chicago says i love beirut

ukrainian village





promontory point,
hyde park





I-90, bridgeport











river west













pilsen

before // during // after?

the corniche,
May 2006

snapped en route to rehearsal.














the corniche,
August 2006

Lebanese men playing cards on a rock at the Mediterranean sea off the Corniche in Beirut.
With a population tempered by long years of conflict, many people try to continue with their lives as normal, despite the current uncertainty in the country. @

current arts projects

here's a couple of long overdue links:

1. saturday's "global webjam" gathering of self-identified lebanese intellectuals in their watering hole ('de prague' in hamra, beirut):
beirut.streamtime.org

2. "from beirut to... those who love us" a video letter. personal highlight is rima khcheich, who opens the letter with her singing.. last april, she gave one of the best concerts in the past year. i was in bliss, also from tony underwater's taqasim on upright bass. she also has new CD out, yalalalli (released at the concert). live performances better than the recording. and there's a second (newer) video letter, "deadtime" on the same page.

3. ethnomusicologist ted swedenberg dedicated a night of radio programming (broadcast out of arkansas) to lebanon... check out his playlist. i think he spent part of his childhood in beirut?

tbc...

hersh strikes again

While not the sensational(ist) expose of his abu ghraib article, Seymour Hersh publishes a piece in this week's new yorker that builds on the investigative journalism in san francisco chronicle/guardian/the hindu (see previous posts), et al. concerning the degree of preparation behind idf's "operation just reward." hersh links preparedness to the bush hooligans' interest in the war, a 'new middle east,' and specifically air force operations.

Hersh does not reify these into a great conspiracy theory. In fact, he's very careful to note that basically noone really knew what an other was doing or when the act might occur (israel, bush administration, halutz, nasrallah, ahmadinejad, rummy, et al.). but critical support was gathered... hence cheney knew from the outset that israel needed 35 days to complete the operation, once it started.

For me, the article explains why mainstream media currents (WSJ, Newsweek, Time, Fox, CNN, NY Times) consistently objectify Lebanon as a catalyst for Bush administration geopolitics in this war. Because Cheney really wanted to see how things would go in Lebanon as practice for Iran. Lebanon really is the punching bag of the Middle East! But I think I didn't quite realize how much Lebanon is also the punching bag of the White House.

It sickens me that as American media consumers, we are constantly fed these stories about the interconnectedness of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas when really this is the view from the White House that doesn't match reality on the ground. What a sick game to be caught up in. It makes the scholar's transgression of Orientalism look like child's play. Just go peruse the last four weeks of WSJ op-eds and you'll see my point.

None of this is new. None at all. But the exacting level of detail corroborates our earliest suspicions (e.g. why the u.s. wasn't moving very fast to evacuate its nationals) and disgusts me at new levels. No degree of hyperbole is enough to express.... anyways, it's 7am and I haven't gone to sleep yet... ears still ringing from dancehall at a's goodbye party, where we bid her off to cairo for the year...

highlights for me:
- parallels with kosovo (which explains olmert's press comments about two weeks ago)
- callousness of cheney
- Hersh in a followup interview: "Nobody digs like the Iranians. The Persians have been digging holes since the 11th century."

tbc...

pushing the anti-semitic button:

Postwar self test: Are you an anti-Semite? (Haaretz)

By Bradley Burston

[scroll down for my answers] One of the more fruitless debates between critics and supporters of Israel, is where to draw the line between candid criticism of Israeli policy, and anti-Semitism. As a public service, we present the following post war self-test, to assist readers in placing themselves along the continuum which stretches from taking rational issue with Israeli policy, and ends in Jew-hate. 1. There is only one neighborhood grocery store [makolet] still operating in the Katyusha-shredded northern town of Kiryat Shmona. Up from the bomb shelters during a lull in attacks, shoppers seeking milk, bread, infant formula and other staples, congregate outside the grocery, waiting to enter. A Hezbollah rocket attack on the crowd is: A. Morally indefensible. Israel is careful to bomb only Hezbollah targets, many of which the organization regrettably locates among civilians, who are thus forced to act as human shields. B. Wrong, if understandable in the context of guerilla warfare. Both sides should make every effort to keep non-combatants from being hurt. C. Heroic. An example of self-defense. The rockets, a relative slingshot compared to the Israel's Goliath-scale arsenal, cause negligible damage in comparison to the slaughter which Israeli has inflicted in massacre after massacre from air, land and sea. Moreover, there are no non-combatants in Israel. Every infant is a potential soldier, women serve in the army, even the handicapped and elderly volunteer for service in the armed forces. _______ 2. You are handsome, famous and inebriated when you are stopped driving in Malibu, California by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Suspecting the arresting officer of Judaism, you consider informing him that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." You would take this course of action: A. Over your dead body. B Only after 6-8 drinks. C Cold sober. _______ 3. You are CNN. When Lebanese civilians are killed, injured or rendered homeless in Israeli air strikes, you identify the victims as Lebanese civilians and elaborate on their suffering. When Israeli civilians are killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks, you should: A. Identify them as Israeli civilians and elaborate on their suffering. B. Identify them as Israelis, thus calling into question whether they are civilians. C. Omit them, and elaborate on the suffering of Lebanese civilians. _______ 4. The Jewish lobby in the United States: A. Represents Israel's interests as pro-Arab lobbyists represent theirs. B. Crosses the line at times, but serves a legitimate role. C. Runs everything. _______ 5. Jostein Gaarder, author of the book "Sophie's World," last week sparked a storm in his native Norway by writing, in the context of IDF operations in Lebanon, that Israel had lost its right to exist. Referring to the killing of Lebanese children, Gaarder said "We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as 'fitting punishment' for the people of Egypt." Gaarder also wrote that the first Zionist terrorists started operating in the days of Jesus. The proper response to Gaarder is: A. Condemn him, to the point of boycott. B. Encourage rational debate on the issues he raises, bearing in mind his subsequent statement saying that he was misunderstood. C. Applaud him for braving the media's censorship of honest discussion of Israel and its supporters. _______ 6. The Jewish people A. Have a right to a state of their own in the Holy Land. B. Have a right to an independent state alongside Palestine C. Have no inherent right to a state, nor an inherent right to reside in Palestine. _______ 7. You are watching BBC coverage of the Israeli military reading Guardian coverage of the Israeli military. Your blood pressure: A. Goes through the roof. The aneurism light is on. B. Is unchanged. C. Improves. ______ 8. Rising gasoline prices are a result of: A. Oil industry profiteering, global warming, and growing consumption in the U.S., China, and elsewhere. B. War and political instability in the Middle East. C The actions of Israel and its supporters. ______ 9.Israel's actions in Lebanon were: A. Expressions of self-defense. B. Misguided expressions of self-defense. C. Worse than the Nazis. _______ 10. When Iranian President Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a myth and says that Israel should be erased from the map he: A. Should be taken seriously, as Hitler's Mein Kampf should have been, B. Should be viewed as a demagogue, exploiting and inciting Muslim anger at Israel. C. Saying what millions of people honestly believe, and with good reason. _______ To Rate Yourself: Score 10 Points for every answer A. Score 20 Points for every answer B. Score 30 points for every answer C. If you scored between 100-150: You are not an anti-Semite, though you may have some issues with Arabs. If you scored between 150-220 You are not an anti-Semite, though some to your right may call you one. If you scored between 230-300 Just because you don't think of yourself as a flaming anti-Semite ... Score: 180 True to my Libra self, I can see many perspectives...

Tada!!!!!

Can we begin breathing now?------------------
(and the cynic inside me asks, we were here a week ago, is this deja vu?)

UNSC DRAFT RESOLUTION LEBANON

Friday, August 11, 2006; 4:26 PM

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 Hizbollah'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 Hizbollah 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 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

---

i don't want to push the anti-semitic button, but the "disproportionate" vote of the UN human rights council is alarming. 27 voted for a resolution that does not acknowledge Hezbollah's violations of human rights and seeks to investigate Israeli state violations in Lebanon... and 11 European countries + Canada + Japan rejected said resolution.... more later.

one resilient voice

heard about this earlier this week, thought i'd paste the link--

@ lollapalooza in chicago last weekend, patti smith sang to the "limp little dolls caked in mud"
and distinguished herself as one of the only (please, i hope this is wrong) critical voices in the songwriting spheres of the states...

wherefore the silence, yaa celebrities/artists/poets?
some response, any response
please.

the timing question, inverted

From the first days, we asked why Nasrallah chose to provoke Israel on Wed 12 July. Some offered the sarcastic response, "He didn't want to compete with the World Cup."

But this article inverts the question to ask, why did Israel choose to invade Lebanon on Thurs 13 July?

Why did Israel choose July 2006 to fight for her right to exist? This catastrophe in Israel's name is not about the right to defend against recurring provocations, it is about defending the right for Israel to exist as a sovereign state. Or so the story goes.... I'm so confused. But I'm not convinced by articles in counterpunch and elsewhere that Israel seeks to expand her northern territory to the Litani River, per Ben Gurion's vision, as part of an imperialist desire to increase land holdings... I distract from one of the most important articles of this war.

Please read this.

Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

www.monbiot.com

invisible and unheard: lebanon suffers in her anechoic chamber

apparently siniora's tears don't matter.

in the great "war on terror" (as laid out in tuesday's wsj editorial), one must read between the lines in order to find that "unprecedented national unity reached in lebanon" (that we all hope for). some pin hopes on siniora as lebanon's emerging leader in the time of crisis, but on the other side of the atlantic, today's wsj editorial refuses to name siniora; rather, the journal insinuates the continuation of syrian and hezbollian dominance:

"Harder to dismiss is criticism from the Lebanese government. But that mostly shows the extent to which Hezbollah -- with 14 parliamentary seats and violent tactics -- is a cancer on Lebanon and that country's nascent democratic process. "A state within a state" is an apt description for the group, whose prominence within Lebanon is akin to what Ireland would have been like if the IRA/Sinn Fein had been armed and powerful enough to launch rockets on English towns from Irish soil. Simply put, any Lebanese politician who resists Hezbollah now risks assassination."

(the final sentence follows up on the journal's earlier sympathetic coverage of walid jumblatt as a local warlord who offers safe harbor to hezbollah in order to cover his arse in the future.)

so, with the states focused on avenging 1983, the discourse of the war on terror has completely erased, emasculated, and deflated the effectiveness of any lebanese agent who is not syrian or hezbollian.

perhaps anonymity leaves room to negotiate clientelism in the new lebanon, or more likely, it merely maintains lebanon's proxy role in the great war on terror, for which she and all of her lovelies continue to suffer, shouting in an anechoic chamber.

i love beirut

some creative souls in nyc started a project called "i love beirut" that resists many things. go here to find out more about the project, which may help to explain those stickers that lately seem to crop up everywhere in new york.

for me, the project resists the feeling of being overwhelmed by a degenerative state of helplessness. continue on to find out why i care about what's going on!

-------------------------- "why i love beirut" ------------------------------------

a couple days after i evacuated beirut and returned to the states, a friend left me a voicemail:
"welcome back, shayna. i'm glad you're safe. i want to hear your story but also, please tell me, what were the good things about beirut?"

this is a reply to him and a shout-out to all y'all!

(in no particular order)
kissing three times on the cheek.
asking how are you four times in three languages.
talking loudly in a concert at aub assembly hall and being shushed even more loudly.
90-minute attention spans at any concert
going to "the beach": al-rawda, hotel riviera, al manar, white beach, pearl beach, oceana, guava
being (nearly) sideswiped by cars in the sidestreets of achrafieh and taberis, every single friggin day
catching a service and then catching up with a friend who happens to be sitting in the backseat, three days after i arrived in beirut
watching neighbors grab midnight snacks from the kitchen refrigerator
meeting a friend at dunkin donuts, downtown
manouche with kichek
why "missed call" is a verb
torino
and kayan
or barometre
catching a ride to catch a ride to catch a ride with a friend (of a friend)
july's blossoms in the streets, the smell of lilacs near aub
serenity in baabda
the smell of the jasmine trees drifts by fountains adorning castles in the mountains, and above them, the moon
welcome to nowhereistan!
would you like some coffee?

once i was welcomed into lebanon by a border guard stationed in masnaa at the beirut-damascus highway: "you're from the states? why do you want to be in our godforsaken country?" my companion snorted.

for all the reasons above, which you may understand more if you've traveled or lived in beirut.

and for those who haven't yet had the opportunity,
because beirut is a city that sweeps you up into an embrace that tingles and toys with you. because beirutis know precisely why you're visiting or living there before you've figured it out. which gives you more to figure out. if you can. because you can always play in beirut and sometimes you can work. because beirut is charmed and those who live there are charming.

yalla, bye!

Chicagoland vigil and forum this week

If you're in the area, please try to go to the following events. I'll be there!
(but I won't go to the villainizing anti-Israeli protest this afternoon)

IL Chicago - Vigil at Peace Museum

Monday, August 7 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m
Peace Museum
(located within the Gold Dome Building on the 2nd Floor, near the Conservatory)
100 N. Central Park Ave.
Garfield Park
Chicago, IL

AIUSA Global Ceasefire Vigil in Chicago

In response to the blatant and gross violations of international humanitarian law that are being committed by Israeli forces and Hizbullah, including the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force and direct targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, Amnesty International is calling for worldwide cease fire vigils in solidarity with the victims and survivors of the conflict on Monday, August 7. The vigils call for a ceasefire in the Israel/Lebanon conflict.

The Chicago AI Ceasefire vigil will take place this evening, Monday, August 7, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Peace Museum, (located within the Gold Dome Building on the 2nd Floor, near the Conservatory), 100 N. Central Park Ave. in Garfield Park on Chicago's west side near Central Park and Lake Street.

The Peace Museum is accessible from the Conservatory stop on the CTA Green Line, and the event will be held indoors on the second floor where several exhibits including 'Soul of the City' will be available for viewing. The Peace Museum's facilities are on the second floor of the building, and unfortunately the site is not wheelchair accessible.

For more information about this event contact Robert Schultz, Field Organizer, Amnesty International Midwest Regional Office, 312-435-6396 or rschultz@aiusa.org.


For more information you can contact the AI regional office at (312) 427-2060

------------------------------------

Emergency Forum on U.S./Israeli War on Lebanon & Palestine

Join the Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism for an emergency forum featuring:

• Dr. Ghada Talhami: Palestinian American activist and professor of political science
• Dr. Raja Halwani: Lebanese American activist and professor of liberal arts
• Saman Sepehri: Iranian American activist and contributor to the International Socialist Review
• Andy Thayer: Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism, Gay Liberation Network

Moderated by Iranian attorney and activist Farideh Harandi

Date: Wednesday, August 9th
Time: 7PM
Location: DePaul University Lewis Center Room 241, 25 E. Jackson, Chicago
Wheelchair Accessable: Yes
Non-Smoking: Yes

Since July 12, Israel's war machine has taken the lives of hundreds of civilians in Lebanon and Palestine, and thousands more have been injured. Fully a quarter of the Lebanese population has been displaced, and Israeli attacks have decimated the country's infrastructure -- while in occupied Palestine, Israel ratchets up its murderous policies of collective punishment as the world's attention is directed elsewhere.

The U.S. government bankrolls the bulk of Israel's military might -- to the tune of $5 billion per year. More significantly, the U.S. government has become a full partner in this war: the bomb that killed upwards of sixty people in Qana -- more than half of whom were children -- came from the United States. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has cynically referred to the burgeoning Israeli bloodletting as the 'birth pangs of a new Middle East.' And John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., has repeatedly blocked any U.N. efforts to secure an immediate ceasefire, no matter how ghastly the bloodletting becomes.

What are the roots of the Israeli assault on Lebanon, their stepped-up violence against the Palestinians, and the larger U.S. policy imperatives served by the Bush regime's proxies in the Middle East? How does this military aggression relate to the U.S. war in Iraq and the U.S. regime's larger goals across the region? And what questions does this pose for the U.S. antiwar movement? Join the Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism for this emergency forum, featuring activists and experts from Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and the United States.

The forum will include public discussion and Q & A.

Sponsored by the Chicago Coalition Against War and Racism. To endorse or for more info, please email admin@ccawr.org or call 773-209-1187.

Endorsers (list in formation): ANSWER Chicago, Campus Antiwar Network, Chicago Area Code Pink, Gay Liberation Network, HammerHard MediaWorks, International Action Center/Chicago, the International Socialist Organization, the International Solidarity Movement/Chicago chapter, Neighbors for Peace, Nicaragua Solidarity Committee, Palestine Solidarity Group. Support extended from American Friends Service Committee, Potluck Democracy, World Can’t Wait/Chicago.

untitled

Olmert and Peretz,

Here are some preparatory materials for your meeting this morning, courtesy of Samidoun.
Please be prepared to explain your plans "to attack strategic infrastructure targets and symbols of the Lebanese government... for the first time since the fighting began" with relation to the maps below.

golan heights

what if israel were to give up the golan heights?

to be perfectly honest, this is tremendously difficult for me to stomach. two years ago, i stood at the syrian-israeli border and looked at the mountain range from the hospital in quneitra that israel bombed as it left. i actually felt some current of pride run through me as i looked at israel's agriculture. rows and rows of green crops and a grove of date trees contrasted widely with the rocky desert landscape on the syrian side of the border. yes, i felt zionist. (i was shocked!)

"peace observers" suggest that israel's apache helicopters, which we saw hovering in the mountain passes, are continuously traumatic experiences; however the syrians that we encountered seemed rather blase about the military presence and concentrated more on refilling their matte. but it was clear from their hard stares and insistence on calling this area "occupied palestine" that they maintained the very liveness of the disputed land. israel's control over the golan heights is not an accepted fact for syrians. yet my reaction to this was to dismiss this position as a futile battle that would be redressed with time. the golan heights are incorporated into israel.

now, i'm starting to second-guess this. haaretz actually published an extreme left position that suggests that israel concede the golan heights to syria. before we write off levy's words as a post-zionist living in a devastatingly zionist reality, consider that patrick seale proposes much of the same here. i can attest that it would dramatically alter public perception in syria, and we need to seriously consider the public perception front as much as any other front... but honestly, when will any of this happen?

counterarguments might suggest that withdrawing from gaza got israel nowhere, so why give back the golan heights? well, because syria is not palestine. sorry to be so crude, but syrians don't care so much about what happens on that godforsaken strip of land (hi rafat, hi hasan, hi nazir, i hope you and your families are ok) while they are obviously invested in that critical strip of land that observes israel and observes damascus.

of course i assume that the us benefits from israeli surveillance as currently operates at this border.

maybe the golan heights are pipe dreams just like many others...

from munich to hatzor air base, israel

really touched by this investigative reporting that suggests how some individuals find a way restrain their military actions. of course the dove in me wishes that everyone could be a refusenik, but that's just not realistic because alot of people are committed to social obligations (family, work, peer pressures) that are more valuable than the stigma of radicalized politics that comes with declaring oneself a refusenik. but to occasionally broadside a target when you're not sure and avoid possible civilian deaths... sounds like the makings of another spielburg movie.

and here's the full draft

Below is the draft resolution circulated to the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

---

The Security Council,

PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (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 settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

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

OP3. Also reiterates its strong support 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;

OP4. 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 harbors for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

OP5. 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 and authority;

OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

- strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

- delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa Farms area;

- 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 Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces 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;

- deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below;

- establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

- elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;

- provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

OP7. Invites the Secretary-General to support efforts to secure 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 6 above;

OP8. Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of 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 Chebaa Farms, and to present those proposals to the Security Council within 30 days;

OP9. Calls on all parties to cooperate during this period with the Security Council and to refrain from any action contrary to paragraph 1 above that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, or the safe return of displaced persons, and requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed in this regard;

OP10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN-mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution;

OP11. Requests UNIFIL, upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

OP12. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related material are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

OP13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and to provide any relevant information in light of the Council's intention to adopt, consistent with paragraph 10 above, a further resolution;

OP14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

source

reaction to draft UN resolution

this is a very quick first reaction:

- hezbollah ceases attacks and israel ceases offensive military actions: so can israel still make defensive military actions? how is this to be interpreted?

- what is the negotiating line between full cessation as umbrella project and immediate cessation as goals--- e.g. can israel claim that it needs 10 more days (to do what? olmert already claimed that hezbollah's infrastructure is destroyed) to accomplish X, Y, Z.

- UNIFIL vs. Lebanese army vs. other intl force (NATO?). the draft names UNIFIL but i wonder how the U.S. army fits in here, e.g. as military consultants. who will really disarm hezbollah and how will this take place? will it really take place? lots of fuzzy territory here.

- and really, is this going anywhere? how much will be tossed around? how ready are hezbollah and israel to sit around a negotiating table? what about public perception?

it's great that we're here, that the us won't veto this resolution at the security council, but these first steps are such babies!!!

good article that questions Israel's argument for defense

Originally published in The Hindu (India's natl newspaper), I bit this from blogspot beirutlive. Worth a close read for the investigative reporting that disabuses the rhetorical strategies that israel uses to legitimate its attack on lebanon.

Beware the `new order' Israel is imposing

Siddharth Varadarajan

No peace or stability can emerge in West Asia through occupation, subjugation, and the military slaughter of civilians.

ON JULY 28, 1989, a detachment of heavily armed Israeli commandos descended upon the southern Lebanese village of Jibchit. The time was 2 a.m. They burst into the home of Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid, leader of the Hizbollah militia, beat up his wife, and shot dead a neighbour before bundling the Sheikh and two other men into a helicopter. One of those seized was a young man named Hashem Fahaf who had no connection to Hizbollah, the other was the Sheikh's bodyguard.

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which carries a helpful if damning account of the kidnapping on its website, "Israel had hoped to use the sheikh as a card to affect an exchange of prisoners and hostages [held by Hizbollah] in return for all Shiites held by it."

So brazen was Israel's action that the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution (No. 638) calling for the "immediate safe release of all hostages and abducted persons, wherever and by whomever they are being held." Needless to say, Tel Aviv ignored the resolution. After all, kidnapping non-combatants, including minors, and holding them hostage, was an integral part of Israel's military strategy. In May 1994, Israeli soldiers abducted a prominent Lebanese businessman and former commander of the Shia Amal militia, Mustafa al-Dirani, and brought him into Israel. The aim of that kidnapping was to try and get information about the location of Ron Arad, an air force navigator who had been shot down over Sidon in 1986 during Israel's ongoing aggression against Lebanon.

Mr. Fahaf, whose presence Israel refused to recognise for years, spent 11 years in jail before the Supreme Court finally ordered his release. He was allowed to return home along with 18 other Lebanese nationals who — the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported in August 2003 — had been held "according to the official version ... as `bargaining chips' for Ron Arad". Two of those released had been kidnapped as boys and had grown into adulthood in captivity.

Sheikh Obeid and Mr. Dirani were finally released in 2004, after being held hostage by the Israeli government for 15 and 10 years respectively. Both men spent extended periods of time at Camp 1391, dubbed Israel's Guantanamo, a prison whose existence the Israeli authorities do not freely admit to. There, Mr. Dirani was raped, sexually abused, and tortured by Israeli soldiers. A lawsuit filed by him against the State of Israel is currently pending before a judge in Tel Aviv. He is claiming NIS 6 million ($150,000) in damages.

The 2004 release was part of a general prisoner swap brokered by the German government in which Hizbollah released an Israeli businessman and reserve colonel seized in 2000 in order to force Tel Aviv to free Sheikh Obeid. Hizbollah also returned the bodies of three Israeli soldiers killed in action. In exchange, Israel set free the Sheikh, Mr. Dirani, and 33 other Lebanese and Arab hostages, as well as 400 Palestinian prisoners. It also returned the bodies of 59 Lebanese nationals killed by its security forces over the years.

It is necessary to recall this entire sordid episode in order to put in perspective Hizbollah's foolish action of seizing two Israeli soldiers across the blue line dividing Lebanon from Israel. Thanks to Israel, kidnapping and hostage-taking — as well as the targeting of non-combatants and even children — have become "acceptable" military tactics in the region though one would be hard pressed to come across any reference to Sheikh Obeid or Mr. Dirani in the international news coverage that followed Hizbollah's action. The Shia militia wants Tel Aviv to free the handful of Lebanese prisoners still in Israeli jails who were promised freedom in 2004 but never released. Most prominent among them is Samir Kantar, captured in 1978 during a guerrilla raid on an Israeli settlement near the Lebanese border. Kantar was found guilty of killing a civilian man and his young daughter and sentenced to more than 500 years in prison by an Israeli court. The Israeli authorities may baulk at releasing a "convicted child killer." But in rejecting the possibility of a negotiated settlement and indiscriminately bombarding Lebanon, Tel Aviv has turned its own soldiers into the executioners of children. When a well-marked United Nations post takes a direct hit and ambulances are struck — according to a recent dispatch by Robert Fisk — with missiles that pierce the Red Cross and Crescent symbol right at the centre, it is hard to accept the Israeli claim that all civilian deaths were unintended.

Real war aims

Recalling the recent history of kidnappings is also necessary for another reason: To puncture the myth that the disproportionate and utterly criminal Israeli military response that is pulverising Lebanon and its people today is somehow driven by an urge to free its two kidnapped soldiers.

Read what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. National Security Advisor, told a small gathering in Washington last week about this. "I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect — maybe not in intent — the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages ... Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hizbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you're killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You'll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing."

On a par with the fantasy that the latest Israeli aggression against Lebanon is about protecting the legitimate security interests of Israel is the demand being raised in various quarters for a NATO peacekeeping force to be deployed on the Lebanese side of the border in order to disarm Hizbollah. Frequent reference is made to Security Council resolution 1559 of 2004, which called on the Lebanese government to assert its sovereignty over the whole of its territory and disarm the Shiite militia. When it suits Israel and the United States, United Nations resolutions such as 242 and 338 on Palestine or 638 on releasing hostages can be ignored for years on end. But other resolutions acquire a Biblical patina and instant compliance is required of them. By grossly interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs, Resolution 1559 was clearly ultra vires of the U.N. Charter. That is why it passed with the barest possible majority. Russia and China chose to abstain rather than exercise their veto because the resolution envisaged no enforcement mechanism. In any case, it is absurd for Israel — which is bombing Lebanon at will and sending in its troops — to speak in favour of a resolution that calls for the Lebanese government to assert its sovereignty.

As the Israeli peace movement, Gush Shalom, has said, the current offensive against Lebanon — like the 1982 invasion which led to two decades of occupation — was prepared in advance in anticipation of a suitable provocation. Hizbollah's kidnap raid provided the Olmert regime the excuse it needed to launch a war for the physical elimination of the militia and the eventual installation of a pliant regime in Lebanon that would do Israel's — and the U.S.' — bidding. In many ways, the script is not that different from the manner in which the abduction of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian guerrillas gave Tel Aviv the pretext to do something it was itching to do ever since Hamas won the elections.

In both cases, Israel and its principal international backer, the U.S., have proved how bogus is their vision of a "New Middle East" centred around respect for democracy and human rights. By attacking Gaza and Lebanon, that too with such overwhelming and disproportionate military force, Israel has decisively turned its back on the possibility of a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians and Syrians. The Olmert regime has no intention of relinquishing its illegal control over land and aquifers that belong to others. The U.S. does not want democracy to flourish in the region. Nor does Israel. What it wants are partners who are too weak, isolated or pliant to insist on their rights. What it has in mind are unilateral outcomes, imposed through gunboat negotiations if possible or through war if necessary. In both cases, the active support of the Bush administration and the silence of the rest of the world are essential.

The refusal of the U.N. to condemn the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, its failure to bring about an immediate ceasefire despite the mounting civilian toll, and its inability to get Israel to lift its inhuman blockade of Gaza and release the Hamas Ministers and MPs it kidnapped last month are paving the way for a human tragedy of monumental proportions. As long as the world continues to appease Israel in this manner, the people of the region — and especially the Israelis — will never know peace.

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

producers resign from FOX News in Amman

This is a letter sent from two FOX news producers in Amman, Jordan to FOX news:

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006

Dear All,

We would like to announce our resignation from Fox News in Amman.
Although we never actually worked for your organization, we helped for
the past three years in facilitating your work in the Middle East.
We base our decision on moral issues. We can no longer work with a
news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so
far from that. Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House,
and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency,
nor professionalism. You have crossed all borders and red lines. An
Arab mother cries over the death of her child very much like an
American and Israeli mother.
Arab blood is not cheap, and we are not barbarians. You ought to be
more responsible and have more decency when you take one side against
the other. You have a role to play and a responsibility to shoulder
for the sake of your very naive viewers.
Throughout the three years we worked with you, and helped you, we
thought you would develop a degree of respect to people in this part
of the world. But the disdain and blatant one-sided coverage of all
Mideast conflicts only highlights your total lack of humanity and bias
toward Israel. Your lack of professionalism has made you a tool of
ridicule throughout the world. Your inexperienced anchors with their
racist comments are not only a shameful scar on the American Media,
they simply represent state run Television networks in countries you
despise in the Middle East.
Finally, our decision again is based on moral and professional basis
and from now on we will no longer help in any Fox related matters.
Serene Sabbagh
Jomana Karadsheh

best friends forever?

i was just talking to a friend last night about the question of germany's role in (for lack of a better term) the arab-israeli conflict.

haaretz offers a first response in its coverage of olmert's solicitation of german peacekeeping troops. apparently there is some hesitancy in some german publics, e.g. those
"opposed to the deployment of German troops along the Israeli border [who] say they fear it would hurt the feelings of Holocaust survivors and that the troops would find it difficult to be impartially [sic] and operate against Israel if necessary."

according to olmert, "There is no nation acting in a friendlier manner towards Israel than Germany."

media war / images

the title of today's wall street journal op-ed reads:
"Media War Images Drain the Wells Of Moral Outrage"

but after reading through this piece, i wonder if a more apt title might be "media war... the wells of moral outrage."

why? henninger disputes the now-familiar claim of an al-jazeera affiliate that mainstream media tones down its images of war for an american public (which public?). but, he says, it doesn't matter. the graphics of war are no longer enough to horrify a public into a sense of moral indignation. rather, the public will "eventually become inured to the images."

there's a number of positions that henninger is staking out here-- this is israel's war, not that of the wsj reader. by permitting israel the sole right to act on the grounds of moral justification, henninger is giving iad/idf a carte blanc to continue their operations (i'm trying to maintain civil language in this post). excuse me, but the states is the supplier of this war. our hands are filthy (and our pockets now filthy rich).

but what i really hate about this article is henninger's case for the superiority of american media over arab media. yes, this is another contribution to the "clash of civilizations." how exactly? arab media argues that a good chunk of this war is being fought on the media, as much as on the ground. in some cases, nasrallah has been lauded for putting his money where his mouth is, such as that first friday (omg, that was three weeks ago!) when he foreshadowed "surprise" and then hit an israeli ship sitting not far from beirut's main port. furthermore, the war is a complete loss for israel and for the states in terms of the public perception front. what i think that henninger is saying is that the us public should not get caught up in a media war that is based on images because we are too good for that. and those who are caught up in it (such as those who track al-jazeera's videos and other footage) have not made "progress."

so, henninger, what rhetorical headway do you really want out of this pursuit of hegelian "progress"? for me, progress is dismantled by the events of the day. foucault might agree, of course. but i'm thinking in reality-- progress is dismantled by today's bombing of beirut's main highway in jounieh. folks, this is like bombing the dan ryan between o'hare and downtown chicago. this is like bombing the bqe by the atlantic ave. exit. this is central beirut.


and quickly,
my other issue with this piece is that henninger ignores the blogosphere. he claims that his questions addresses how government and its public manage war "in an E-bay world" but the salient question for me is how civilians propagate propaganda without federal intervention. consider, for instance, the infuriating israeltolebanon shots that were photoshopped in the first week of the war. these shots of girls writing on israeli missiles quickly left the control of the AP photographer and were hastily forwarded on those who position themselves as victims or sympathize with the victimized.

tactics by the bushel

heard about this earlier this morning, but this Reuters report offers details re what produce the workers were transporting...

"One air strike hit a farm near Qaa, close to the Syrian border in the Bekaa Valley where workers, mostly Syrian Kurds, were loading plums and peaches on to trucks, local officials said. They said 33 people were killed and 20 wounded. "

those of you who've known me for a bit may recall that I spent a good chapter of my life researching terrorist tactics of Polish Jews under occupation by Nazi Germany. more often than not, egg and bread baskets were convenient covers for small arms and other means of resistance.

the hashomer hatzairs certainly don't hold a patent on this idea, also depicted as a tactic of the FLN in "Battle of Algiers" (among others), but suffice to say that IAF may not be completely off-target.*

*this is not an apology for israel.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5989/584/1600/fruit%20workers.jpg

the past three weeks were a prequel

we can now begin to write a history of this war,
we can now link events backwards and forwards,
and write a narrative that pivots on this hour's news:

the americans are landing in beirut

i sob. i vomit. i'm incredulous. i'm cynical. hasn't this already been written somewhere?
didn't we already figure that the us was letting israel do its dirty work, outsourcing the demolition job to the contractor that has the best bulldozers in town. of course we supply our own tools for the job, in case ground operations don't work out.

the us now occupies lebanon.

omg.