STOP the ATTACK on Lebanon! Articles 1- MUST READ -David Clark report, Hizbullah here?,Simon Tisdall article, World Looks On, Brink of Chaos,

Mass Rally/ Protest
- Sat. August 12, 06 1 PM
- Israeli Consulate, 180 Bloor St. West Toronto
(W. of Avenue Rd., N. of Bloor)
www.nowar.ca

Ali Mallah ,Vice-president of Canadian Arab Federation, also has a very personal investment in his desire to see an immediate halt to the bombing in Lebanon- his wife and 2 children, ages 9 and 11, are there visiting family and are now in immediate danger in the South of Lebanon- the area worst hit in the Israeli bombings, and now completely cut off from humanitarian aid and supplies. The children are being brave, and said that they don't want to abandon their grandmother and cousins. I hope they continue to be safe. Many foreign nationals are remaining for similar reasons.

I saw on CNN news that the cost of evacuating one American family, only to Cyprus, was $4000.- which the US government CHARGED to the FAMILY's credit card. I wonder if the American families WITH funds are getting out first... and if this has any bearing on the number of people choosing to take the much more dangerous overland route to neighbouring countries. America, one of the richest countries in the world, is the only one I've heard of so far which is putting the cost of the evacuation on the victims' shoulders.

Not that the US doesn't have money to burn...

David Clark, a former UK Labour special adviser at the Foreign Office, wrote in this week's Guardian, "Yet the US remains entirely
complicit in its role as Israel's main strategic ally. In the midst of last
week's onslaught, in which Israeli bombers killed dozens of Lebanese civilians, the Pentagon announced the export of $210m of aviation fuel to help Israel "keep peace and security in the region". Even Britain and other European countries indulge in a form of diplomatic misdirection by focusing one-sidedly on the roles played by Syria and Iran. "

David Clark 's full article and many others on this crisis follow!

'guardian-weekly' features/ 2006.7.23

Comment / In a state of denial / The Olmert government, Hizbullah and Hamas are
united in rejection of any moves toward peace. David Clark reports

Whatever else can be said for or against Israel's escalation of military action
against Lebanon, there is little prospect that it will achieve its stated
objectives. If Israel couldn't defeat Hizbullah after 18 years in which its army
occupied large swaths of Lebanese territory, it is not going to succeed with air
strikes and blockades, or even another occupation. The same point applies even
more forcefully in the case of Gaza. Every time Israel applies the iron fist in
an effort to beat the Palestinians into submission, their resistance simply
re-emerges in a more extreme and rejectionist form. Far from fearing Israel's
wrath, Hizbullah and Hamas must be rather pleased at their success in provoking
it into the sort of overreaction from which they have always benefited.
Nor does it seem plausible that military action will enable Israel to secure the
release of its captured soldiers. The civilian victims of Israel's
indiscriminate retaliation have no real influence over the militias that hold
them, while the militias themselves are untroubled by the spectacle of public
suffering. On the contrary, they thrive on it. In the case of Lebanon, it is
possible that acts of collective punishment, such as the destruction of Beirut
airport and the  killing of yet more civilians, might divide Hizbullah and its
supporters from the rest of the country, but only at the risk of triggering
another civil war and creating a vacuum that Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran
will find easier to exploit.
In view of all this, it is valid to ask what Israel thinks it is doing. Indeed,
this question is implicit in the statements of world leaders at the G8 and
elsewhere who have called on Israel to use force proportionately, avoid civilian
casualties and refrain from acts that might strengthen Hamas or destabilise
Lebanon's fragile political settlement. No one quibbles with Israel's right to
defend itself, but doesn't it understand how irresponsible and immoral it is to
deliberately escalate the conflict in this way?
The problem is that the premise of the question is false. It assumes that Israel
shares our view that a de-escalation followed by negotiation is the best route
to a settlement. It assumes, therefore, that when Israeli ministers complain of
having "no partner for peace", they actually want one. A much more sensible
approach would be to credit them with having the intelligence to know exactly
what they are doing and to work backwards from there.
If so, it might become apparent that far from wanting a partner with which to
negotiate, the Israeli government is acting with the specific intention of
forestalling that possibility. There is nothing particularly new in this. The
extremists on both sides have always formed a kind of tacit alliance, with the
supporters of "greater Israel" and "no Israel" understanding their joint
interest in preventing any moves towards a compromise peace. That is the main
reason why Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as it emerged in the 1980s.
Unwilling to negotiate with the secular nationalists of Fatah, even as they were
moving towards support for a two-state solution, the Israeli authorities thought
it would be a clever idea to promote their Islamist rivals.
In the case of the current crisis, it is no accident that it occurred precisely
when the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was gaining the upper hand in the
latest round of that struggle. By using the threat of a referendum to force
Hamas to accept the existence of Israel as the basis for a final settlement,
Abbas had created the most promising opening for peace in six years. Faced with
the loss of political initiative, Hamas militants understood that the only way
to prevent it would be to trigger another cycle of violence. In turn, the
Israeli government, whose interests were also threatened by the Abbas
initiative, recognised that it had an equally good reason to oblige. The effect
of Hizbullah's intervention and Israel's overreaction has been to put peace even
further down the agenda.
The plain truth is that Israel thinks that it can get more by imposing a
solution through force than by negotiation and is not interested in any kind of
peace process. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, pays lip service to the
road map, but he has already received American endorsement for his fallback
position, artfully dubbed "unilateral convergence". George Bush has described it
as a "bold idea". Armed with the knowledge that he will continue to enjoy
American patronage if the road map fails, Olmert has set out to ensure that it
does just that. Bush's diplomacy has been truly inept.
It's high time western governments grasped the fundamental truth that Israel is
pursuing an agenda that conflicts directly with their own. In the context of the
fight against terrorism and the need to promote international cooperation, the
West's interest must be to remove the Palestinian question as a source of
grievance among mainstream Muslims in a way that guarantees justice for the
Palestinians and security for Israel. A settlement of this kind is perfectly
feasible and has been outlined in countless documents and initiatives over the
years, most recently in the Geneva accords. But the main reason it has proved
elusive is that Israel is not, and never has been, prepared to make the
territorial compromises required. It still believes that it is entitled to the
victor's spoils by annexing large tracts of Palestinian land.
This situation will persist as long as the West remains in denial about the
reasons for the ongoing conflict and until the Israeli political establishment
is forced to pay a price for its obstinacy. Yet the US remains entirely
complicit in its role as Israel's main strategic ally. In the midst of last
week's onslaught, in which Israeli bombers killed dozens of Lebanese civilians,
the Pentagon announced the export of $210m of aviation fuel to help Israel "keep
peace and security in the region". Even Britain and other European countries
indulge in a form of diplomatic misdirection by focusing one-sidedly on the
roles played by Syria and Iran.
The key to resolving the situation in Lebanon lies, as it did throughout the
1970s and 1980s, in finding a solution to the Palestinian question. A viable and
successful Palestinian state would rob Hizbullah and its sponsors of the conceit
that they are defending helpless Muslims and make it easier for those in the
region who oppose them to gain the upper hand. Mahmoud Abbas is the only leader
currently working for the kind of negotiated two-state solution that the Middle
East and the wider world desperately need. But he is being let down by the West
at the moment when he had earned the right to expect better. The Palestinian
president needs a partner for peace. If Israel will not play that role, the
international community must.

David Clark is a former Labour special adviser at the Foreign Office

For You Eyes Only, originally uploaded by indyfoto.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56709485@N00/sets/72157594208421837/
STOP WAR INDYFOTO Set

Hizbullah: force that claims 12,000 rockets and grassroots support / Brian
Whitaker in Beirut and Robert Tait in Tehran

Hizbullah will not only take war to Haifa, but "beyond Haifa, and beyond beyond
Haifa", its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said in a televised speech last week - and
some experts are prepared to believe him.
"When they say things, they mean it. They don't bluff," said Nicholas Noe, a
Cambridge researcher who is editing a book of Mr Nasrallah's speeches.
Mr Nasrallah's address last Friday ended with the news that Hizbullah had hit an
Israeli naval vessel off the Lebanese coast, which might be relatively
insignificant in military terms, but had a huge psychological impact. "No Arab
state has done that since [former Egyptian president Gamel] Nasser did it in
1967," Mr Noe said.
Few experts doubt the militant Shia organisation's standing. Mark Perry of the
Beirut-based Conflicts Forum said in a recent interview: "Hizbullah is the
second or third most competent military force in the region, after Israel and
Iran."
Unusually, Hizbullah announces its intentions in advance. It said it was
planning to capture Israeli soldiers, and did so. It also stated openly, before
the current conflict began, that it had 12,000 rockets - more than 700 of which
have now been fired. Most experts believe that the real figure is higher.
A more important question is how many rockets are usable. Unlike national
armies, Hizbullah does not keep them in arsenals. They are dispersed in houses,
caves and other hiding places: hence the Israeli tactic of blasting roads and
bridges in the hope of preventing the rockets being transported to firing
positions.
Most of the rockets are 107mm and 122mm Katyushas with a short range, but
according to Israeli sources Hizbullah also has Fajr-3 missiles with a 40km
range and Fajr-5 rockets, which can reach 70km. The Hizbullah television station
recently broadcast pictures of new, long-range missiles known as Zelzal-1 and
Zelzal-2. There have been claims that these could strike as far as Israel's
nuclear plant in the Negev desert.
No one really knows how many Hizbullah fighters there are, said Amal
Saad-Ghorayeb, who has written a book on the organisation. "Because it's a
populist grassroots movement, every household [in the Hizbullah areas] has
family members who could be easily mobilised . . . I think the Israelis are
fully aware that demolishing Hizbullah is virtually impossible," she said.
Iran denied this week that it was supplying Hizbullah with weapons to use
against Israel and dismissed accusations that its troops had helped the group
launch recent attacks. But a foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi,
appeared to warn that Iran would act if Israel expanded its operations to
include Syria, Tehran's close ally. "Expanding the front of aggression and
attacks . . . would definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable
damages," Mr Asefi said.


'guardian-weekly' international/2006.7.23

'Is Hizbullah here? Only children here,' cries one father / Clancy Chassay in
Tyre and Brian Whitaker in Beirut

Twelve-year-old Nour lay heavily bandaged and fighting for her life in a
hospital in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre on Monday. She is one of many
child victims of Israeli air strikes on the Mediterranean port.
"We are praying for her," said Fatima, a laboratory technician doubling as a
nurse at Jabal Amal hospital. Ali, the doctor treating Nour, said he did not
know if she would survive. "She has large burns all over her body; she is losing
a lot of fluids. Her life is now in God's hands."
More ambulances streamed into the hospital. Whatever the Israelis' intended
target, a bomb had fallen on a small canal next to the Qasmia refugee camp, home
to 500 Palestinians. Its victims were 11 children taking a swim. Seven were
injured, three critically. Three have not been found.
Ismael, the father of one, sat on the edge of the crater, weeping. "Children!
Children!" he roared through his tears, "Children here! My son here." He stood
and looked down into the crater: "Is Hizbullah here?
Ahmed Mrouwe, the hospital's director, said that more than 200 wounded had been
brought into the hospital, one of three in the area. "We have received 196
wounded and 25 dead; the majority of them are children and women."
Monday was the one of the bloodiest so far in Lebanon, with 41 dead. In Sidon,
south of Beirut, an Israeli air strike on a road bridge hit two vehicles,
killing 10 civilians and wounding at least seven, medical sources told Reuters.
They said both vehicles had been crossing the Rmeileh bridge, heading to Beirut.
Leaflets dropped from Israeli planes have been urging residents in
Hizbullah-controlled areas of the south to leave.
Canada said seven of its nationals had been killed in an Israeli strike while
holidaying in the southern Lebanese village of Aitaroun. It was targeted again
on Monday night with six killed, local television reports said.
Early morning attacks left two men dead in the port of Beirut, and eight
Lebanese soldiers were killed in a rocket attack on an army position near
Tripoli in the north.
An annex of the hospital in Tyre had been bombed the day before. The attack came
as doctors were tending to victims of a strike on a 12-storey residential
building, which also housed the civil defence offices, in Tyre. That attack left
21 dead, including several children. Dr Mrouwe said nine people in one family
had been killed; only the father had survived.
Asked how it compared with 1996 when Israel launched an attack on the south,
killing scores of civilians, Dr Mrouwe said: "It's incomparable. In 1996 the
majority [of casualties] were fighters. This time we have yet to receive any
fighters."
In Beirut, where the Israelis are also dropping leaflets from the air urging
residents to leave suburbs controlled by Hizbullah, schools are being
overwhelmed as families set up temporary homes in classrooms. Hundreds of others
are sleeping out in the open.
Before the war began, more than half a million Shia were believed to be living
in Dahiyeh, the suburb most heavily targeted by the Israelis. The Lebanese
authorities opened dozens of schools last weekend but these are now overflowing.
The Chakib Arslan school in Verdun was considered suitable for up to 180 people,
but now holds 850. Most had only brought what they were wearing or could carry.
As the sound of three bombs shook the school, a teenage girl burst into tears.
Faten and her 16 relatives are living in a classroom. "Our house was not safe,"
she said. "Hizbullah told us to go and we left four days ago. We have $100
between us and my father needs medicine. We can't get it for him."
Rami, a volunteer, said: "Sometimes the families buy food. Most of the time the
government doesn't help much but it sends a little food." The relief effort is
being run by several organisations and political groups, and includes Christians
and Muslims. "It began with a sit-in, in solidarity with Gaza, but then turned
into relief work," said Ghassan Makarem of Helem, a Lebanese gay and lesbian
organisation. "It's a mix of NGOs, leftist groups, Palestinian youth groups, and
others," he said.
Outside Beirut, though, there is no such help and people are having to fend for
themselves. Many cannot leave because roads are impassable, and those who do
escape face the risk of being attacked.

'guardian-weekly' international/2006.7.23/

Only Washington can rein in Israel / World briefing / Simon Tisdall

Israel's assault on Lebanon, following Hizbullah's cross-border raid last week
and weeks of unremitting bloodshed in Gaza, has brought demands for
international action to contain the crisis and mediate an end to the fighting.
But the US, with its unmatched influence over Israel and as self-appointed
guardian of the Middle East peace process, has so far appeared reluctant to
intervene. Lebanon's appeal for the UN security council to step in and call a
ceasefire is supported by most Arab governments and by Lebanon's former colonial
master, France, which is the current security council president.
But the council has been vainly trying to agree on a resolution on Gaza, with
the US using its veto in defence of Israel. A consensus on the more complicated,
fast-moving crisis engulfing Lebanon is thus unlikely.
Other international bodies with pretensions to global peacemaking, such as Nato
and the EU - part of the Middle East "quartet" - are reduced to the role of
concerned bystanders. Russia tabled the issue at last weekend's St Petersburg G8
summit, but it only served to underscore international divisions.
President George Bush's administration has warned of the dangers of
destabilising Lebanon. But it has otherwise made no serious attempt to curb
Israel's offensive.
Mr Bush's non-committal statements have been widely interpreted as unqualified
support for Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's effort not only to free
captured Israeli soldiers but also to inflict as much damage as possible on
Hizbullah and Hamas in the process. That will strengthen regional perceptions
that this US administration, unlike those of Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr, is
unable or unwilling to play the honest broker.
Analysts suggest there is another reason for Washington's diffidence: US
influence and standing in the region is at a historic low ebb, partly because of
Iraq. "The worsening conflict in the Middle East is a blatant reflection of the
weakness of the American partner," Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli cabinet
minister, told Ha'aretz newspaper.
US leverage with many of the regional protagonists is poor or non-existent. The
US has in effect cut diplomatic relations with Syria and encouraged talk of
regime change in Damascus. It regards Palestine's elected Hamas government, like
Hizbullah's political wing, as a wholly terrorist grouping and refuses to deal
with either.
Even traditionally pro-western governments such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia, no friends to Hizbullah or Hamas, have been alienated by the US war on
terror and hectoring pro-democracy policies since 9/11.
The Bush administration alone can rein in Israel. Its reluctance to do so may
mean that Washington will not be trusted in the longer term to forge a just and
lasting regional settlement.


'guardian-weekly' file 'gw-international/2006.7.23/1.1.txt
Lebanon:  World looks on as Israel bombards its weak neighbour / Guardian
Reporters

Western leaders remained paralysed on Monday as Lebanon suffered one of its
bloodiest days since Israel began its bombardment last week.
For the second time in 48 hours western governments declined to intervene as
Israeli forces, on the sixth day of aerial attacks, killed 47 people and wounded
at least 53. Hizbullah, the Iranian-backed militia, also stepped up its attacks,
launching 50 rockets against Israel, the highest number in a single day. The
death toll since Israel began its attack has risen to 244 in Lebanon and 24  in
Israel.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, dismissed hopes of a quick resolution
to the conflict, vowing that his military would continue operating at full
intensity. He said Israel would not stop until two of its soldiers captured by
Hizbullah are freed; the Lebanese army is deployed to protect Israel's northern
border; and Hizbullah is forced to disarm.
He said both Hizbullah and Hamas, the Palestinian group, were working with the
support of "the axis of evil that stretches from Tehran to Damascus. When
missiles rain on our cities, our response will be to wage war with greater
determination, courage and sacrifice," he said.
After the failure of last weekend's G8 summit in St Petersburg to step in, EU
foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday also settled for a bland
statement that exposed divisions between European governments. EU foreign
ministers called on Israel not to resort to "disproportionate action", but
criticism of Israel in an original draft was diluted after pressure from Britain
and Germany, Israel's closest EU allies.
France and Italy have evacuated 1,600 Europeans by ship to Cyprus. The British
government airlifted 41 of its nationals out of Lebanon and announced plans to
evacuate 12,000 UK nationals and 10,000 people with dual nationality by sea. The
US sent an aircraft carrier in preparation for an evacuation of many of its
25,000 citizens in Lebanon.
The US and Britain insisted at the summit that criticism of Israel be removed
from a joint communique. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, said that the
security council should delay any action until the UN envoy now in the Middle
East, Vijay Nambiar, returned this week to New York. Mr Nambiar said: "We hope
that we will be able to see our way toward . . . a de-escalation of the crisis."
Tony Blair and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, called for the 2,000-strong
UN observer force on the Israel-Lebanon border to be expanded. But the US is
lukewarm about the proposal and Israel described it as premature.
The French prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, flew to Beirut, the
highest-level international presence since the crisis began. He called on Israel
and Hizbullah to implement an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds and
for the release of the Israeli soldiers.
The Iranian foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, said that an end to the
fighting and an exchange of hostages would be acceptable and fair. Iran is the
main backer of Hizbullah, which is holding the two Israeli soldiers prisoner.
After meeting Syrian officials in Damascus, he said: "A reasonable and just
solution must be found to end this crisis. A ceasefire and then a swap is
achievable."
Exasperation with the international response was expressed by the Lebanese prime
minister, Fouad Siniora. In an interview with Britain's Channel 4 News he said:
"Until now I am very disappointed, but I can tell you there is still time to
make a real decision in the UN. Stop this massacre that is happening in Lebanon
because the more they inflict casualties the worse it becomes."
In a private conversation picked up by a microphone at the St Petersburg summit,
George Bush and Mr Blair  singled out the Syrian president, Bashir Assad, as the
figure stoking violence in the Palestinian territories and Iraq as well as in
Lebanon. They claimed that Mr Assad was trying to destabilise the region and
block the introduction of democracy.
President Vladimir Putin argued that attacking Syria and Iran by name in the
final communique, would be counter-productive. But Mr Bush disagreed, saying
"the root cause of the instability was Hizbullah and its relationship with Syria
and Iran".
A mass exodus from Beirut was gathering pace, but escape routes from Lebanon
were closing. The capital's airport has been repeatedly bombed, its sea routes
blockaded, and the main highway into Syria is impassable.
On both sides of the border the crisis has fuelled a powerful sense of deja vu.
For the Beirut residents frantically hoarding food, candles, batteries and
petrol, the atmosphere recalled the country's 15-year civil war, and the 18-year
Israeli occupation they thought had ended in 2000.
For some in Israel the historical parallel was with the run-up to the war of
1967, and the prospect of direct military conflict between Israel and
neighbouring countries. The country is still reeling from the double assault on
its military prestige by separate attacks from Hizbullah and Hamas, which
captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, a month ago.
"This reminds me of a period before the 1967 war that was also characterised by
mutual humiliations," said the Israeli historian Tom Segev. "From a military
point of view the abduction of the soldiers should not have happened, but
instead of admitting this the army uses it as a pretext to destroy the delicate
political balance that exists in Lebanon  . . . [Hizbullah leader Hassan]
Nasrallah is a nasty guy. He's a bit like Saddam. So it's similar to the Iraq
situation. We find it easier to relate to war in Lebanon than in Gaza."

guardian-weekly' features/2006.7.23/
Editorial / Middle East: On the brink of chaos

Once again the history of the Middle East is being written in Muslim and Jewish
blood while outsiders look on: fighting within the region is at its worst for at
least a decade. It could, then, have been a stroke of good fortune for the Group
of Eight nations to be meeting at the same time as a downward spiral of
retaliation and counter-strike took hold in Israel and Lebanon. In a sane world
the summit would have allowed the heads of the most powerful countries to
persuade all sides into respecting a ceasefire. Instead, the G8 meeting in St
Petersburg remained divided. Its emergency communique, issued last Sunday after
long wrangling, merely called for "utmost restraint" and an end to attacks, and
for the UN security council to consider a monitoring force on the border between
Israel and Lebanon.
The time for calling for restraint has passed, since too many on both sides show
no signs of exercising any. Last Sunday's deadly Hizbullah rocket attack on
Haifa, in particular, elevates the conflict to a point where the danger cannot
be overestimated. The most plaintive event, in the midst of civilians of all
faiths being killed, was the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, appearing
on CNN last weekend to plead for his country's future. Lebanon's government
bears the signs of collapsing into a failed state. To expect it to successfully
disarm Hizbullah's militants, while Israeli jets inflict collective punishment
and undermine its fragile economy, is unrealistic.
Israel's leaders must be aware of the dangers they face. The road they are going
down is one that Israel travelled before, and it ended in 1982 in disaster. It
is also worth remembering that the chaos began with the kidnapping of an Israeli
soldier by allies of Hamas. Then, last Wednesday, Hizbullah captured two more.
Israel's disproportionate response has now brought the area into chaos. It has
acted as though the politics of the region do not exist; instead it has reacted
directly to each kidnapping and each missile. Israel has the right to defend
itself, a task made harder by the hidden arsenal of Hizbullah, and it should
object to any one-sided calls for restraint. But it cannot control its enemies'
responses: it can only control its own.

---

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts
to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from
this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.