Feel the racism. Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:

But the lesson of Iraq and, now, Lebanon, is that zealots make tough enemies. It was one thing for Israel to fight apathetic and hapless Egyptians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Those armies consisted of the indifferent: Sure, these Arabs opposed Israel, but they were mostly unaffected by it and would rather live with it than die fighting it. Even the Palestinians proved to be not much of a battlefield foe. This has not been the case with Hezbollah or, in Iraq, the various groups of fanatics who would blow themselves up for reasons that we could not begin to fathom. Hezbollah is now described in terms once reserved for the Japanese army of World War II. "If you are waiting for a white flag coming out of the Hezbollah bunker, I can assure you it won't come," said Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, a member of the Israeli army's general staff.
This zealotry, this ideology, this religious fervor is not something we in the West -- and that includes Israel -- know how to deal with.

According to Mr. Cohen, "apathetic and happless" Arabs are normal and understandable, but determined ones who resist the attacker/occupier are consumed by incomprehenciple "zealotry" and "religious fervor". In his world view "we could not begin to fathom" resistence to the forces of good exemplified by the US/Israeli war machines.

Mr. Cohen, history teaches us that defence of ones homeland is quite normal, even for non fanatic islamo facist rag heads (or whatever you may want to call those who resist the crusading forces of good).

Today is the first day of the ceasefire in Lebanon. From the BBC monitoring service:

LI XUEJIANG IN CHINA'S RENMIN WANG:
The UN Security Council actually could not secure any achievements because of US obstruction... So were there really no winners? Not exactly - US arms dealers certainly made ill-gotten gains.

Good to see something positive in these dark times

From Haaretz, this uplifting quote from Israel:

"If our fighters deep in Lebanese territory are left without food our water, I believe they can break into local Lebanese stores to solve that problem," Brigadier General Avi Mizrahi, the head of the Israel Defense Forces logistics branch, said Monday.

I guess not enough US tax dollars are being sent for rations. Quite right that the Lebanese civilians should pay for the Israeli destruction occupation of their country.

Interesting though is the last sentence of this article:

According to Mizrahi, the logistics branch is prepared for the possibility that combat soldiers will have to remain in Lebanon during the winter.

No doubt, if Israel is still occupying Lebanon in Januarry Condy/Bush will be "surprised"...

This reminds me of another Condi fragent from July 21:

I think we are beginning to see the outlines of a political framework that might allow the cessation of violence in a more sustainable way tied to 1559, tied to -- what is there in the G-8 statement. The elements are becoming quite clear. But I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante. I think it would be a mistake.
What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.

Note that she want a cessation of violence for "1559", not to stop the killing and destruction. I'm sure in her reading 1559 ias all about dissarming Hezbollah...

And a final observation. I have not heard much mention of an important paragraph in the new UN resolution:

18. 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;

Resolution 242 is the one calling for "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
I find it positive that there is official recognition that the latest Lebanon war is linked to the 1967 war and resultant occupations.

George Bush once again demonstrates the depth of his understanding of the reasons for animosity against the United States. Describing the alleged plot to bomb planes from the UK to the US he said it was a:

stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom.

It could not possibly have anything to do with US/UK policies in recent years towards Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, ...

No it is because the bad guys hate that Bush and others "love freedom".

The thousands of dead Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese are birth-pangs of freedom love and democracy exporting.

I had a hard time locating the 7 point plan presented by the Lebanese government for a ceasefire. But finally found it here.
It was presented I believe on July 26:

1. An undertaking to release the Lebanese and Israeli prisoners and detainees through the ICRC.


2. The withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the Blue Line, and the return of the displaced to their villages.


3. A commitment from the Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms area and the Kfarshouba Hills under UN jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. While in UN custody, the area will be accessible to Lebanese property owners there. Further, Israel surrenders all remaining landmine maps in South Lebanon to the UN.


4. The Lebanese government extends its authority over its territory through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese state as stipulated in the Taef national reconciliation document.


5. The UN international force, operating in South Lebanon, is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, as needed, in order to undertake urgent humanitarian and relief work and guarantee stability and security in the south so that those who fled their homes can return.


6. The UN, in cooperation with the relevant parties, undertakes the necessary measures to once again put into effect the Armistice Agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in 1949, and to insure adherence to the provisions of that agreement, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of said provisions, as necessary.


7. The international community commits to support Lebanon on all levels, and to assist it in facing the tremendous burden resulting from the human, social and economic tragedy which has afflicted the country, especially in the areas of relief, reconstruction and rebuilding of the national economy.

Compare and contrast to the US/French plan

A few naive questions:

1. Why this plan did not get much reporting in the press?


2. Why Siniora's speech contained in the above link was under reported?


3. Since BushBlair are all for promoting democracy in the Middle East, why this plan was not used as the basis of the UN proposal?


4. Why the UN proposal is asymmetric in who can continue violence?


5. Why the UN proposal allows continuation of Israeli occupation?

By the way, there are constant references in the press in recent days of how Hezbollah was responsible for the killing of US marines in Lebanon in 1982. To the best of my knowledge this was never proved.

According to Caspar Weinberger who was Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1987, in a 2001 interview:

But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then.

Today I was listening to NPR morning edition, when this wonderful piece came along (To listen, go here and move forward to about 1:50)

Scott Simon: I know you have been out to see a port area there in town that has been struck recently. What can you tell us?

Ivan Watson: Scott, It’s called Uzai - it’s a little fishing port to the south of the city [Tyre] and it was hit 2 nights ago repeatedly.

Ah – the buildings around the port have largely been demolished and I cannot tell whether or not they were some kind of Hezbollah installation or not.

What was striking though was the port itself.

There were several hundred fishing boats had been stationed there and it appeared that Israeli aircraft had repeatedly straffed those little fishing boats destroying all of them but not really bombing the concrete pier that ran out into the port.

Ah – these boats were the livelihood for fishermen who make maybe $600 a month.

Um - the fishermen were joking, calling their sunken boats “Hezbollah aircraft carriers” and were questioning what the strategic value of such an attack could have been.

Scott Simon: mmmhmm. I, I suppose the Israelis were worried that small boats can in fact be used to transport missiles in and out?

Ivan Watson: [3 seconds silence] Perhaps eh Hezbollah has claimed several rocket attacks though, against Israeli warships over this three week conflict.

Mr. Simon's joke is almost as good as that of the fishermen!!!
At least I hope that was a joke. And not an attempt to make this latest destruction appear justified for military reasons.

A fine example of the New York Times's way of using omission to create propaganda. In an article entitled Hezbollah Leader Says Attacks Are Justified they state

"The Islamic resistance will hit Tel Aviv, and it is capable of doing that with God’s help," Sheik Nasrallah said in the speech, broadcast on the group’s television network, al Manar.

In most other reports, including this one from Haaretz (Israel):

"If you bomb our capital Beirut, we will bomb the capital of your usurping entity... We will bomb Tel Aviv," Nasrallah said.

So the a reader of the NYT would be unaware that the threat to bomb Tel Aviv was in response to an attack by Israel.