By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Mocked just months ago as a fool and a lightweight compared with his legendarily shrewd father, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appears increasingly to have become the "go-to guy" in resolving the two-week-old war between Hezbollah and Israel.

While neo-conservatives and other hardliners in the administration of US President George W Bush ruled out any thought of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's traveling to Syria - or of even inviting its officials to attend Wednesday's multilateral conference on Lebanon in Rome - the notion that Washington will have to deal with Damascus is gaining steam, even among some influential hawks.

"Come back, Bashar ..." was the headline of a column by Edward Luttwak in the neo-conservative Wall Street Journal's editorial page, in which he argued that Damascus should be invited back into Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, even if that meant the "recognition of Syrian suzerainty" over its smaller neighbor.

"Let's be friends with Syria" was the title of a second article appearing in the right-wing National Review by contributing editor James Robbins on Monday, in which he, too, argued for a rapprochement with Damascus as part of a "new international alignment in the Middle East" of Sunni-led states against Iran.

"Syria is the linchpin of the equation," he wrote. "Bashar Assad should be offered the same deal as [Libyan leader] Muammar Gaddafi - basically stop doing things that annoy us, get rid of your [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs and you can be our friend. And it is good to be our friend, particularly if you are a dictator seeking to avoid regime change."

That Syria will indeed prove pivotal to resolving the ongoing violence one way or another has become increasingly accepted in the US over the past week as it became apparent that Israel will not come close to achieving its initial war aim of dismantling Hezbollah as a fighting force once and for all.

Not only has the Shi'ite militia proved much stronger and more resourceful than either Israeli or US analysts had anticipated, but its resistance and fighting spirit - coupled with the destructiveness of Israel's offensive - have bolstered its popular support throughout the Arab world and even among some non-Shi'ite groups in Lebanon, according to virtually all independent reporting.

"Israel is losing this war," said Ralph Peters, a staunch pro-Israel columnist and military expert with the neo-conservative New York Post. "Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking."

To some hawks like Peters, as well as Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the answer lies in a major Israeli ground invasion to clear out Hezbollah infrastructure and militants from southern Lebanon.

But the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, haunted by the disastrous Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, appears reluctant to consider this option, unless it can be combined with the insertion of a "robust" international force capable of confronting and disarming Hezbollah that would enable Israel to retreat back behind its border.

With Israel unwilling to attack Damascus itself and unable to crush Hezbollah - and the Lebanese army both unable and unwilling to take it on - the only alternative appears to be the intervention of such a "robust" international force that Rice had been pushing before she traveled to the region on Sunday.

But with the US itself unwilling to contribute troops to such a force, most US analysts believe it unlikely that the United Nations or even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is already struggling to meet its current commitments in Afghanistan, can put together an operation that can do much more than what the existing, largely ineffective UN monitoring force (UNIFIL) already does, particularly if a still "alive and kicking" Hezbollah opposes its deployment.

"Another and larger UNIFIL, which would do nothing effective against Hezbollah while freezing the Israeli army in its tracks, would be much worse than useless," said Luttwak.

In that context, the only power capable of curbing Hezbollah, if only by slowing or stopping the transit of equipment from Iran that it needs to sustain itself as a fighting force, is Syria. Indeed, as pointed out by Luttwak, Damascus, as Hezbollah's main ally in Lebanon until it was forced to withdraw its 30,000 troops under international pressure last year, is likely to be the only power capable of persuading Hezbollah to disarm and "follow the political path".

Even before Rice set out for the region, the US administration appears to have understood Syria's pivotal position in bringing the current crisis to an end. But what it has clearly been unable to decide is how best to get Damascus to cooperate.

Some believe that only sticks - and particularly harsh ones - will work.

Hardline neo-conservatives, such as former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and his colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, have called for Washington to encourage Israel to carry its war against Hezbollah into Syria - presumably to persuade it to cut off Hezbollah and even, if possible, to realize a long-held dream of theirs - to overthrow Assad's Ba'athist regime.

But that option appears to have been firmly rejected by Olmert, who, like many others in Israel's policy elite, concluded some time ago that Assad was preferable to anyone who might replace him, particularly in light of what has happened in Iraq since the US ousted Saddam Hussein.

"Any political vacuum would almost surely be filled by the same sort of extreme Islamists now embittering the lives of Iraqis," said Aiman Mansour, an analyst at Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.

Others argue that Syria is in such a strong bargaining position that only carrots, and very big carrots at that, can induce its cooperation. This indeed was the message presented to Bush and Rice by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal at a White House meeting on Saturday in which he argued that weaning Syria from its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah was critical to any regional effort - one that already includes US allies Jordan and Egypt - to contain a far more dangerous Iran.

In this view, Washington made a major error last year in insisting, against the advice of the Sunni Arab states, on a precipitous withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and Damascus' diplomatic isolation.

That position is now echoed by a number of other commentators, including some, such as liberal interventionist New York columnist Thomas Friedman, who strongly supported Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution" but now argue that Damascus must be recruited for the escalating confrontation with Iran.

"To me, the big strategic chess move is to try to split Syria off from Iran, and bring Damascus back into the Sunni Arab fold. That is the game-changer," wrote Friedman last week. "What would be the Syrian price? I don't know, but I sure think it would be worth finding out."

Luttwak, who has long viewed Iran as the greatest threat faced by Israel and the US, believes the price will be steep - including, of course, "recognition of Syrian suzerainty over Lebanon" and thus a major rollback of the Cedar Revolution - but worth it for the sake of Washington's regional strategy.

It might be "tremendously embarrassing" to the Bush administration to agree to such a price, but there is little alternative, he noted.

Looks like they bit off more than they can chew this time. As someone once said of Indymedia, " It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch . . . "

The name Custer isn't ringing a bell to me. You're relying *your own* opinion -- how many people share it is irrelevant as reality isn't decided by majority rule ipso facto -- of Israel's performance in the war in Lebanon. They'll be highs and lows in Israel's military fortunes. The war is far from over. It is expected of someone like you to make jubillant shortsighted predictions ignoring all the factors that confound your certitude, but more sophisticated observers don't share your premature elation at Israel's current difficulties as if they herald an Israeli defeat. There's no overwhelming int'l pressure on Israel to reach a ceasefire and withdraw even in the political sphere.

>more sophisticated observers don't share your premature elation at Israel's current difficulties as if they herald an Israeli defeat.

That's what they said the last time the went up against Hizbullah. At last, Israelis enemies have finally learned how to fight. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Yea, well if things are going so swimmingly for Hezbollah, then why did the big brave Sheik Nasrallah take a powder to Damascus?.....maybe his puppet masters arent too pleased with his performance

Is that why it's taken them two weeks to capture two hills within sight of the border? Is that why the rockets still rain down on Israel?

If they did that, it would alienate their power base, the American taxpayers.

Tia:
"Does anyone doubt Israel could level this area if they so choose?"

Poor 'nessie':
"If they did that, it would alienate their power base, the American taxpayers."

Not all US taxpayers harbor anti-Zionist sentiments. Probably at least half do not. In any rate, not all of them would be alienated. You and your ilk are not the only not the US taxpayers.

"Not all US taxpayers harbor anti-Zionist sentiments."

I'd say a majority of US Taxpayers don't have a thought in their heads. I think a very vocal handful are polarized on tangential issues such as abortion, but for the most part, American voters put very little time and effort in to the political process.

Joe and Mary Cornfed of Anywhere, Iowa not only could care less about Israel, they could care less about Palestine.

They tried that once. Hizbullah chased them out.

Ironically, the withdrawl from the security zone in Lebanon was intended by the Ultra-Liberal Barak as a good faith gesture towards peace with all of Israel's neighbors. It was applauded and certified as a compete withdrawl by the UN.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished.

It was a face saving gesture, intended to soften the reality of Israel's defeat in the field by Hizbullah.

Authors Amal Saad Ghorayeb and Robert Dreyfuss join us to talk about the origins of Hezbollah and Hamas. According to Ghorayeb, a new poll shows 87 percent of Lebanese support Hezbollah’s resistance against the ongoing Israeli attack.

International crisis talks in Rome have failed to produce a unified call for an end to the fighting in Lebanon, after the US and Britain refused to back a ceasefire. Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said the diplomatic stalemate gives Israel the authorization to continue attacking Hezbollah until it is no longer present in southern Lebanon.

But many have questioned whether Israel's military actions have in fact strengthened Hezbollah. To discuss the origins of Hezbollah, we're joined from Beirut by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb. She is a professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut and the author of "Hizbu'llah: Politics and Religion."

And from our D.C. studio we're joined by investigative reporter Robert Dreyfuss. He is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam."

* Amal Saad Ghorayeb. Professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut. She is the author of "Hizbu"llah: Politics and Religion"

* Robert Dreyfuss. Investigative reporter and contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. He is the author of "Devil"s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam."

LISTEN ONLINE:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/27/1423248

Guerilla war is political war. Israeli lost then. Israel is losing today. It's own actions have turned the world against it.

CT: "it's still enjoying unprecedented iunternational backing"

Uh, NO, it's enjoying widespread support from the many GOVERNMENTS groveling and sniveling at the feet of Amero-Nazi global empire, begging for some crumbs.

Among the PEOPLE of the world, however, Israel's latest BLITZKRIEG into Lebanon is opening many millions of new eyes to what an asshole among Nations Israel truly is. For example the US seems to be the only anglophone country that isn't reacting with widespread disgust. This invasion is widely seen as an outrage in Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, whose media systems aren't mincing words about this.

Yeah, I know, they're all seething nests of "anti-Semites," uh-huh

First off, let me herald to everyone that I don't live in Hebron or even thereabouts. But count on Tee Wdumbya to insist I do.


Tee Wdumbya:
"Among the PEOPLE of the world, however, Israel's latest BLITZKRIEG into Lebanon is opening many millions of new eyes to what an asshole among Nations Israel truly is."

When Tee Wdumbya claims something, immediately believe the opposite. There's been no blitzkrieg. In 1982 there was one, sort of -- IDF infantry and armor devisions stood at Beirut's outskirts within the first week since June 6 that year. So far Israel has taken largely the "two hills overlooking its border" as 'nessie'-obsessie, another antisemite, has put it. Anyway, other millions of people are having their eyes open to just how just Israel's cause is in both the northern and Gaza fronts. See the lastest discussion about this topic in UC-IMC for instance.


Tee Wdumbya:
"For example the US seems to be the only anglophone country that isn't reacting with widespread disgust. This invasion is widely seen as an outrage in Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, whose media systems aren't mincing words about this."

Evidently you're too moronic to notice that at least Canada, Australia and the UK also fall into this category.


Tee Wdumbya:
"Yeah, I know, they're all seething nests of "anti-Semites," uh-huh"

Teach me more about this. I thirst for wisdom on this issue. I've read quitre a few pieces by people in those countries that almost take the polar opposite views to yours.

Nobody gives a fuck where you're really from, baby-stabber

HBC: "Canada, Australia and the UK also fall into this category [of ***GOVERNMENTS*** supportive of Israel]"

Um, read again what I wrote, imbecyle. It seems you don't comprehend meaning too good:

"Uh, NO, it's enjoying widespread support from the many GOVERNMENTS groveling and sniveling at the feet of Amero-Nazi global empire, begging for some crumbs ... Among the PEOPLE of the world, however, Israel's latest BLITZKRIEG into Lebanon is opening many millions of new eyes to what an asshole among Nations Israel truly is."

There's a distinction to be made, see, between the official positions of *GOVERNMENTS* and the viewpoints of their citizens. That's what I said before

"I've read quitre a few pieces by people in those countries that almost take the polar opposite views..."

Uh-huh. But then, you read only the media that's been cherry-picked by your own propaganda network, see, so you've got this self-fulfilling thing going. It's as if I only watched Fox news and extrapolated this to Americans as a whole.

I could be wrong. Let's see some of these 'polar opposite' stories. I want to see where you're getting them from

"See the lastest discussion about this topic in UC-IMC for instance."

Why the fuck would anyone but you want to read gehrig's cherry-picked shit?

'Blitzkrieg' doesn't have to mean 'ground war,' imbecyle. Air war was integral to the German concept and these days air war is so decisive and devastating that it now accounts for most of what blitzkrieg implies. Too bad you're too greasy and rat-like to refrain from copping fake technicalities all the time. Then maybe there'd be an organism somewhere (a corpse-maggot, say) that could actually respect you

to the IMC UC- clearly one of the best run, best edited of the IMCs around the nation. No spam, emphasis on loal news, good diversity of opinions. A model of what IMC's should liek like.
Thank you again.

Tee Wdumbya:
"Um, read again what I wrote snarl puke hiis fart"

Reread what you were told by the other "Zionist" -- an opinion touted by a majority of the denizens of Earth doesn't make said opinion right, true or just.


- I've read quitre a few pieces by people in those countries that almost take the polar opposite views...

Tee Wdumbya:
"Uh-huh. But then, you read only the media that's been cherry-picked by your own propaganda network, see, so you've got this self-fulfilling thing going. It's as if I only watched Fox news and extrapolated this to Americans as a whole. "

Bwahahaha... I haven't read this in cherry picked media. Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence. I just randomly surfed onto sites and read opinions.

Tee Wdumbya:
"I could be wrong. Let's see some of these 'polar opposite' stories. I want to see where you're getting them from "

You'll never believe this one, but I first stumbled onto the "Open Letter to the Palestinians" written by a New Zealander shortly after Operation Defensive Shield got underway and published 4 years ago around the 'net. Another person whose pro-Israeli viewpoints I read much more frequently was some Canadian (must be some zio-screamer jedi-mind tricks agent as you put it) posting on a forum owned by a London based Palestinian that was discontinued Nov 2003. Another Canadian but rabidly antisemitic like you posting there regularly was "Robert (Canada)". Perhaps you can fetch some of their gems by using archive.org.


- See the lastest discussion about this topic in UC-IMC for instance..

Tee Wdumbya:
"Why the fuck would anyone but you want to read gehrig's cherry-picked shit? "

Shut up retard. Gehrig didn't pose as that American to post those musings. Or is it his jedi mind tricks at work too?


Tee Wdumbya:
"'Blitzkrieg' doesn't have to mean 'ground war,' imbecyle. Air war was integral to the German concept and these days air war is so decisive and devastating that it now accounts for most of what blitzkrieg implies."

Nice try, you self-centered piece o' shit. Blitzkrieh has never meant a lightening quick massive air offensive by itself. The ground assault has always been integral and paramount to the meaning of this term as it has always been its main component. See for example the definition on http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015664, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm, http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/blitzkrieg.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg.
You're twisting the term into the contortion you're trying to squeeze it into. Just back awayt from your futile chicanery, you skulking rodent.

he atrocities being committed in Lebanon once again provide us in the Arab world a superfluous, all too frequent and unnecessary reminder of the fact that our blood is cheap. As if Iraq wasn’t enough to prove to us our irrelevance in the global picture, further insults are being heaped onto our mounting sense of humiliation.

The duplicity and flagrant disregard for the destruction of an entire country by the Israeli government, the American president, his neocon cronies and “Yo Blair” have demonstrated beyond doubt that the return of two Israeli soldiers (even though thousands of their Arab counterparts rot in Israeli prisons) equate to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians.

While the rest of the world desperately waited for the announcement of a cease-fire that only America had the clout to negotiate, Auntie Condi arrived to play the fiddle to Israel’s tune as Lebanon burned in the background.

I watch in sheer awe-filled horror the pictures that flood our television screens of children, Lebanese, Palestinian and Iraqi, screaming in agony covered in blood thinking “My God! That could have been my child.”

I constantly reassess what our intrinsic value is in the international marketplace of humanity. What is even more pathetic is that every time I think we have sunk to a new low in terms of our worth Uncle George reminds me that we haven’t quite got to the bottom of his global cesspit yet. Our lives, the lives of our children, our dreams, our aspirations, tantamount to a little less than nothing in his disgust-filled estimation.

As civilians in Lebanon and Palestine are murdered daily by US-made and US taxpayer-funded weapons, President Bush has characteristically shown more interest in the abstract phenomenon of protecting frozen embryos. One would be forced to wonder (given his total disinterest in the sanctity of Arab and Muslim life) that if these embryos were conceived in the Middle East whether Bush would be as enthusiastic about such research or preservation.

More
http://arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=76980&d=28&m=7&y=2006
Add a Comment

Hebron baby-axe-murderer: "but I first stumbled onto the "Open Letter to the Palestinians" written by a New Zealander ... and published 4 years ago around the 'net."

"stumbled onto" ... "around the 'net" ... Uh-huh

Like for example here:
http://www.netanyahu.org/oplettopalfr.html

or here:
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000104.html

or here:
http://www.masada2000.org/openletter.html

or here:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/may02/letter.html

or here:
http://moise.sefarad.org/belsef.php/id/839/

These are all screaming pro-Israel online shitrags, o' course, which is what baby-butcher meant by "around the 'net"

And what did I say in the first place?

"But then, you read only the media that's been cherry-picked by YOUR OWN PROPAGANDA NETWORK, see, so you've got this self-fulfilling thing going. It's as if I only watched Fox news and extrapolated this to Americans as a whole."

How can a group of people be this thick and yet keep getting what they want? All I can think is they must have LOTS of money to buy friends with.

There's also the little matter of this piece being FOUR YEARS OLD, so therefore COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the developments being discussed here

Is that the best you could do, Captain R? Keep up the good work

Icepicker Jew butchering and baiting loon, you've only shown us a sample of sites -- all Zionist at that, and disregarded the Palestinian forum. Dismissed, knucklehead bloosucker.

Israel's long history of abusing the United Nations
Marc J Sirois, The Daily Star, 28 July 2006

UN patrol base in El-Khiam which received a direct aereal bomb hit from IDF where four UN Observers lost their lives (UN Photo)

Recent talk of a new international force to police a proposed buffer zone in South Lebanon prompted a flurry of media reports purporting to explain Israel's reluctance to have the mission overseen by the United Nations. The coverage was accurate in portraying Israeli officialdom as mistrustful of the world body, but it failed completely to objectively describe the history behind the bad blood. As bad luck would have it, the Jewish state helped put things in perspective on Tuesday when its air force destroyed a UN observation post in the South Lebanon village of Khiam, killing four peacekeepers in the process.

Tuesday's attack was just the latest in a long line of incidents that have poisoned relations between Israel and the UN since the very beginning of their relationship. And Western media coverage of the incident has mimicked the misleading versions they provided of previous troubles, consistently insinuating that the UN has largely been to blame. A fitting example was Wednesday night's broadcast of "Insight" on CNN International. Host Jonathan Mann discussed the Khiam attack with Jonathan Paris, an academic from Oxford University who for some inexplicable reason was treated as an "expert" on the subject.

The host and the "expert" demonstrated their ignorance from the start, repeatedly describing the peacekeepers killed more than 24 hours earlier as having been assigned to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was created in 1978 after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in March of that year. In actual fact, the four officers were members of Observer Group-Lebanon, a force set up way back in 1948 to monitor the armistice that ended the first Arab-Israeli war.

The embarrassment got even worse for Paris when Mann noted that this was not the first time there had been problems between Israel and the UN. The "expert" traced the troubled relationship back to 1967, when a UN envoy proposed the first "land for peace" plan. Paris explained that the Israeli government of the day saw this as an attempt to "impose" a solution. In actual fact, the first UN envoy to draw Israel's ire was Count Folke Bernadotte, and that was long before 1967. Despite having been asked to refrain from declaring independence until UN mediators could convince neighboring Arab countries to accept the 1947 partition plan (that really was an imposed solution), Zionist leaders went ahead and did so in May 1948. Ill-prepared Arab armies attacked, and the Israelis took full advantage by using their better-equipped forces to occupy far more land than the partition envisioned. When it looked like Bernadotte might be able to mediate a peace treaty, he was assassinated by the Stern Gang in an attack approved by none other than future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. The murder was particularly egregious because during World War II, Bernadotte had been instrumental in saving thousands of Jews from the Nazis. Understandably, successive generations of UN personnel have accordingly been less than trusting of Israeli intentions.

Paris also mentioned the massacre of more than 100 civilians seeking refuge at a UNIFIL position in Qana during Israel's "Grapes of Wrath" offensive in 1996, but his description was again fatally flawed by bias and/or ignorance. First he claimed that that the attack was partially due to "an incident in North Lebanon," a theory upon which his failure to expound was fortunate because it has no basis in fact. Then he added that there had been a number of suicide bombings in Israel at the time, and the country was in the midst of an election campaign, putting the government under pressure to prove its mettle. On their own, these assertions are true. But Paris failed conspicuously to mention that the bombings in question had been conducted by Hamas, a Palestinian group. In actual fact, "Grapes of Wrath" happened because Hizbullah responded to the killing of a Lebanese teenager by an Israeli bomb with a salvo of rockets into northern Israel. The Jewish state then launched "Grapes of Wrath," with many observers speculating that it had simply been waiting for a pretext.

CNN's performance in terms of objectivity in reporting the facts of the current conflict has improved markedly over the past few days, but it began in such an ignominiously subterranean manner that it had nowhere to go but up. Wednesday's episode of "Insight" shows how easy it is for even a seemingly well-meaning sort like Mann to enable the spreading of misinformation by relying on an "expert" who either isn't very well informed or knowingly lies (on this occasion, the former seemed more likely).

The crux of the problem is that the Jewish state resents the United Nations because it has failed to accept repeated humiliations - and worse - with sufficient obsequiousness. In the Israeli view, international organizations should follow the example of the United States, which has frequently betrayed both the safety and the reputation of its own military and diplomatic personnel by meekly accepting Israeli atrocities and provocations.

The crux of the problem is that the Jewish state resents the United Nations because it has failed to accept repeated humiliations - and worse - with sufficient obsequiousness. In the Israeli view, international organizations should follow the example of the United States, which has frequently betrayed both the safety and the reputation of its own military and diplomatic personnel by meekly accepting Israeli atrocities and provocations. The US government forced the US Navy to help cover up the nature of Israel's deliberate 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, which killed dozens of American servicemen, and to deny proper decorations to victims and survivors alike. There was no outcry from the US government when Israeli armored units bullied lightly armed US Marines who were part of an international stabilization force sent to Lebanon in 1982. Even when Israeli warplanes repeatedly endangered the safety of State Department envoy Philip Habib by buzzing his helicopter in the same year, even when Israeli commanders invited Palestinian shelling of his quarters by firing their own guns from next-door, there was no real cost to the Jewish state for having bit the hand that fed it.

Members of other international agencies have faced similar acts of intimidation from Israeli forces. A typical example is the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), established in 1994. TIPH came into being as a result of a massacre at a Hebron mosque by settler Baruch Goldstein, an American-born physician. After Goldstein gunned down 29 worshippers before being overpowered and beaten to death, Palestinian negotiators broke off peace talks until international observers were sent to the city. Israeli contempt for the resultant TIPH mission can be gauged by a popular play on the acronym, "Two Idiots Patrolling Hebron." Similarly, officials from the International Committee for the Red Cross have been bitterly criticized for complaining that various Israeli actions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip violate international humanitarian law. Such charges typically prompt a mix of smearing Red Cross representatives as "anti-Semites" and arguments that the Jewish state is not bound by the Geneva Conventions' protections for civilians because it never signed them.

It is likely that some UN personnel have been derelict in their duties vis-a-vis the conflict in South Lebanon. Given the context, however, it should not surprise that some peacekeepers are loathe to help the Israeli military: They have seen and experienced firsthand a consistent pattern of wrongdoing by that same force. They have watched it wipe out civilians by the hundreds; they have watched it endanger and even kill their own comrades, starting with the heroic and quintessentially honorable Bernadotte; they have watched it refuse to hand over maps of minefields left behind when it withdrew from most of South Lebanon in 2000; in short, they have watched it make barren the very ground in which seeds of good will might have been planted.

Now that ground has been stained with the blood of four innocent men who repeatedly warned the Israelis that their bombs and shells were landing perilously close to a long-established UN monitoring post. The gutless government currently in power in Canada seems not to care that one of its military officers assigned to Observer Group-Lebanon has been the victim of Israeli fire, but the governments of Austria, China and Finland are taking their losses very seriously - as is the United Nations, an organization that created Israel in the first place and has had good reason to regret it ever since.

The IDF wantonly attacked UN personnel and camps during the Six-Day War, too

pertinent UN document:
http://tinyurl.com/plfgw

Quote:
"In a strafing attack by Israel aircraft on a UNEF convoy immediately south of Khan Yunis on the road between Gaza and Rafah three Indian soldiers were killed and an unknown number were wounded. All vehicles in the convoy were painted white, as are all UNEF vehicles. Prior to this incident the Commander of UNEF, as a result of Israel artillery fire on two camps occupied by the Indian Contingent of UNEF, had, through the Chief of Staff UNTSO, requested the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces to give instructions that a strict cease-fire would be observed in the vicinity of UNEF installations and camps. This appeal was acceded to and General Rikhye was notified that instructions had been given to the Israel forces to observe strictly the cease-fire in the vicinity of all UNEF installations and camps. After the incident, the Commander of UNEF again urged the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces to order Israel forces and especially Israel aircraft to take special care to avoid firing on UNEF personnel and installations."

"At 1230 hours GMT on 5 June, the main camp of the UNEF Indian Battalion came under Israel artillery fire which killed one officer and one soldier and wounded one officer and nine soldiers."

the UN is at the top of the zionists' 'to kill' list, right alongside the Palestinians, and they've been viciously lashing at UN personnel and camps for decades.

Kofi Annan's claim isn't fantastic at all. What WOULD be fantastic, in light of history, would be any claim that Israel's attack on the UN facility was NOT deliberate

Remember the link">USS Liberty

CAIRO – Israel's retreat from two strategic Lebanese towns it captured during its ongoing war against Lebanon is a military tactic shell Hizbullah's bunkers with laser-guided bombs it recently obtained from Washington, a Lebanese military expert said on Friday, July 28.

"The Israeli army might have known whereabouts of Hizbullah fighters during its operations in southern Lebanon," Yassin Al-Swede told IslamOnline.net over the phone from Beirut.

He said Israel was forced to change its tactics due to the fierce resistance displayed by Hizbullah and heavy fighting with its fighters.

Hizbullah announced earlier in the day that it forced Israeli soldiers to withdraw from the two strategic towns of Bint Jbeil and Maroon Al-Ras.

Israeli army sources played down the move as a military tactic.

The battle for Bint Jbeil has rumbled on for at least four days now and been the scene of furious clashes between Hizbullah and Israeli forces.

Two days ago, eight Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting with Hizbullah fighters, making it the deadliest day for Israel's forces since the conflict began 16 days ago.

Dozens of rockets fired by Hizbullah in Lebanon hit towns across northern Israel on Friday, wounding at least six people.

Hizbullah has fired more than 1,500 rockets into Israel since the conflict erupted.

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has vowed to take the war deeper into Israel, suggesting there could be strikes south of the city of Haifa.

Israel's offensive against Lebanon has killed 600 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians. A total of 51 Israelis have died, including 18 civilians.

Stopovers

It has been reported that the Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment earlier in the month after beginning its air campaign against Lebanon.

Britain's The Times newspaper reported Friday hat the British government will allow US aircraft carrying bombs and missiles to Israel to stop over in British airports.

"That will be allowed to continue. It is a right we have always granted," a senior government official told The Times.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Downing Street confirmed that two more requests by the United States to send planes carrying missiles as well as components to Israel over the next fortnight will go through.

Last weekend, two US aircraft carrying bunker-busting bombs bounded to Israel landed at Prestwick airport in Scotland, which raised Britain's ire.

British sources, however, told The Times that the dispute between Britain and the United States was about procedures and not the principle of allowing the aircraft stopover.

The sources said the US violated the rules by failing to notify the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the aircraft's dangerous contents in advance.

The CAA must be notified about civilian planes carrying hazardous substances.

The two flights last weekend in Scotland's Prestwick airport were designated by the Pentagon as civilian cargo flights.

The UK approval of more US planes carrying arms to Israel to land in British airports have sparked furor among British MPs.

"Britain should say no," said Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the second-ranked Liberal Democrats opposition party, demanding the government to refuse further US requests to use British airports as a transit for weapons.

"I think one would have hoped that the US government would have been sensitive to the fact that this is an issue which is causing a great deal of concern in the United Kingdom and would not have made such requests," he added.

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-07/28/06.shtml