people who have no more homes. Hizbollah is already donating some US$15,000 to every person who has lost their homes. Prominent businessmen and private companies have already pledged money to reconstruct 12 bridges. The government is already surveying all the damages incurred and is getting ready to present its needs at an international conference expected to be held in Sweden on 31st August. Even airlines are planning to fly back into Beirut International Airport shortly, with MEA landing today and British Airways flying in early next week.
Our country shall never bend down and we shall show to the world what the word Lebanon really means.
However, it seems not everyone is very glad about the reconstruction conference Sweden will be hosting for Lebanon. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an anti-Semitism awareness group, on Wednesday slammed Sweden's plans to host an international aid conference for Lebanon as "discriminatory", saying the meeting should also address the needs of Israeli victims of the conflict. A statement issued by the Wiesenthal Centre accused the Swedish government of "exclusion and discrimination". Last I checked, not only is our country completely devestated by Israeli air raids, but we also recieve absolutley no yearly aid from America. If I am not mistaken, every single bridge, road, power plant, airport, factory, telecommunication center, water treatment plant in Israel is intact. If I am not mistaken there was absolutely no blockade in Israel. How is a Lebanon aid conference "discriminatory"? And please Wiesenthal Centre don't call us anti-semite, we all are semites here.

Hizbollah’s Outlook in the Current Conflict (Part II)

2006-08-16T23:47:00.000+03:00

Here is the second part of the fascinating insight of Hizbollah and what their strategy could look like in post-war Lebanon. Enjoy the rare and unique read. You can find both articles on www.carnegieendowment.org in PDF format or here at Beirut Live.

Part Two: Accommodating Diplomacy and Preparing for the Postwar Context
By Amal Saad-Ghorayeb

The adoption of United Nations Resolution 1701 and a formal cease-fire raise hopes for peace in Lebanon. Yet many questions exist about the viability of the settlement, questions whose answers will depend significantly on Hizbollah’s outlook, both about the diplomacy that has taken place as well as its own position in Lebanon coming out of the current conflict. The issue of Hizbollah’s disarmament remains a powerful potential logjam, one that could result in continued strife, either between Israel and Lebanon, or within Lebanon itself.

Partial Accommodation to the Lebanese Government’s Initial Diplomatic Stance Hizbollah consistently called for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire to the fighting that started after July 12—or as Hizbollah termed it: “an immediate end to Israeli aggression.” The party was opposed to the principle of a conditional cease-fire as part of larger peace package. As explained by Mohammed Fneish, Hizbollah’s Energy Minister, “the discussion of a comprehensive solution is in our opinion a cover for the aggression and allows the United States to appear as though it is making an effort at a time when it was waging war on us.”
Despite these objections, the party leadership assented to the seven-point comprehensive cease-fire plan put forward by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fuad Siniora, soon after the conflict began. Hizbollah’s two ministers expressed reservations about the various elements of the plan, but the party felt compelled to agree to it for the sake of a common Lebanese front. According to Fneish, who took part in the cabinet deliberations, Hizbollah endorsed Siniora’s proposal “to prevent transforming our battle with Israel into a domestic battle, and to avoid being accused of hindering efforts which could have reduced losses for Lebanon.”

In another sign of accommodation with the Siniora government, Hizbollah ministers approved a Lebanese cabinet decision in the first week of August to mobilize 15,000 Lebanese army troops for deployment to the south in the event of a cease-fire and an Israeli withdrawal. Attempting to justify this move to the party’s rank and file, Hizbollah’s Secretary General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, commended the cabinet’s decision as an act that would “greatly help Lebanon and its friends to press for amending the draft resolution which is being prepared at the Security Council.”

Skepticism about UN Resolution 1701
Despite Nasrallah’s espousal of a political resolution to the crisis, Hizbollah remains wary of diplomatic initiatives by the international community and harbors a particular mistrust of the UN Security Council. This mistrust is evidenced by Nasrallah’s characterization of Resolution 1701 as “unfair and unjust” for absolving Israel of its “war crimes and massacres” while holding Hizbollah “responsible for starting the aggression.” Throughout the conflict, Hizbollah repeatedly rejected any “humiliating conditions” being imposed upon it or Lebanon, regardless of “how long the confrontation lasts” or “how numerous the sacrifices may be.” In this vein, Nasrallah urged the government on several occasions, including in a speech on August 9, to remain “steadfast” and not acquiesce to American- Israeli demands in the negotiation process.

Despite Hizbollah’s criticisms, Resolution 1701 constitutes at least a partial diplomatic victory for the group insofar as it was an improvement (from Hizbollah’s perspective) on previous drafts that were rejected by both Hizbollah and the Lebanese government. As Nasrallah puts it, the end result was “the least bad” of all the drafts. Hizbollah would therefore “not be an obstacle to any decision taken by the Lebanese government” and would “abide by” any cease-fire agreement worked out by the UN Secretary General “without hesitation.” The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet on August 12 and, by extension, by Hizbollah’s ministers, although they voiced a number of reservations.

Prospects for a Cessation of Hostilities
Resolution 1701 calls for a “full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations,” after which the Lebanese government and reinforced up United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) forces are to deploy in the South, while Israeli troops withdraw “in parallel.” The implementation of this process is certain to be highly complicated and face a significant risk of failure.
Although both the Lebanese and Israeli governments acceded to Secretary General Kofi Annan’s call for a cessation of hostilities effective August 14, it is very possible that fighting will continue after that date, for two interrelated reasons: first, Israel is refusing to withdraw from Lebanon until international and Lebanese troops deploy; and second, Hizbollah intends to continue fighting as long as Israeli soldiers remain on Lebanese soil, as Nasrallah spelled out explicitly on August 12. This leaves an interim period of an estimated one to two weeks before UNIFIL troops are expected to arrive, during which the fighting is likely to flare up again.

Hizbollah’s First Clash with the Lebanese Government over Disarmament
In line with the Lebanese government’s seven-point plan, Resolution 1701 stipulates that the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River be manned solely by 15,000 troops each from the Lebanese army and UNIFIL. Although the UNIFIL force has not been granted peace-enforcement powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it will have the right to “resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties.”
As noted above, Hizbollah agreed to this arrangement when it approved the government’s seven-point plan. Hizbollah made this concession relying on the solid relationship it had developed with the approximately 1,000 Lebanese army troops stationed close to the southern border area since the Israeli pullout in 2000, and the similar modus vivendi it achieved with the 2,000 UNIFIL forces stationed there since the early 1980s. Hizbollah also assumed that the Lebanese army’s role would be to secure Lebanon’s border, not Israel’s, as demonstrated both by Nasrallah’s recent assertion that the Lebanese army “are not forces that take orders from enemies” and Fneish’s assessment that “the army’s role would not be to protect Israel and it wouldn’t deploy according to Israel’s security needs.”

Hizbollah did not equate the Lebanese army’s deployment with its own disarmament and hence saw no potential clash between its armed forces and the army. This assumption was reinforced by there being nothing in the cabinet-approved plan explicitly suggesting that Hizbollah would be expected to disarm. Moreover, the fact that Resolution 1701 does not resolve the dispute over Shebaa Farms (the Secretary General is to present a proposal on this issue to the Security Council within 30 days of the date of the resolution) also gave Hizbollah what it viewed as further assurance that the Lebanese government would accede to its maintaining arms. A source with close links to the party suggested in a recent interview that Hizbollah was relatively confident that the government would be bound to its policy statement of July 2005, which clearly legitimized Hizbollah’s “right” to “complete the liberation of Lebanese territories,” meaning Shebaa. Hizbollah clearly envisaged an arms management as opposed to an arms decommissioning scenario whereby its arms would remain hidden, and hence deactivated, save for occasional attacks on the occupied Shebaa Farms area, which could be launched from its bases behind the Litani River.

These assumptions were shaken on August 13, however, in the immediate aftermath of the issuance of Resolution 1701 when cabinet members of the ruling majority called for a special session to deliberate on Hizbollah’s disarmament preceding the deployment of the Lebanese army and UNIFIL. Hizbollah’s ministers refused to discuss the prospect of disarmament at the current time, for various reasons, including that Shebaa’s status would remain unresolved for another month. According to a source close to the Lebanese army command, the army command refuses to dispatch troops to the south if their mandate is rejected by Hizbollah.
Such a decision is not surprising given that an estimated 40 per cent of army conscripts are Shiites, while the army is known to be sympathetic to Hizbollah and enjoys good relations with Hizbollah’s military command. Moreover, it is likely that the army is keen to avoid a split in its ranks as has occurred in the past. Whatever the outcome of this deadlock might be, it is bound to complicate efforts to dispatch international forces to the area, while the political polarization underlying the deadlock may intensify in the near future.

Hizbollah’s Broader Rejection of Disarmament
Resolution 1701 reiterates the need to implement Resolutions 1559 and 1680, which call for the disarmament of Hizbollah (without mentioning Hizbollah by name), as part of a comprehensive and permanent cease-fire plan. In order to better appreciate the difficulties inherent in any effort to disarm Hizbollah in a postwar scenario, an examination of the party’s motives for maintaining its arms and refusing the integration of its military forces into the army is needed.
Most campaigns for Hizbollah’s disarmament are premised on the argument that a sovereign democratic state has to possess a monopoly over the use of force. Although Hizbollah has failed to publicly articulate an intellectually coherent counter-argument to these calls, party officials have attempted through various statements to justify Hizbollah’s armed status, including in interviews conducted by the author in June of this year.

According to Fneish, “the resistance did not emerge when the state was strong and in a position to protect its borders; it did not cause the weakness of the state. The resistance emerged because the state was already weak, it came because the state failed.” He adds that had it not been for the armed resistance, and the liberation of Lebanon from Israeli occupation, there would have been “no return of the state to the south.” In this view, the state lacked sovereignty because of successive Israeli invasions and occupations, not because of Hizbollah’s arms. Had the state assumed its role as a sovereign power and evicted Israel from its territory, there would have been no need for the resistance. Ali Fayyad, Politburo member and director of a think tank closely affiliated with Hizbollah, adopts a similarly utilitarian argument: “Society is more important than the state because the state is meant to serve society … when the state fails in carrying out some of its functions, society must help the state in carrying them out, even if the state doesn’t ask.” Thus, although Hizbollah officials agree “in theory” that a state must have a monopoly on the use of force, in practice they do not. In the words of Fneish, “confronting the danger to the country’s destiny is more important than the theoretical incompatibility of such means with the state’s authority.”

But this incompatibility is more than just theoretical for many critics of Hizbollah who see the organization as constituting a “state within a state.” In light of this, various proposals have been floated, which center on integrating the Hizbollah’s military capacity into the Lebanese army, such as one put forth by Terje Roed-Larsen, special UN Envoy for Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559 on Lebanon. Asked in a June interview what he thought of Roed-Larsen’s proposal, Sheikh Nai’m Qassem, Hizbollah’s Deputy Secretary General, asserted that it “appears to be a solution but in essence, its aim is to eliminate the resistance,” and for that reason, its implementation was “out of the question.”

In May, Nasrallah publicly ruled out such a merger as well, arguing that “it is not a realistic option because this will weaken the Lebanese position in facing the much superior Israeli army.” He contended that even if the army had the needed manpower and budget to bolster its forces, the United States and other Western powers would not agree “to sell us qualitative arms that would guarantee air cover for the army.” Given these obstacles, Hizbollah’s armed forces are the only way of creating a “balance of power” with the Israeli Defense Forces.

Hizbollah asserts other grounds for objecting to the integration of its armed forces into the army. One such argument is that the “margin between the Resistance and army” is of benefit to the state insofar as it does not have to bear direct responsibility for any of the resistance’s activities. As Nasrallah pointed out earlier this year, “when any resistance under the army fires a single bullet, then the ministry of defense … and the entire state would be subject to direct attack.” For these and other reasons, Hizbollah offers few concessions on its arms other than “coordination without integration.” The farthest Hizbollah officials have gone is to suggest that Hizbollah’s armed forces would become a “reserve army,” which would coordinate with the Lebanese army on matters of strategy but not tactics. However, this would amount to little more than “calling resistance by another name,” to use Qassem’s terminology, given that Hizbollah’s military activities would remain under its own command.

It follows from this that Hizbollah is not willing to disarm in the foreseeable future. As Nasrallah has spelled out on several occasions, the party will remain armed for “as long as Israel remains a threat to the country.” In a speech earlier this year, Nasrallah suggested that only a “comprehensive settlement which would bring an end to the war” could neutralize that threat. From Hizbollah’s perspective, the security of Lebanon remains inextricably tied to the Arab-Israeli conflict, regardless of Israel’s fulfillment of specific Lebanese demands. Fneish articulates this view in stating that, “the problem wouldn’t be solved if Israel simply withdraws from Lebanon,” but would continue until a just and comprehensive regional agreement is in the offing. For Qassem, “when Palestinians are being killed on a daily basis on our very doorstep and when 300,000 or 400,000 Palestinians remain in Lebanon and cannot return to their country … this is aggression.” Asked to specify the exact conditions under which Hizbollah would no longer view Israel as a threat and contemplate disarmament, Qassem answers, “let’s not talk about the reaction but the action…. If the Israeli danger disappears one day and I have no idea how it would disappear, then the resistance which was a reaction to the Israeli danger would no longer be present. The struggle is therefore open so long as Israel is aggressive in its presence and existence.”

Hizbollah officials have insinuated on various occasions that the party might hold on to its arms indefinitely due to what it perceives as the perpetual threat posed by Israel. For example, Nasrallah described Israel as a “permanent threat which could turn into aggression at any time,” in the same breath as his utterances on a comprehensive settlement. In perhaps one of the clearest indications of Hizbollah’s view of the nature of the Israeli threat and hence Hizbollah’s determination to retain its arms, Qassem affirmed as recently as two months ago that, “our opinion is that Israel’s existence itself is a danger. Because the origins of Israel lie in the occupation of land and the violation of others’ rights. This is aggression. Every single experience we have had since 1948 until now is an experience of aggression, expansion, wars and displacement, imprisonment and killing. Parts of four countries were occupied under the banner of Israel’s existence.”

Hizbollah’s Postwar Plans
In the view of many observers inside and outside the region, including some in Israel, Hizbollah has effectively emerged as the military victor in this war by having survived and by inflicting losses against Israel throughout the conflict. Some Lebanese politicians representing the “March 14” political camp, as well as many non-Shiite Lebanese, have voiced fears about the political implications of a victorious Hizbollah. In an attempt to allay such concerns last month, Nasrallah responded: “I conclusively answer by saying, first of all, Lebanon and its people had an experience with how this resistance acted after the victory in 2000. Second, I assert from now on that victory will be for all of Lebanon.” The Hizbollah leader was referring to similar fears that were expressed in the aftermath of Hizbollah’s liberation of south Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000. As elaborated by Hizbollah Politburo member Ghaleb Abou-Zeynab, “the fear is that Hizbollah would change the entire political equation if it triumphs to eliminate others. There will be political changes but we have no intention of destabilizing the situation.”

These “political changes” that Hizbollah envisions are two-fold. The first relates to Lebanon’s political identity and foreign allegiances. Nasrallah alluded to the desired change when he recently urged the government “not to forget” how the U.S. administration failed it in its time of need, and cautioned those who continue to count on U.S. support. In an expansion of this stance, Abou-Zeynab claimed that those “who had previously relied on the outside for their policies or U.S. support for change, now have to rethink this in light of the new reality.” Hizbollah is making an assertive claim to Lebanon’s political identity, as exemplified by Abou Zeynab’s statement that, “Lebanon will be removed from the U.S.-French orbit.” By the same token, Nasrallah has vowed that “Lebanon will not be one of the locations of the ‘new Middle East.’”

The second change concerns a new hardening on disarmament. Now that Hizbollah has shown that Israel’s powerful, U.S.-backed military was unable to disarm it, it believes that nobody else can, least of all the weakened Lebanese government. Qomati boldly declared that the “resistance is a red line for us, handing [in] our arms is out of the question, even if Shebaa is liberated.” This view is likely shared among the approximately 96 percent (according to a poll carried out in Lebanon last month) of Lebanon’s Shiites who support Hizbollah. The hundreds of thousands of Shiites who have been displaced from predominantly Shiite areas are likely to be more united as a community, as well as angry and radicalized vis-à-vis Israel, and thus even more favorable to Hizbollah maintaining arms than in the past.

In light of these facts, the consequences might be dire if the Lebanese government ardently pursues the disarmament of Hizbollah. In the worst case scenario, civil strife would occur and the state would collapse. In the best case, all Shiite ministers would withdraw from the cabinet, leading to the government’s collapse. Ultimately, the ruling majority is likely to be faced with a troubling dilemma: either a state within a state or a state within a failed state.

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is an assistant professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut. She writes regularly on Lebanese politics and is the author of Hizbullah: Politics and Religion

2006-08-16T18:08:00.000+03:00

End of the begining?

2006-08-16T17:27:00.000+03:00

The picture above is one I took yesterday of a temporary memorial set up in Beirut's Martyr's Square. I wonder if martyrdom will ever be something we Lebanese can read about in history books rather relive every few years. Here's a letter I wrote later that night

--

Hi there. Hope you're well. Things have calmed down a bit over the past two days in terms of bombs and jets, but the blockade is still in full force and emotions are running high. I guess that’s why it’s been hard to focus on the blog. There are so many new concerns now, from political posturing to far-reaching economic devastation. Almost every sector of the economy, which finally began experiencing real growth for the time in decades, has been paralyzed and the future seems increasingly uncertain. Half of my office staff and half of my friends have left the country. The existing divisions among Lebanese are at levels I have never seen since the end of the civil war-- much more than during the assassination of the prime minister, the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the recent series of bombings and assassinations mainly on Christian neighborhoods and journalists. Curiously, each Lebanese political/religious group has suffered an individual blow over this last year and half of sporadic instability. The most recent catastrophe though, a brutal swing at the most heavily armed segment of the population, has really shaken society to its core, especially the fragile new government. Some people are even talking about the return of militias. I could go on and on.

Downtown was quiet today. Thousands of refugees flooding back to their homes yet it is still dangerous, with a high number of unexploded ordinance littering residential areas. They are also beginning to discover more bodies under the rubble as the streets are cleared. I could tell you about waiting in long lines for gasoline, people filling their freezers with ice and massive effects on jobs and the economy, but the shift in society seems paramount to everything at this point. I surprised my self tonight when I pulled into the driveway and stared at our house while sitting in my car, wondering just for a moment, if our whole package of dreams for this country was some kind of allusion that was beginning to unravel. Today, colleagues and friends even joked about living in other places like Paris and the Caribbean. It felt weird to fantasize with them about peace. It felt weird to reconsider Lebanon as one of the coolest places to be. At the same time, talk of racial profiling in the states is not really encouraging me to go back there either! Anyway at least I can smile now as I watch the anchorwoman at CNN ask the weather lady about climate conditions for the people in south Lebanon. Least of our worries! Regards,HB

Hizbollah’s Outlook in the Current Conflict

2006-08-16T12:15:00.000+03:00

A fascinating read into the mind of the Hizbollah. We will soon publish Part Two of the research entitled "Accommodating Diplomacy and Preparing for the Post-War Context". Stay tuned...

Part One: Motives, Strategy, and Objectives
By Amal Saad-Ghorayeb

The fighting between Israel and Hizbollah has reached a critical juncture given Israel’s widening ground offensive and the heated negotiations over an impending UN Security Council resolution to end the conflict. Israel’s war on Hizbollah has catapulted the movement onto the world stage, earned it widespread respect throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and hardened its support in Lebanon. Understanding Hizbollah’s outlook both with regard to the onset of the current conflict as well as its strategic objectives is crucial to assessing the likely course of events in the crucial weeks ahead.

Hizbollah’s July 12 Ambush: Motives and Expectations Concerning an Israeli Response
After Israel’s massive response to Hizbollah’s July 12 ambush of an Israeli convoy, many commentators and ordinary Lebanese concluded that Hizbollah’s decision to carry out the attack was either an Iranian-issued and Syrian-encouraged directive, aimed at igniting a war with Israel and dragging Lebanon into a wider regional conflict, or a reckless miscalculation that unwittingly wreaked havoc on the country.

The fundamental flaw in the first interpretation is that it does not take into account Hizbollah’s similar abductions in the past which paved the way for prisoner exchanges with Israel involving hundreds of Lebanese and other Arab prisoners. Moreover, the party had dubbed 2006 “the year of the prisoners” (referring to the three Lebanese detainees whom Israel refused to release in the larger prisoner exchange of 2004) and did in fact attempt to capture Israeli soldiers in the preceding months for that very purpose. In Hizbollah’s view, therefore, the abductions did not constitute a paradigm shift in its military strategy that necessitated an Iranian stamp of approval or warranted a massive Israeli response. From Hizbollah’s perspective, the fact that Israeli soldiers were captured from Israel proper on July 12 did not represent a significant change in the rules of the game given Israel’s routine violations of the Blue Line separating Israel from Lebanon. It is in light of these considerations that Hizbollah claims it anticipated a more customary Israeli response to abductions: limited aggression, to be followed by a prisoner exchange. As admitted by the deputy-head of the party’s Politburo, Mahmoud Qomati, Hizbollah “did not expect the response would be of this magnitude.”

This acknowledgement may appear to corroborate the second interpretation. It would be an
oversimplification, however, to take Hizbollah’s admission of not forecasting such a military escalation as evidence of sheer miscalculation. Judging by Hizbollah’s ability to absorb the shock of Israel’s immense air power, its impressive performance in ground battles, and its sustained ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns and cities, Hizbollah does not appear to have been taken completely off guard by Israel’s offensive. It is likely that the party had envisaged a large-scale Israeli response as one of many possible scenarios—though perhaps not giving it as much weight as others—and had therefore laid out the necessary contingency plans. As articulated by Hizbollah’s Energy Minister, Mohammed Fneish, “when we make a decision we lay out plans for what the Israeli response might be, even the worst possibilities, and we are ready for them. We base our decisions on the worst possible outcomes.”

In fact, there is evidence suggesting that Hizbollah must have foreseen an existential showdown with Israel at some point in the short to medium term. Before the outbreak of the conflict, the party had been engaged in the Lebanon National Dialogue talks, which deliberated over, among other issues, the fate of Hizbollah’s arms under the aegis of proposals for a “National Defense Strategy.” Some political forces belonging to the “March 14” Lebanese parliamentary majority, which enjoys close ties with the United States and France, had used these talks as an effort to implement the U.S.-French brokered UNSC Resolution 1559, which calls for Hizbollah’s disarmament. According to Qomati, the party was fully aware that the talks were heading toward deadlock and believed the result would be that the United States would try to implement Resolution 1559 by means of an Israeli military assault on Hizbollah. In effect, Hizbollah was “prepared but not for the timing of the operation.”

Hizbollah’s Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, announced in July that the party had recently learned that the offensive had been planned for this September or October and that as such, it was fortuitous Hizbollah abducted the Israeli soldiers when it did: doing so hastened the war and hence deprived Israel of the “element of surprise.” Qomati cites the Bush administration’s consistent rejection of an immediate cease-fire as proof that the United States is orchestrating the war and that it would have been waged regardless of the abductions. Hizbollah has thus gone beyond its conventional view of the United States’ role as one of post-facto justification and legitimatization of Israeli actions, and now perceives Washington as the primary engineer of Israel’s current onslaught. Talk by U.S. officials of turning the Lebanon crisis into an “opportunity” to forge a “New Middle East,” coupled with the Bush administration’s adamant refusal to accept anything less than the “conditions for a sustainable cease-fire,” are interpreted by Hizbollah as U.S. dictates for both the instigation and prolongation of the current conflict. As expounded by Nasrallah in a speech last month, “the Israelis are ready for stopping the aggression….it is the United States which insists on continuing the aggression on Lebanon.” In this connection, Israel is now seen as an “obedient tool” of a U.S. policy that seeks to redraw the political map of the region beginning with Lebanon and working its way through to Iran and Syria.Given these factors, Hizbollah frames the current conflict as one waged by the United States and Israel against it, thereby, in its view, rendering its military objectives entirely defensive.

As declared by Nasrallah, “we did not want this war, but we are fighting it because it was imposed on us.” Although it appears that Hizbollah neither deliberately ignited a large-scale conflict that could engulf the entire region nor ignorantly miscalculated the likelihood of such a scenario, now that this war has been set in motion Hizbollah has not shied away from utilizing it in the service of its regional and domestic objectives, which are described below.

Hizbollah’s Strategic Objectives in the Current Conflict Military Objectives
One of Hizbollah’s central objectives in this war is the creation of new definitions of power and victory that cannot be measured in quantitative or material terms. This process has been facilitated by three factors. The first is the very high, ultimately unattainable bar that Israel set for itself at the beginning of the conflict—eliminating Hizbollah—and Israel’s consequent need to change its goals thereafter. Second, and conversely, is the fact that Hizbollah did not clearly articulate any military objectives to begin with, save for its intent to secure a prisoner exchange at some point. It logically follows that a military victory for Hizbollah merely consists of denying Israel the ability to secure any tangible achievement.

To date, Hizbollah appears to have succeeded insofar as Israel has not attained any of its declared military goals, i.e. the unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers, the dismantlement or severe weakening of Hizbollah’s capacity to continue resisting Israeli forces, the neutralization of Hizbollah’s rocket capability, or pushing Hizbollah back to the Litani River. The third is the asymmetrical nature of the warfare—the Israeli Defense Forces’ vast size and strength compared to Hizbollah’s guerilla forces amplifies any sign of military weakness on the Israeli side and any indication of strength from Hizbollah’s side. These features of the conflict have enabled Nasrallah to declare that Hizbollah’s very survival constitutes a victory, as does what he has called its “steadfastness in front of the fiercest military power” and its “continuation with the confrontation.”

Hizbollah also regards itself as triumphant for having outperformed all conventional armies which have fought Israel throughout the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes Hizbollah’s ability to blunt the Israeli incursion, inflict losses on the Israeli army, and more significantly, take the conflict to Israel itself through rocket attacks. While these short-term goals are about Hizbollah’s own survival and status, Hizbollah also strives for longer term objectives which aim at shattering the myth of Israeli military invincibility. In a telling recent public speech, Nasrallah agreed with Shimon Peres’s assertion that the conflict was an existential one for Israel. Ruling out the notion of “liberating Palestine” and “destroying” Israel, Nasrallah construed Peres’s “life and death” statement as indicative of Israel’s fear of the ramifications of a Hizbollah victory on the future of Israel. As explicated by Nasrallah, “when the people of this transient state lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin. This is because Israel is a state that was established for an army, and in Israel there is no army made to serve a state.” Hizbollah views the Israeli state as being subordinate to its military, which defines the very nature, identity, and foundation of the state. According to this line of reasoning, once this military is given its first taste of defeat, the foundations of the state will be shaken and Israel will begin to unravel.

Political Objectives
Another central objective of Hizbollah is to confront Washington’s “New Middle East” initiative and to frustrate the plan’s realization both in Lebanon and the region. In Hizbollah’s view, the only forces capable of stopping the U.S. plan are the main actors of the strategic axis which encompasses Syria, Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas. It is for this reason that the United States seeks to eliminate them from its path, beginning with Hizbollah in Lebanon. This perception has only been exacerbated by the U.S. government’s framing of the current conflict as part of both the war on terrorism and President Bush’s freedom agenda, as exemplified by Bush’s recent contention that Hizbollah is “willing to kill and to use violence to stop the spread of peace and democracy,” and his characterization of the war as “part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East.” Hizbollah officials believe they have a “destiny to confront this accursed plan and to thwart the goals of this war,” which includes stripping Lebanon of its “history, commitments, culture, and true identity to become an American-Zionist Lebanon.”

Hizbollah’s war with Israel thus becomes “an affirmation of the people’s right to resist occupation and the rejection of the American imperialistic tendency,” in the words of Mohammed Fneish. By blocking U.S. objectives in this war, Hizbollah will “obstruct the American plan” for the region “not in its aims but its results.” Hizbollah’s linking of the outcome of the current fighting with the success or failure of the U.S. Middle East plan is evinced by Nasrallah’s depiction of the conflict as “surpassing Lebanon….it is the conflict of the umma,” whose results will reverberate throughout the entire region. Given the immense popularity Hizbollah now enjoys in the Sunni Arab mainstream and among Islamist movements, the outcome of the war will have significant consequences not only for U.S. and Israeli goals in the region but also for the so-called “moderate” Arab regimes, whose substantial deference to the U.S.-Israeli line has been cast into sharper relief.

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is an assistant professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut. She writes regularly on Lebanese politics and is the author of Hizbullah: Politics and Religion

What is the logic behind this war?

2006-08-15T19:08:00.003+03:00

This is what Israel causes everytime it decides to go into a violent war. More unecessary hatred and problems. Maybe this is why Haaretz chose to publish the following commentary.

Israel should pack up and go
By Nadim Shehadi

What is the logic that will emerge from this war? If Israel can exist only by destroying the neighborhood, then it's time to declare it a failed state. The Zionist dream has turned into a nightmare and is not viable. If the future holds more of the same, then the time has come to reconsider the whole project. Every state has a duty to defend its citizens, but also it has a duty to provide them with security and the two are different.
The prospects are for more destruction, fanaticism, violence and hatred. No unilateral separation can isolate Israel from this, nor can the region or the world live with the consequences. This seems to be the only choice, and Israel must do itself and others a favor and go away. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza shows a country deprived of all humanity. The West Bank is unliveable, the population strangled into three prison clusters. Concrete barriers, barbed wires, bypass roads, human beings emerging like rats from underground tunnels, daily humiliation from hundreds of checkpoints. Gaza has been under siege since the population dared to elect Hamas, its infrastructure has been obliterated and its population has been driven to despair in what now seems like a dress rehearsal for what was to come in Lebanon. Lebanon woke up on July 12 to a reality that can destroy the very fabric of society. Divided between those who believe in a "riviera" with consensus politics, power sharing and a weak state, and those who, like Hezbollah, see the necessity of having a fortress to resist an evil and dangerous enemy. Israel's behavior will see the logic of the latter prevail.
Yet the Lebanese system is resilient. PM Fouad Siniora, under the bombs, was able to extract a consensus for a seven-point plan where the victorious fortress accepted to go back to the political process to resolve the crisis. Lebanon still managed to challenge the U.S. and Israel through sheer persistence, and in a diplomatic tour de force it was successful in steering the UN Security Council toward a political rather than military solution. For the first time, Arab foreign ministers have been mobilized and actively lobbied international legality. There is deliberate targeting of civilians: Israel can deny it, but at the very least, those Israelis who are doing it know it is true. Over 17,000 people were killed in the invasion of 1982, and the net result was the creation of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is a doctrine that says Arabs need to be crushed, that they can be bombed into submission, that they will eventually fall on their knees. It is the doctrine, not its application, that is flawed. It says that by terrorizing the population, they will respect us and make peace; it says that those who dare resist need to be eradicated through targeted assassination and their supporters annihilated no matter what the cost. The only lessons Israel learned is that it should do it better next time. Three Arab countries have peace treaties or diplomatic relations with Israel, most of the Gulf states have or had commercial bureaus, Saudi Arabia came up with the King Abdallah plan offering Israel normalization - something that was not achieved in nearly 30 years of peace with Egypt. Tunisia and Morocco have excellent relations with Israel. Even rogues like Syria and Libya give out positive vibes - the former desperate to resume peace talks unconditionally. The region has a history of tolerance and coexistence; minorities, including Jews, have survived and prospered for centuries. Israel is blind to any positive developments, and this will soon make these positions and those who hold them disappear, their stance untenable. Lebanon can reconstruct airports, roads, bridges, and factories; bury and mourn the dead, rebuild shattered lives. Israel has barely been there for 60 years, a millisecond in history, but enough time to judge the results. If the fundamental moral logic is flawed, then it is time to give up, pack up and go.

The writer, a Lebanese economist, is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Program at Chatham House.

How bout a song?

2006-08-15T16:09:00.000+03:00

I can't get this one out of my head these days. Remember Country Joe and the Fish? It goes a little something like this:

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

You are terrorists, we are virtuous

2006-08-14T20:55:00.000+03:00

This article has just appeared in the London Review of Books. ISraelis should read it well. The rest of us are well aware of Israel's 'national psychosis... deriving from the over-identification with Israeli military thinking.'

So far ceasefire is holding.

You are terrorists, we are virtuous

Yitzhak Laor on the IDF

As soon as the facts of the Bint Jbeil ambush, which ended with relatively high Israeli casualties (eight soldiers died there), became public, the press and television in Israel began marginalising any opinion that was critical of the war. The media also fell back on the kitsch to which Israelis grow accustomed from childhood: the most menacing army in the region is described here as if it is David against an Arab Goliath. Yet the Jewish Goliath has sent Lebanon back 20 years, and Israelis themselves even further: we now appear to be a lynch-mob culture, glued to our televisions, incited by a premier whose ‘leadership’ is being launched and legitimised with rivers of fire and destruction on both sides of the border. Mass psychology works best when you can pinpoint an institution or a phenomenon with which large numbers of people identify. Israelis identify with the IDF, and even after the deaths of many Lebanese children in Qana, they think that stopping the war without scoring a definitive victory would amount to defeat. This logic reveals our national psychosis, and it derives from our over-identification with Israeli military thinking.

In the melodramatic barrage fired off by the press, the army is assigned the dual role of hero and victim. And the enemy? In Hebrew broadcasts the formulations are always the same: on the one hand ‘we’, ‘ours’, ‘us’; on the other, Nasrallah and Hizbullah. There aren’t, it seems, any Lebanese in this war. So who is dying under Israeli fire? Hizbullah. And if we ask about the Lebanese? The answer is always that Israel has no quarrel with Lebanon. It’s yet another illustration of our unilateralism, the thundering Israeli battle-cry for years: no matter what happens around us, we have the power and therefore we can enforce the logic. If only Israelis could see the damage that’s been done by all these years of unilateral thinking. But we cannot, because the army – which has always been the core of the state – determines the shape of our lives and the nature of our memories, and wars like this one erase everything we thought we knew, creating a new version of history with which we can only concur. If the army wins, its success becomes part of ‘our heritage’. Israelis have assimilated the logic and the language of the IDF – and in the process, they have lost their memories. Is there a better way to understand why we have never learned from history? We have never been a match for the army, whose memory – the official Israeli memory – is hammered into place at the centre of our culture by an intelligentsia in the service of the IDF and the state.

The IDF is the most powerful institution in Israeli society, and one which we are discouraged from criticising. Few have studied the dominant role it plays in the Israeli economy. Even while they are still serving, our generals become friendly with the US companies that sell arms to Israel; they then retire, loaded with money, and become corporate executives. The IDF is the biggest customer for everything and anything in Israel. In addition, our high-tech industries are staffed by a mixture of military and ex-military who work closely with the Western military complex. The current war is the first to become a branding opportunity for one of our largest mobile phone companies, which is using it to run a huge promotional campaign. Israel’s second biggest bank, Bank Leumi, used inserts in the three largest newspapers to distribute bumper stickers saying: ‘Israel is powerful.’ The military and the universities are intimately linked too, with joint research projects and an array of army scholarships.

There is no institution in Israel that can approach the army’s ability to disseminate images and news or to shape a national political class and an academic elite or to produce memory, history, value, wealth, desire. This is the way identification becomes entrenched: not through dictatorship or draconian legislation, but by virtue of the fact that the country’s most powerful institution gets its hands on every citizen at the age of 18. The majority of Israelis identify with the army and the army reciprocates by consolidating our identity, especially when it is – or we are – waging war.

The IDF didn’t play any role in either of the Gulf wars and may not play a part in Bush’s pending war in Iran, but it is on permanent alert for the real war that is always just round the corner. Meanwhile, it harasses Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, to very destructive effect. (In July it killed 176 Palestinians, most of them from the same area in Gaza, in a ‘policing’ operation that included the destruction of houses and infrastructure.) They shoot. They abduct. They use F-16s against refugee camps, tanks against shacks and huts. For years they have operated in this way against gangs and groups of armed youths and children, and they call it a war, a ‘just war’, vital for our existence. The power of the army to produce meanings, values, desire is perfectly illustrated by its handling of the Palestinians, but it would not be possible without the support of the left in Israel.

The mainstream left has never seriously tried to oppose the military. The notion that we had no alternative but to attack Lebanon and that we cannot stop until we have finished the job: these are army-sponsored truths, decided by the military and articulated by state intellectuals and commentators. So are most other descriptions of the war, such as the Tel Aviv academic Yossef Gorni’s statement in Haaretz, that ‘this is our second war of independence.’ The same sort of nonsense was written by the same kind of people when the 2000 intifada began. That was also a war about our right to exist, our ‘second 1948’. These descriptions would not have stood a chance if Zionist left intellectuals – solemn purveyors of the ‘morality of war’ – hadn’t endorsed them.

Military thinking has become our only thinking. The wish for superiority has become the need to have the upper hand in every aspect of relations with our neighbours. The Arabs must be crippled, socially and economically, and smashed militarily, and of course they must then appear to us in the degraded state to which we’ve reduced them. Our usual way of looking at them is borrowed from our intelligence corps, who ‘translate’ them and interpret them, but cannot recognise them as human beings. Israelis long ago ceased to be distressed by images of sobbing women in white scarves, searching for the remains of their homes in the rubble left by our soldiers. We think of them much as we think of chickens or cats. We turn away without much trouble and consider the real issue: the enemy. The Katyusha missiles that have been hitting the north of the country are launched without ‘discrimination’, and in this sense Hizbullah is guilty of a war crime, but the recent volleys of Katyushas were a response to the frenzied assault on Lebanon. To the large majority of Israelis, however, all the Katyushas prove is what a good and necessary thing we have done by destroying our neighbours again: the enemy is indeed dangerous, it’s just as well we went to war. The thinking becomes circular and the prophecies self-fulfilling. Israelis are fond of saying: ‘The Middle East is a jungle, where only might speaks.’ See Qana, and Gaza, or Beirut.

Defenders of Israel and its leaders can always argue that the US and Britain behave similarly in Iraq. (It is true that Olmert and his colleagues would not have acted so shamelessly if the US had not been behind them. Had Bush told them to hold their fire, they wouldn’t have dared to move a single tank.) But there is a major difference. The US and Britain went to war in Iraq without public opinion behind them. Israel went to war in Lebanon, after a border incident which it exploited in order to destroy a country, with the overwhelming support of Israelis, including the members of what the European press calls the ‘peace camp’.

Amos Oz, on 20 July, when the destruction of Lebanon was already well underway, wrote in the Evening Standard: ‘This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from a daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages by attempting to smash Hizbullah wherever it lurks.’ Nothing here is distinguishable from Israeli state pronouncements. David Grossman wrote in the Guardian, again on 20 July, as if he were unaware of any bombardment in Lebanon: ‘There is no justification for the large-scale violence that Hizbullah unleashed this week, from Lebanese territory, on dozens of peaceful Israeli villages, towns and cities. No country in the world could remain silent and abandon its citizens when its neighbour strikes without any provocation.’ We can bomb, but if they respond they are responsible for both their suffering and ours. And it’s important to remember that ‘our suffering’ is that of poor people in the north who cannot leave their homes easily or quickly. ‘Our suffering’ is not that of the decision-makers or their friends in the media. Oz also wrote that ‘there can be no moral equation between Hizbullah and Israel. Hizbullah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hizbullah.’ At that time more than 300 Lebanese had been killed and 600 had been injured. Oz went on: ‘The Israeli peace movement should support Israel’s attempt at self-defence, pure and simple, as long as this operation targets mostly Hizbullah and spares, as much as possible, the lives of Lebanese civilians (this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags).’

The truth behind this is that Israel must always be allowed to do as it likes even if this involves scorching its supremacy into Arab bodies. This supremacy is beyond discussion and it is simple to the point of madness. We have the right to abduct. You don’t. We have the right to arrest. You don’t. You are terrorists. We are virtuous. We have sovereignty. You don’t. We can ruin you. You cannot ruin us, even when you retaliate, because we are tied to the most powerful nation on earth. We are angels of death.

The Lebanese will not remember everything about this war. How many atrocities can a person keep in mind, how much helplessness can he or she admit, how many massacres can people tell their children about, how many terrorised escapes from burning houses, without becoming a slave to memory? Should a child keep a leaflet written by the IDF in Arabic, in which he is told to leave his home before it’s bombed? I cannot urge my Lebanese friends to remember the crimes my state and its army have committed in Lebanon.

Israelis, however, have no right to forget. Too many people here supported the war. It wasn’t just the nationalist religious settlers. It’s always easy to blame the usual suspects for our misdemeanours: the scapegoating of religious fanatics has allowed us to ignore the role of the army and its advocates within the Zionist left. This time we have seen just how strongly the ‘moderates’ are wedded to immoderation, even though they knew, before it even started, that this would be a war against suburbs and crowded areas of cities, small towns and defenceless villages. The model was our army’s recent actions in Gaza: Israeli moderates found these perfectly acceptable.

It was a mistake for those of us who are unhappy with our country’s policies to breathe a sigh of relief after the army withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. We thought that the names of Sabra and Shatila would do all the memorial work that needed to be done and that they would stand, metonymically, for the crimes committed in Lebanon by Israel. But, with the withdrawal from Gaza, many Israelis who should be opposing this war started to think of Ariel Sharon, the genius of Sabra and Shatila, as a champion of peace. The logic of unilateralism – of which Sharon was the embodiment – had at last prevailed: Israelis are the only people who count in the Middle East; we are the only ones who deserve to live here.

This time we must try harder to remember. We must remember the crimes of Olmert, and of our minister of justice, Haim Ramon, who championed the destruction of Lebanese villages after the ambush at Bint Jbeil, and of the army chief of staff, Dan Halutz. Their names should be submitted to The Hague so they can be held accountable.

Elections are a wholly inadequate form of accountability in Israel: the people we kill and maim and ruin cannot vote here. If we let our memories slacken now, the machine-memory will reassert control and write history for us. It will glide into the vacuum created by our negligence, with the civilised voice of Amos Oz easing its path, and insert its own version. And suddenly we will not be able to explain what we know, even to our own children.

In Israel there is still no proper history of our acts in Lebanon. Israelis in the peace camp used to carry posters with the figure ‘680’ on them – the number of Israelis who died during the 1982 invasion. Six hundred and eighty Israeli soldiers. How many members of that once sizeable peace camp protested about the tens of thousands of Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian casualties? Isn’t the failure of the peace camp a result of its inability to speak about the cheapness of Arab blood? General Udi Adam, one of the architects of the current war, has told Israelis that we shouldn’t count the dead. He meant this very seriously and Israelis should take him seriously. We should make it our business to count the dead in Lebanon and in Israel and, to the best of our abilities, to find out their names, all of them.

3 August

Yitzhak Laor lives in Tel Aviv.

What's next?

2006-08-14T19:03:00.000+03:00

(The video had some sound problems, this is why there is an effect of an echo)

The video is exclusive footage Beirut Live was able to acquire of the Israeli bombing of the bridge extension which leads to the Middle East's highest bridge, in Sofar. The image was taken in the first week of the crisis and is one of the hundreds of attacks on Lebanese infrastructure.
Now that a cease-fire just went into effect, we are hopeful it will hold and last. But when the dust settles, we will be facing two major internal problems - one of them could be potentially difficult, the other potentially fatal.
The first will focus on the economic problem. Our infrastructure is devastated and so are thousands of businesses, factories and agriculturalists alike. However, Sweden has said that it will host an international aid conference for Lebanon on August, 31 with representatives of 60 governments and organizations invited. This is expected to bring about a lot of aid that will hopefully empower us to repair a lot of the damage. But Lebanon has already lost enormous amount of money from this conflict, and many people are bankrupt while other are out of a job. How will these people make an income?
The other problem is the fatal one: the internal political struggle will soon appear in the form of two fighting clans: the ones who back Hezbollah and the ones who want them to disarm. This is what we, in Lebanon, are worried about today. How will this political struggle turn out? Can it lead to the worst of our fears? We hope not...

And what of the blockade?

2006-08-14T17:47:00.000+03:00

It's been ten days since I returned to Lebanon and I keep thinking this won't be necessary. Because I'm a novice at living in a war zone, I've been collecting advice from more experienced friends and colleagues. You'd think, with the cessation of hostilities this morning (plus or minus a few more dead in South Lebanon) that all this would end, but Israel's land, air, and sea blockade is still in place, and is set to continue, at least until the ceasefire is secure (whatever that means). So here it is, a crash course in siege culture, an irreverent run-through of all the lessons I've learned so far (I acknowledge that this comes from a privileged position, in that my neighborhood is far enough from Beirut's southern suburbs to be relatively safe). For those of you who are here, maybe this list will make you laugh at what an amateur I am and if I've left anything out, please let me know. For those of you who are not here, maybe the sheer banality of all these bits of advice will make the conditions of this war less alien, more intimately understood.

1. To stave off an imminent water shortage (if no fuel, then no electricity, then no water), fill your bathtub with tap water. Take sparingly from this supply to wash, to clean, and to flush the toilet. However, no matter how desparate, and even if you have a stomach of steel, don't drink Beiruti tap water. Really.

2. Stock up on drinking water. It's August, after all. You'd need a lot in normal circumstances.

3. Keep all windows cracked open so the pressure from nearby blasts or bomb explosions doesn't shatter the glass (RS and I learned this the hard way when Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated last year. The blast that ripped through his motorcade was a good 5 kilometers away but it smashed one of our windows and we've yet to fix it).

4. Charge mobile phone batteries (and keep a few fully charged spares) whenever there is electricity, same goes for your laptop battery, especially if you intend to work through this.

5. Stock up on candles, don't leave them unattended when lit, and don't waste them, as everybody else in Beirut is stocking up on them too.

6. Get acquainted with your neighbors eccentricities as power outages tend to amplify them. Our back balcony juts out into a sort non-distinct urban space (I'd call it a courtyard but it's too much of a wreck), which we share with about five other buildings. One of our neighbors tends to hum while hanging her laundry. When there's no electricity, this escalates to very loud singing. When there's bombing, she screams at the top of her lungs like yowling cat.

7. Train your ear to the following sequence of sounds: drones, warplanes, explosions.

8. When moving around the city, avoid bridges, tunnels, overpasses, government buildings, and landmarks. (While I was away I told two of my colleagues at the newspaper that they could stay at my place if they wanted to -- both of them live, or rather lived, in the southern suburbs -- when I got back they said to me, "Yeah, that was nice of you and all, but are you kidding? You live next to the Port and the Electricity Building...")

9. Stock up on your favorite alcohol. If you don't have one, pick one. Reconnecting with friends in Beirut over the past week and half has tended to go something like this: "You're back? You're crazy! I've become an alcoholic since you've been gone. I suggest you do the same. Quickly."

10. Lose the finicky eating bit. And with however many tons of oil still sinking into the Mediterranean, "fresh fish" is probably to be avoided.

11. If you drive, downgrade to a scooter and then to a bicycle.

12. Collect all the offers of places to stay, here and abroad, however polite or insincere, as you may need them eventually.

13. Be aware of the run on hard currency -- the ATM machine down the street from us is only dispensing Lebanese lira (the country's economy is dollarized) and there's a general cap on withdrawals, depending on the bank and branch.

14. Find novel ways to fend off boredom. Develop an affection for playing cards. Borrow novels from friends (only a handful of bookstores are still open), particularly novels that have nothing to do with Lebanon, the Middle East, war, etc. Seek lo-fi, lo-tech forms of escapist entertainment. (No new film reels can get into the country and very few cinemas are open -- that said, thank you, Metropolis, thank you CD-Theque).

15. Stock up on medicine, vitamins, condoms and the like...

Okay, in the realm of more interesting information, check out Seymour Hersh's piece in this week's New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact) and Elias Khoury in the London Review of Books (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n15/khou01_.html), published along with Rasha Salti's Siege Notes and a piece by Karim Makdisi, entitled "How the War Will End."

Next post will be about the city's art scene and cultural life and its prospects for recovery...

A bunch of Gangs

2006-08-14T11:32:00.000+03:00

Sunday the 13th of August – two days after Resolution 1701 was unanimously agreed on and one day before the cease-fire became effective. Hopes in Lebanon, and surely in Israel, were high. Will we have quiet? Will this lead to a lasting peace? My instincts tell me no, unfortunately. Let me share with you why.
Try and imagine that you have just lived through a month-long conflict which has not only destroyed your country but has also completely drained you. All day long, for one entire month, news of death, destruction and sounds of explosions just a couple of kilometers away. Suddenly and out of the blue all the rumors that this conflict will last much longer than anticipated evaporated when Resolution 1701 was voted for. And even though we couldn’t put too much faith in it, we had to admit that it was definitely a step in the right direction. We are hopeful.
This Sunday was a beautiful day indeed. The world officially agreed on the cease-fire. Nasrallah officially agreed on the cease-fire. The Lebanese government officially agreed on the cease-fire. All that remained was Israel’s cabinet to officially agree on the cease-fire on that sunny Sunday.
Now try and imagine that after that long month, all you needed was a moment of relaxation, a moment of peace. At last you could lie down and start believing that miracles do happen. You fall asleep with that thought in your mind believing that the future will become a great one. But before you could actually allow that dream to materialize an unbelievable set of explosions resonate throughout all of Beirut. 18 massive missiles were dropped on Beirut’s southern suburbs in less than a minute. Yes, less than a minute. Never during the entire conflict did such a set of explosions take place. And as soon as the TV is turned on to see what just happened, a breaking news alert appears on the bottom of the screen which read: “The Cabinet of Israel has officially agreed on the cease-fire.” A cease-fire indeed, it was like a ‘grande finale’. And 30 minutes after the massive explosions took place, the news stated that Hizbullah launched its largest barrage of rockets on Northern Israel in one day since the start of the conflict – an unbelievable total of some 250 rockets.
People in Lebanon continuously tell me that this is the way a cease-fire takes place, with a grande finale. Well all I can think of is that there are two parties which only want one thing: to fight each other. This is their way of saying it’s not the end.

The Solution? We hope so...

2006-08-14T09:33:00.000+03:00

UN Security Council Resolution 1701
Saturday 12 August, 2006

The Security Council,

PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),

PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

PP4. Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

PP5. Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon

PP6. Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,

PP7. Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area,

PP8. Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties,

PP9. Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict,

PP10. Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

OP2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from Southern Lebanon in parallel;

OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;

OP4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

OP5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;

OP6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

OP7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;

OP8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
full respect for the Blue Line by both parties, security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area, full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

OP9. Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;

OP10. Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within thirty days;

OP11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11
(b) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;

OP12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;

OP13. Requests the Secretary General urgently to put in place measures to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges Member States to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;

OP14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

OP15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft,
(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and
(b) the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;

OP16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

OP17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;

OP18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;

OP19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

2006-08-13T23:02:00.000+03:00

Lebanese beaches and marine life, another ‘Hezbolloah target’

2006-08-13T22:52:00.000+03:00

Hey let’s give Israel the benefit of the doubt for once. I mean there’s always the possibility of suicide dolphins and turtles, comprising a veritable Hezbollah ‘stronghold’ of marine life. I guess that’s why the IDF bombed the Beirut oil drums that made this mess earlier on. Most beaches across the country have been covered with toxic black guck as a result. By the way, you can see that a stage has been set up in the background for the annual Byblos music festival. Reggae/hip hop act Sean Paul was scheduled to perform here, on this very beach 2 days after the war started. We even booked a hotel room nearby. It was going to be a great night. Byblos, an ancient Phoenician port with Biblical references is one of the oldest constantly inhabited cities in the world. This picture was taken from Edde Sands beach resort, which would normally be rocking into the night on a Sunday evening like this.

1,071 Dead

2006-08-13T20:10:00.000+03:00

1,071 Dead
3,628 Injured
973,334 Displaced

And that's in just 33 Days since Israel attacked Lebanon. Makes for good reading. Today was a predictable day. Both sides agree to ceasefire but Israeli steps up its attacks on Lebanon. At about 2pm today we were sitting hoping for some calm and then in the space of one minute 18 bombs dropped, earthquaking in power and massive in sound. Smoke rises again from the southern suburbs, this time the district of Rweiss. Is this what is? A show of final force by the Israelis before they have to 'cease fire'. Gain the highest advantage with which to bargain with. Please. I am more negative now than I was the other day. Hezbollah cannot agree on how the army will be deployed to the south and how and when they will give up their weapons. It is going to be a long negotiation. But we have a big problem - Hezbollah has a minor victory in that it can show it has fought ISrael and hurt it, hurt its military might and shown it cannot be wiped out by all the force Israel and the Americans have to offer. At the same time Israel has won nothing and lost lots of soldiers and credibility. It's army proven able to 'bleed'. Which means that with its thousands of soldiers 'cleaning up' (in the words of the the arch-liar Mark Regev who always manages to make murder sound eloquent and normal) it needs to come out of this with a stonger victory than what is currently available. So its going to be a heavy night of bombing tonight and we hunker down hoping for the best. But my point was that with neither side particularly happy with this ceasefire and neither with anything much than can be called victory both will take any provocation to continue the war I think. There goes another bomb. For America has seen that Israel cannot clear out what it views as 'terrorists' even with all the arms and support it gets from them, so it has won nothing and Bush resorts to his pathetic narrow minded world view. Here's hoping for peace and a night of calm and this ceasefire to work.

A Very Good article from Jonathan Cook

2006-08-13T19:50:00.000+03:00

*How "Indiscriminate" is Hezbollah's Shelling?*

*Hypocrisy and the Clamor Against Hizbullah *

*By JONATHAN COOK*

Nazareth.

*A* reader recently emailed to ask if anyone else was suggesting, as I havedone, that Hizbullah's rocket fire may not be quite as indiscriminate or maliciously targeted at Israeli civilians as is commonly assumed. I had to admit that I have been ploughing a lonely furrow on this one. Still, that is no reason in itself to join everyone else, even if the consensus includes
every mainstream commentator as well as groups such as Human Rights Watch.
First, let us get my argument straight. I have not claimed that Hizbullah targets only military sites or that it never aims at civilians. According to the Israeli army, more than 3,300 rockets have hit Israel over the past four weeks. How can I know, or even claim to know, where all those rockets have landed, or know what the Hizbullah operatives who fired each rocket intended to hit? I have never made such claims.
What I have argued instead is twofold. First, we cannot easily know what Hizbullah is trying to hit because Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories and military installations near or inside civilian communities. If a Hizbullah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should we count that as an attack on civilians or on a military site?
The claim being made against Hizbullah in Lebanon -- that it is "cowardly blending" with civilians, according to the UN's Jan Egeland -- can, in truth, be made far more convincingly of the Israeli army. While there has been little convincing evidence that Hizbullah is firing its rocket from towns and villages in south Lebanon, or that its fighters are hiding there among civilians, it can be known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israeli army camps and military installations are based in northern Israeli communities.
An obvious point that no one seems to be making -- and given a news blackout that lasted several hours, Israel clearly hoped no one *would *make -- is that the 12 soldiers who were killed on Sunday in Kfar Giladi by a Hizbullah rocket were, under Egeland's definition, "cowardly blending" with the civilian population of that community. We know there are still civilians in Giladi because their response to the rocket barrage was quoted in the Israeli media.
My second claim was that Israel's military censor is preventing foreign journalists based in Israel, myself included, from discussing where Hizbullah rockets are landing, and what they may be aimed at. Under the censorship rules, It is impossible to mention any issue that touches on Israeli security or defense matters: the location of military installations, for example, cannot be divulged. It is arguable whether it would actually be possible to report a Hizbullah strike that hit a military site inside Israel.
I therefore have to tread carefully in what I say next, relying on information that is already publicly available, but which at least challenges the simplistic view that Hizbullah is firing rockets either indiscriminately or willfully to kill civilians. I draw on two pieces of coverage provided by BBC World.
On Tuesday, the BBC's Katya Adler reported from the northern community of Kiryat Shmona, which has taken the heaviest pounding from Hizbullah rockets and from which many of the local residents have fled over the past month. As she stood on a central street describing the difficult conditions under which the remaining families were living, she had to shout over the rythmic bark of what sounded like an Israeli tank close by firing into Lebanon. She made no mention of what was doing the firing -- and given the censorship laws, my assumption is she cannot. But it does raise the question of how much of a civilian target Kiryat Shmona really is.
Consider also this. Throughout the four weeks of fighting, the BBC have had a presenter and film crew at the top of an area of Haifa known as the Panorama, above the beautiful Bahia Gardens. As the name suggests, from there the film crew have had an unrestricted view of the port and docks below and the wide arc of heavily developed shoreline that stretches up to
Acre.
The spot where the BBC presenters have been standing, telling us regularly that they can hear the wail of sirens warning Haifa's residents to head for the shelters, is in the centre of this sprawling ridge-top city, in one of the most heavily built up and inhabited areas of Haifa. So why have the BBC's presenters been standing there calmly every day for weeks under the
barrage of rockets?
Because all the evidence suggests that Hizbullah has not been trying to hit the centre of Haifa, where it would be certain of inflicting high casualties, whether its rockets were on target or slightly adrift. Instead, as BBC presenters have repeatedly shown us, the overwhelming majority of rockets land either in the mostly-abandoned port area or fall short into the bay -- and on the odd occasion travel a little too far, as one did on Sunday landing on an Arab neighbourhood near the port and killing two inhabitants.
If Hizbullah's primary goal is to kill as many civilians as possible in Haifa, it seems to be going about it in a very strange manner indeed -- unless we are to believe that none of its rockets could be fired the extra 1km needed to hit central Haifa. Instead, as is clear from the view shown by BBC cameras, the port includes many sites far more "strategic" than the roads, bridges, milk factories and power stations Israel is destroying in Lebanon: it has the oil refinery, the naval docks and other installations that, yes, I cannot mention because of the censorship laws.
At the very least, we should concede to Hizbullah that it is not always targeting civilians, and very possibly is not mainly targeting civilians, which might in part explain the comparatively low Israeli civilian casualty figures.
That said, there are two valid criticisms, both made by Human Rights Watch, of Hizbullah's rocket fire -- though exactly the same or worse criticisms can be made of the Israeli army. Those, unlike HRW, who single out Hizbullah are being either disingenuous or hypocritical. One is that Hizbullah has filled many of its rockets with ballbearings. Most critics of Hizbullah take this as conclusive proof that the group's only intent is to kill and injure civilians. Anyone who has seen the damage done by a katyusha rocket will realise that it is not a very powerful weapon: it essentially punches a hole in whatever it hits. The biggest danger is from the shrapnel and from anything added -- like ballbearings -- that spray out on impact. The shrapnel can kill civilians nearby, of course, but it can also kill soldiers -- as we saw at Kfar Giladi -- and can puncture tanks containing flammable liquids like petrol, causing explosions.
The damage inflicted by the ballbearings is not in itself proof that Hizbullah is trying to kill Israeli civilians, any more than Israel's use of far more lethal cluster bombs is proof that it wants to kill Lebanese civilians. Both are acting according to the gruesome realities of war: they want to inflict as much damage as possible with each rocket strike. That is deplorable, but so is war.
The second criticism made by HRW is that because Hizbullah's rockets are rudimentary and lack sophisticated guidance systems they are as good as indiscriminate. That conclusion is wrong both logically and semantically. As I have tried to show, the rockets are mostly not indiscriminate (though presumably some misfire, as do Israeli missiles); rather, they are not
precise.
This, according to Human Rights Watch, still makes Hizbullah's rocket attacks war cimes. That may be true, but it of course also means Israel's missile strikes and bombardment of Lebanon are war crimes on the same or a greater scale. Hizbullah's strikes against civilians may be intentional or they may be the result of inaccurate guidance systems trying to hit military
targets. Israel's strikes against civilians are either intentional or the result of accurate guidance systems and very faulty, to the point of reckless, military intelligence.
Finally, what about the defense offered by Israel's supporters that its air force tries to avoid harming Lebanese civilians by leafletting them before an attack to warn them that they must leave? The argument's thrust is that only those who belong to Hizbullah or give it succor remain behind in south Lebanon and they are therefore legitimate targets. (It ignores, of course,
hundreds of civilians killed in areas that have not been leafletted or who were trying to flee, as ordered, when hit by an Israeli missile. )
Hizbullah, of course, has done precisely the same. In speeches, its leader Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly warned Israeli residents of areas like Haifa, Afula, Hadera and Tel Aviv that Hizbullah will hit these cities with rockets days before it has actually done so. Hizbullah can claim just as fairly that it has given Israelis fair warning of its attacks on civilian
communities, and that any who remain have only themselves to blame.
This debate is important because it will determine in the coming months and years who will be blamed by the international community -- and future historians -- for committing war crimes. Hizbullah deserves as fair a hearing as Israel, though at the moment it most certainly is not getting it.
Like every army in a war, Hizbullah may not acting in a humane manner. But it is demonstrably acting according to the same standards as the Israeli army -- and possibly, given Israel's siting of military targets in civilian areas, higher ones. The fact that the contrary view is almost universally held betrays our prejudices rather than anything about Hizbullah's acts.

*Jonathan Cook* is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, 'Blood and Religion: the Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State', is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Smell Good

2006-08-13T10:53:00.000+03:00

I have to give it to the IDF. Their latest airdrop was by far the most creative I have seen so far, and probably the most effective. Not only does it look like the normal products we would buy in Lebanon for the car to smell good, but it also smells the same - Cedar scent. What's really hilarious is that the Cedar has that little extra feature: a cartoonish head of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sticking out from behind it. The text reads: "Let it to smell good". And all this came packaged and free from the sky.
If anyone is reading this from the IDF, you have to know that these are the sort of creative things that work. Hundreds of people were scrambling the streets to pick up the Cedars and myself was highly surprised by the thought behind this one. It's much better than throwing notes with a list of the names of 100 Hizbullah soldiers dead. I wonder if the hired an ad agency for this one.