AI--Signs Of Intelligence

From whence comes this sudden clarity of vision? Amnesty International has declared Hezbollah guilty of war crimes during its recent war with Israel. I'm not sure how many other organizations have dared to pronounce any guilt on Hezbollah's head, but this is the first I've heard of to do it with any volume behind its words. AI has yet to issue its report on Israels part in the conflict, but this does give me more hope that they might see the difficulty facing Israel with an opponent who hid among civilians, fired from their midst, and, according to Jules Crittenden, the Boston Herald City Editor, even sometimes wore Israeli uniforms in battle.

Maybe AI will recognize other challenges facing Israel, like the fact that Hezbollah was acting as proxy for Iran and Syria, and that despite international cries for "proportionality" Israel had to damage a lot of Lebanese infrastructure to try to prevent resupply from the puppet-masters. Maybe AI will recognize the difference between a terrorist organization attacking unprovoked, and a country defending itself when attacked, and attempting to do so in a way that would prevent the enemy from showing such aggression again. Maybe AI will see through some of the staged death scenes, the rusted-out ambulance claimed as a recent Israeli target, and the Hezbollah fighters numbered among the civilian dead, when they examine Israel's behavior throughout this war. Maybe. I'm not really counting on it, but then again, you never know. They surprised me this time. They might surprise me again.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The International Double Standard

I am continually frustrated by the international double standard that judges Israel more harshly than pretty much anybody else. This double standard rears its ugly head among national governments, world bodies such as the United Nations, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which are supposedly looking for human rights violations from whatever quarter they arise, but don't quite manage to see the ones against Israel as easily as violations by Israel. For some reason, it's easier to establish war crimes and human rights violations if Israel is the perpetrator than if they are committed by any other nation or group. Joshua Muravchik, at The Weekly Standard, examines this same inconsistency in the case of one such NGO, Human Rights Watch. The evidence of bias that Muravchik draws out is damning, in my opinion. He discusses how that bias leads Human Rights Watch into conflict with its own reason for being, as (from the HRW website) an organization "dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world." If HRW is dedicated to protecting human rights, the question that then begs an answer is whether Israel has the basic human right of self-defense.

Muravchik examines HRW's response to the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. According to Muravchik, Human Rights Watch determined that Israel was in the wrong in the conflict, by reason of having targeted civilians. He points out that, while it's true that civilians did die in Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, which locates its operations in civilian areas, HRW has little basis for this accusation that it was intentional on the part of the Israelis, especially since Israel dropped fliers to warn civilians of impending attacks. The Israeli Defense Force sacrificed tactical advantage to give Lebanese civilians the chance to leave targeted areas before bombing began, clearly indicating they did not desire to kill innocents, but that was HRW's conclusion all the same:

The decision by Human Rights Watch to treat Israel as the main culprit in this war also entailed a studied refusal to make basic moral and legal distinctions. The group did not differentiate between Hezbollah's action in initiating the conflict and Israel's reaction in self-defense, nor between Hezbollah's openly announced and quite deliberate targeting of civilians and Israel's alleged indiscriminate firing that caused civilian casualties despite Israel's appeals to Lebanese civilians to evacuate areas it intended to bombard.

Most remarkably, Human Rights Watch did not take note of the contrasting goals of the combatants. Hezbollah's declared aim, in the words of its "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Fadlallah, is to "obliterate" Israel, while Israel's goal boiled down to not being obliterated. Human Rights Watch justifies this self-imposed moral blindness on the grounds that its touchstone is law, not morality. But why, then, was it deafeningly silent on the overriding legal issue that the conflict presented--namely, genocide?

Muravchik then goes on to discuss the international legal standards for what constitutes genocide, and what the responsibilities for signatories to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are. By the conditions of this Convention, every country with their John Hancock on that treaty should be defending Israel, or any other nation, or people, for that matter, when they are threatened with genocide. Now, I realise that Hezbollah is not really in the position, at this point, where they can achieve the goal of "obliterating" Israel as they desire. However, I don't think there's a clause in the Convention that excuses signatories from the duty they signed up for, if the group planning the elimination of another is not really capable of carrying out the threat--yet. I add the word yet, because, as most of us know, the nuclear capabilities that Iran is pursuing "for peaceful purposes" could very likely find Hezbollah accessing bigger "toys" than that organization has previously been able to acquire, and then it would be an entirely different situation.

Muravchik clarifies Hezbollah's position:

And if such casuistic arguments needed further refutation, there is the eloquent testimony of Hezbollah's anti-personnel missiles fired at Israeli civilians. As Hezbollah's Sheikh Fadlallah puts it: "There are no innocent Jews in Palestine." Nor is that all. Hezbollah's strongman, Hassan Nasrallah, has affirmed that Hezbollah's target is not only the Jews of Palestine. "If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he declared in 2002, according to a report in Lebanon's Daily Star, the accuracy of which is not disputed.

He continues:

As it happened, nearly half of the civilians slaughtered by Hezbollah's missiles in the recent conflagration were not Jews, but Israeli Arabs. This prompted Nasrallah to issue a personal appeal to Arabs to evacuate Haifa so that only Jews would be killed. In sum, from whichever angle you examine it, whether to obliterate Israel or to kill Jews, Hezbollah is an operation whose purpose is genocide. For this reason, disarming Hezbollah should not fall to Israel alone. It is the legal obligation of every one of the 137 state parties to the Genocide Convention.

None of this, however, drew the attention of Human Rights Watch or diverted it from its main mission of attacking Israel. It is a mission that predates the recent crisis.

What follows in Muravchik's article is a very long look at the history of Human Rights Watch as an organization, and an examination of how it developed its particular slant on the world. It's worth your time, although it's quite lengthy and I will not try to summarize it here. From my perspective, it's fascinating to see where such biases as the pervading world opinion against Israel come from. There are a lot of different sources of prejudice in the world, but I find it especially interesting to see how a group whose entire focus is human rights and fairness comes to conclusions that seem so contrary to its general outlook.

I really don't want to cast aspersions on everything that Human Rights Watch does. The general work they have taken upon themselves is important. We do need watchdogs in this troubled world, but we need watchdogs that see clearly and bark at every threat, not just some of them. Usually, I try my darnedest to be fair-minded and not make assumptions about people's motives, but I have to admit that this is a situation that really frosts me. I see Israel condemned regularly, for acts of self-preservation, while those who attack her, Hezbollah in this specific case, are given as close to a pass as can be given, without ignoring altogether the thousands of missiles they have shot indiscriminately into Israel, for the clearly stated purpose that they want Israel to be no more, destroyed, eliminated. I grant you that it is perfectly reasonable to question whether all of Israel's actions are justifiable. By all means evaluate the legitimacy of her targets within the context of self-defense. I'm not suggesting the Israel be given a pass more than anyone else, but please at least distinguish between self-defense and attempted genocide--for both Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has an openly declared policy of genocide against Jews and Israelis. Israel dropped leaflets before bombing runs in Lebanon to warn civilians to get out of harm's way. The two are not morally equivalent.

The Paragon Of Impartiality

Gateway Pundit has a rather damning roundup of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's responses to Hezbollah and Israeli actions over the course of the past week or so. In case you're not caught up with the latest, the cease-fire has been shaky of late. On the sixth day after the hostilities were, for the most part, halted, Israel hit the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon by air and ground, claiming it was necessary to stop a shipment of arms already coming to Hezbollah from Iran. (Iran didn't waste any time if the Israeli government is to be believed, and I suspect that it in this instance.) Lebanon apparently is saying they think there was a different target, but in any case, neither side is happy with the situation, and where it goes from here is uncertain. Kofi Annan's statements and silences are telling, however. Guess who comes in for Kofi's condemnation while the other side skates? Aww, that was too easy.

Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air believes that Islamists need a major military defeat to keep them from believing that they are invincible, with God on their side. He says they're learning the wrong lesson from the Hezbollah/Israeli UN brokered cease-fire. Of course, he's right that the cease-fire was of highly questionable benefit from the Israeli perspective, and it's clear that the terrorists aren't skipping a beat in their quest to rid the world of the Jewish state. There's been no movement at all toward disarming Hezbollah--quite the opposite, in fact. Iran is keeping Hezbollah well supplied. The big question is, if Allahpundit's right that it's going to take a major beating of an Islamist power, is it going to have to be the US versus Iran, as so many claim? Is that the only sword that has any real hope of severing the snake's head? There's an awful lot of punditry out there that says that war is inevitable, either before or after Iran develops nukes, because Iran will insist on it.

Who Wins?

Captain Ed, of Captain's Quarters, has some interesting analysis about the cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah. He thinks it's a net gain for Israel:

In this war, they pushed Hezbollah out of the sub-Litani, forced them to fire off a third of their missile and rocket inventory, and destroyed a number of their launchers. This all took place over two kidnapped soldiers, and Hezbollah didn't even get the prisoner swap they wanted. After six years of relative non-action to Hezbollah provocations, Olmert changed the dynamic by launching a massive war after a relatively routine terrorist action by Hezbollah. Israel also forced Lebanon to finally address the conundrum of sovereignty and drove a wedge between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon's institutions. Does anyone think that Fuad Siniora would even have discussed disarming Hezbollah before this war? They had a year after UNSCR 1559 and completely shrugged it off.

The goals for Israel have always been a Hezbollah-free sub-Litani without having to conduct another generational occupation. They got the agreement they wanted that delivers on these goals, and at the same time served notice that the era of non-response to provocations had passed. The key for Israel is to insist on full implementation of 1701 and 1559. They cannot budge on these points. If Lebanon reneges, Israel can go back to their military options until the Lebanese get the message for good.

I hope he's right, that the benefit of pushing Hezbollah north makes enough of a difference to make the war worth it. Ultimately, however, I hope that Hezbollah has lost real ground and not just territory and munitions, and that Lebanon has gained some perspective that gives the government a spine where "The Party of God" is concerned. Ultimately, this would be a big gain for Lebanon as well. If Lebanon really can claim control over her own southern territories, her prospects for a peaceful and prosperous future will get a whole lot better. I know there have been people killed, and a great deal of infrastructure lost. I don't think anyone is denying the cost. No one can bring back the lost lives, but I think the world in general, and the U.S. and Israel in particular, will be eager to help Lebanon rebuild if she can show that the Lebanese government, and not the terrorist militia, controls her territory, her borders, and her actions.

There are a lot of pundits saying this is a loss for Israel, because Hezbollah has not been completely destroyed, but I think the Captain makes a good point; if Lebanon (and the U.N.) fails to restrain Hezbollah, Israel has the choice available of resuming military action. Israel is not giving up her options, here, but she is giving Lebanon the opportunity to seize the moment and decide who she will be in the future. Will she be a sovereign state, living at peace with her neighbors, or will she continue to be a human shield, allowing Hezbollah to keep striking blows at the peace and security of both Lebanon and Israel?

I wrote yesterday about not having a lot of faith that the U.N. would be any help in keeping the peace, but some of that depends on Lebanon. If the government and people of that country come together truly seeking for their military and U.N. force together to exert control, they could pull it off. If they lamely resist facing down Hezbollah in order to avoid internal conflict, after all this destruction and mayhem--if they allow Hezbollah to continue attacking Israel, then they will, in essence, be choosing war with Israel as preferable to cleaning their own house. I truly hope the Lebanese are stronger than that.

Cease-Fire Holding--For Now

I read in Michael Totten's blog last night, and posted accordingly, that a potential cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon was dead--that's the call he got when standing in the free fire zone on the Israeli border, but I got a different story from the Associated Press this morning. According to the AP, the cease-fire is in place:

Israel's defense minister said Monday that barring isolated skirmishes with Hezbollah, the U.N.-imposed cease-fire is holding in southern Lebanon, and Israel is coordinating with the United Nations to relinquish captured territory.

From everything I've read the Israelis definitely don't want to get stuck in another occupation of southern Lebanon, and while they may have some reservations about whether the engagement with Hezbollah accomplished what it needed to, they will go ahead with the handing over of captured Lebanese territory to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, hoping that UNIFIL will help the Lebanese army to gain control of the territories once occupied by Hezbollah.

The question I've seen the most redundantly over the last few days is whether the U.N. force will be of any use toward that end. After all, there was a U.N. peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon before the war broke out, supposedly keeping guard over Hezbollah. However, in some cases the U.N. and Hezbollah actually operated next door to each other. This cozy arrangement resulted in the death of four U.N. officials in July, when the Israelis bombed the village of El Khiam, apparently targeting Hezbollah. According to World Net Daily, there were strong indications Hezbollah was using the U.N. post as a shield from which to fire rockets. That's not very effective peace keeping on the part of the U.N., I'd say. Other sources I've read have claimed that, before the war broke out, the U.N. forces in Southern Lebanon did nothing to stop Hezbollah activities occurring in plain sight of their stations. That's not really a good sign that Israel will be able to count on the U.N. to enforce the cease-fire from the Lebanese end. Another concern is that with Iran providing ever longer range missiles, Hezbollah can fire from deeper inside Lebanon, basically over the heads of UNIFIL, and any Lebanese Army forces that move into the south.

This U.N. mandated cease-fire may or may not be in the best interest of Lebanon, or Israel. It's in both their interests for all the devastation wrought in both countries not to be in vain. What would make the damage easier to take from Israel's perspective, and that of many Lebanese, would be the dismantling of the militia that started all the turmoil in the first place. Neither of them benefit by the existence of an active Hezbollah inciting violence between two of the region's very small number of democracies. Whether it is in vain will depend largely on how much Hezbollah in Lebanon has been damaged by the Israeli Defense Force, and whether the legitimate Lebanese military can take back all of its own territory and hold it. If Hezbollah merely falls back to regroup with the aid of Syria and Iran, or to keep firing rockets from a safer distance, unhindered by either the Lebanese military, or UNIFIL, Israel will have no choice but to resume hostilities. I hope, for Lebanon's sake, that doesn't happen. If the U.N. wants what's best for Lebanon, regardless of how little concern the world body has for Israel, they need to take the task of preventing the return of Hezbollah aggression against Israel seriously--more seriously than they did the last time around. They had also better keep an eye on Iran.

Update: I understand now why Michael Totten said the cease-fire was scrapped, when it is, at this point, in effect. He was writing about August 11th, which wasn't clear from the post I referenced, but is clear from this follow-up. Once again, it's a good source of on-the-ground perspective--and pictures, lots of pictures--and nobody writes like Michael Totten. Really, he puts you there with him.

Totten In Israel

Michael Totten is in Israel, and took a drive up north, to where the war is active and ongoing. His latest post is full of eyewitness information, pictures, and experiences from being in the midst of a live fire zone with little to no cover. When he headed up, it looked like a cease-fire was on the way. He interviewed IDF Spokesmen Michael Oren and Dan Gordon and got their reaction to the pending cease-fire, as well as their reaction to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's claim that he had won the war, and whether they thought any actual good had come from the conflict. There's a lot worth reading in that conversation. One thing I particularly noted from that interview that I hadn't known before was the extent of Hezbollah's initial incursion into Israel. Gordon makes the statement that most reporters aren't telling what Hezbollah tried to do in that first attack:

“Hardly any journalists have mentioned this,” Dan said. “But at the very beginning of this thing, when Hezbollah captured our soldiers, they also tried to invade, conquer, and hold the town of Metulla along with two other towns. And they were repulsed.”

Of course Hezbollah was repulsed. They’re a guerilla/terrorist army, not infantry.

“We do have one serious asset from this war,” Dan said. “Hassan Nasrallah got his ass kicked. And he knows it.”

“Did he really get his ass kicked?” I said. “The IDF fought Hezbollah to a standstill for more than ten years before. What made you think it would be easy to get rid of them this time?”

“This time it’s different,” Dan said. “This time we’re going in there to kill them. We are not trying to hold on to territory. This is actually working. We are not stuck in the mud. Oh, and here’s another tangible…Hezbollah-occupied Lebanon no longer exists.”

So, they do see some good coming out of it all, from their persective. There's so much to this piece, and things were shifting even as Totten stood there. By the end of the interview he got a call saying the cease-fire was dead, and the ground invasion beginning. The war goes on. Read the rest for yourself. You probably won't get this clear a view of what it's like on the ground there from many other places. After the post, read the comments for even more perspective. Totten's got more to say, as do his readers.

When In Doubt, Blame Israel

Little Green Footballs has more captioning errors coming out of major media, and, big surprise, Israel takes the hit again. This time it's the Associated Press who needed to check their facts before going to print. The AP caption for a photo that ran Wednesday, August 9th, initially stated that a dead little girl was killed by Israeli bombs, when really she fell out of a swing. Now, I grant you, she fell soon before an actual bombing run, and there was doubtless a lot of confusion at the hospital where the picture was taken, but for heaven's sake, make sure you're right before casting blame. Just because you have a sympathetic picture of a dead child, and a war going on, does not make the two automatically related. The AP eventually corrected their error, but, as LGF points out, "...the damage, of course, is already done—and you can bet the photos will soon show up in anti-Israel demonstrations." Interesting to note that Reuters had their own photo of the dead child, with a similarly inaccurate caption.

I read a post, or comment, somewhere today (I'm sorry, I can't remember where to give credit or a link), that made a very good point about media bias. The comment addressed the issue of whether all these doctored photos and inaccurate captions (and bloggers are finding more and more examples) show evidence of media bias, or merely inadequate editing. The point the commenter drove home was that if it's the case that editors and photographers are merely sloppy, not biased, where are all the photos and captions "inadvertently" slanted the other way? Where are all the pictures that falsely magnify damage from Hezbollah's rockets, and captions that claim Israeli children injured in tree-climbing accidents were actually bombed by the Lebanese militia? Hezbollah has been shooting missiles at Israel for over a month, striking farther and farther south; surely, if the inaccuracy cuts both ways there should be plenty of examples of bad captions and "Shoppery," that make Israel look more sympathetic, gracing the pages and websites of major media. If you find any, let me know. I'd really like to see if this cuts both ways. I can't say that I expect anybody to have much success in hunting down instances of pro-Israeli fudging from major news outlets. I doubt the train goes to that station very often.

Iran Goes The Extra Mile

Some sobering thoughts on Israel and Hezbollah, Iran's latest contribution to the turmoil, and how America needs to react, from J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss, at TCS Daily. Excerpt:

Debka.com reported a very dangerous but potentially promising development on Sunday. Realizing that it overplayed its hand by waging war on Israel before being fully prepared, Iran has apparently now dispatched the world's most fearsome remaining terrorist (after Osama Bin Laden) to supervise Hezbollah operations. Imad Mughniyeh has been wanted for 25 years by the FBI for the suicide bomb attacks he orchestrated against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and against American and French peacekeepers (to say nothing of a spate of "lesser" hijackings and murders). Mughiyeh is so important in the hierarchy of international terror that he answers directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Prime Minister Olmert is now directly opposed not by the relatively parochial Lebanese cleric Hassan Nasrallah, but by an extremely seasoned terrorist who comes as the chief paladin of Iranian mullahs and their ambitions to hasten of the apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam.

As Instapundit would say, read the whole thing.

Reuters: In Focus

If you don't stay as connected to the Internet as some of us who are more emotionally Net dependent, you may not be aware of the latest controversy sweeping the blogosphere, especially if you get most of your news from more traditional sources. The mainstream media is largely ignoring this story. In the past few days, there's been a swarm of bloggers, starting with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, and including an army of Photoshop experts with Internet access, exposing a Reuters photo from the conflict in Lebanon that has clearly been doctored. Even my pathetically untrained eyes can see the obvious use of the Photoshop clone device, clumsily employed to ramp up the smoke content in a post-bomb image and change the building landscape (possibly to make the area look more populated.)

The photographer who snapped the image, Adnan Hajj, is a stringer from Lebanon, freelancing the Israeli/Lebanese war. Some of his other photos have been questioned recently as well, specifically about whether pictures taken after Israel bombed Qana were staged. Reuters stood by their man when these initial questions arose, pooh-poohing the possibility that anything could slip by their guard, or that their man wasn't completely bias free, but finally made the decision to take him off their payroll, with the obvious Photoshop manipulation coming to light via the ever watchful blogosphere. Since then, the story has progressed, and another "shopped" Hajj photo has been discovered. Reuters responded by removing all 900 or so of Hajj's pics from their archives. (He's freelanced for them for several years.)

Michelle Malkin made an interesting point this morning. She thinks that Reuters is making a mistake by taking down all the photos completely. She suggests that they set up a special site taking advantage of the expertise available online, and let the citizen swarm loose to examine the rest of this photographer's work. I agree. How much visual misinformation has been purveyed by this "photojournalist," and others? During a war it's pretty important to be able to trust what you see and read. Riots have been caused in the Middle East by cartoons, for pity's sake--what damage can an altered photograph do? I shudder to think of all the pictorial hoaxes that may have been perpetrated on the unwary masses, by more skillful Shoppers, in this age of digital dupery. At the very least, Reuters needs to establish some stringent, and publicly confirmable, editorial processes to ensure that people can trust what Reuters passes out as news. If Reuters is smart, they will be as open and cooperative with bloggers as possible, or risk losing more of their credibility by duck and cover tactics.

Pajamas Media has a healthy roundup of news and blog links, as does the Malkin link above, and the Little Green Footballs link leads to the blog that started it all. (LGF was also the blog that outed the Rathergate memos as being fake.) This may not seem like a big deal to you, but this is turning into a huge deal in the blog world. There is ongoing criticism from the mainstream media that blogs lack editorial safeguards and therefore are less trustworthy than traditional journalistic sources. Bloggers counter that the blogosphere is itself a giant editorial machine, and lies don't hold up long under the continued scrutiny of millions of blogger fact-checkers. Reuters' accuracy checking isn't looking very shiny right now, and the ability of Internet experts in a myriad of disciplines to check for errors in the news of the day is looking awfully helpful when the MSM systems break down. Neither the MSM nor the blogosphere can replace one another, but the two of them keeping tabs on each other, that could be the best of both worlds.

Update: Here's an interesting look at the photo editing process, from National Journal. This one again confirms to me that the MSM and blogosphere ought to be checking on each other in a cooperative and helpful way--not playing "gotcha," but willing to look at each other's evidence if the truth of a report or photo is in question. The piece also talks about the use of photo fakery from the other side of the GWOT, including photographic "evidence" purporting to show American soldiers raping Iraqi women. Sobering the way pictures can be manipulated. Makes me think of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. What is it--64,000 repititions make a truth?

Update II: Michelle Malkin's looking at further examples of misleading media, including innacurate captioning and staged photos. It ain't just Reuters that has a problem with keeping things straight photographically. The New York Times, Time and U.S. News & World Report join the list, and boy howdy is the blogosphere on the hunt now. That's good, if you ask me. With Israel being hammered for its response to Hezbollah attacks, it would be nice to be sure that the info coming out of the war zone is something close to right. There have been some darn suspicious death counts and really odd photo coincidences--like the lady who apparently lost more than one house in one of Israel's attacks in Beirut, judging by the fact she shows up grieving their loss at a couple of locations throughout the area. (It could be more a captioning problem than a photographic one.) I know that sometimes in the Middle East they hire professional mourners, but I didn't know they went to the trouble for lost property.

Why The Jews?

With accusations of disproportionate response continuing to plague Israel, as world attention focuses on the war between Hezbollah and the Jewish state, and the machinations of Iran and Syria against its very existence, and even the unfortunate drunken spewing of Mel Gibson and his subsequent apology, there's no question that the attitude of the rest of the world to Jews and Israelis is not at its best right now. But then, it's never really been at its best, has it? Do you ever ask yourself why there is so much animosity in the world toward this beleaguered people and the nation many of them inhabit? Israel is tiny, truly tiny. All this turmoil can't simply be about this minuscule bit of real estate and who has the right to it, despite Islamic claims to the contrary. There have been too many calls for eliminating every Jew on the planet coming out of places like Tehran for it to be merely about Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Hitler's desire to eradicate Jews didn't come from any dispute over holy lands, even if he did have designs on their property and possessions in Europe. No, there's something here that goes beyond mere competition for goods and territory. This is hatred on a deeper level, an almost inconceivable level to people of rational mind.

Now, you may be one of those dedicated conspiracy theorists who finds merit in the notion that Jews have tried to take over the world for just about forever, and you believe any prejudice against them is justified by their quest to dominate mankind. Interesting premise. A few problems with it, I believe. I've seen that there has been oppression of Jews on a continent-wide scale, almost world-wide in reality, yet never have seen Israel doing aught but defend itself. You can question their methods, of course. You can say they've gone too far. You can sympathize with those Palestinians who want peace and don't support the terrorists in their midst, but time after time, others have started the wars that the Jewish people have been forced to fight. (Now, I'm not referencing battles that happened 3500 years ago. Joshua and Jericho aren't really applicable at this point, so could we set aside the blood feud justifications for now? Just about everybody's ancestors have hurt everybody else's ancestors at some point in time. Could we please get over it and live in today, or at least the last century or so?)

What made the average European of the first half of the last century tolerate the kind of anti-Semitism that led to Hitler's "final solution?" What made Arabs on the streets of Cairo march in protest when their government initially condemned Hezbollah, rather than Israel, at the outset of the current conflict? What poison did these people drink in childhood that has so permeated their beings that hatred for Israel practically oozes out of their pores? Nina Shea & Jeanne Hoffman, at The Weekly Standard have some answers to these questions. They claim that the poison filling many in the Arab world is fed to them as children, by their governments and schools. They say some of it is the same poison which tainted Europe of the last century, indoctrination having its roots in publications like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

Disseminated with the support and official sanction of the governments of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Palestine, and Syria, as well as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, this work is used to shape the collective consciousness of Arab populations. The Protocols is a century-old fabrication that purports to record the ma chinations of Jews conspiring to rule the world through treach ery, fraud, and violence.

Shea and Hoffman continue:

Adapted from an 1864 French satire of Napoleon III entitled A Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montes quieu, the text of The Protocols first appeared around the turn of the 20th century. Its authors, believed to be members of the Russian secret police, attempted to make it appear there was a Jewish plot to undermine the czar. The book's circulation in Russia at that time helped incite murderous pogroms.

Hitler then used The Protocols to indoctrinate Nazi youth. In 1924, his propaganda minister, Joseph Goeb bels, found the tract "modern" and useful, admitting in his diary that he believed in "the intrinsic but not the factual truth of The Protocols."

These "Protocols", used by Czarists, and Nazis, and now Arab governments, are a fabrication, attempting to demonstrate a longstanding Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, yet lacking credibility at the most basic levels. From this document springs the notion, held by both Saudi textbooks and the Hamas charter, that the Jews' desire to run things has caused, "...the French Revolution, World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Bolshevik Revolution." From it also comes the belief that Jews eat the children of Christians and Muslims, and "...that the current evils in the world have been unfolding according to the 'meticulous and precise plan and time schedule' of The Protocols." Who can believe such nonsense? According to Shea and Hoffman, the Protocols have been repeatedly discredited, even by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1964, and yet, "Saudi public high schools now teach The Protocols as historical fact." Disturbing, don't you think? Shea and Hoffman indicate that Arab culture is replete with references to them, ranging from TV specials to the Hamas charter, treating the document as accurate and valid. Keep in mind how much of Arab television is state run. These are governments putting out this kind of vile propaganda. Of course, the very people who run these governments were also raised on this kind of bile.

When you think about the place in which Israel finds herself today, when you think about how she defends herself, not just in Lebanon against Hezbollah, but against all of the aggression she has faced over the last half century, think about the following questions. How can this people, or any people for that matter, be at peace in a world where the nations which border their lands teach their children, on an official level, such hideous lies about them? How can Israel find common ground with people who teach their children that religious virtue will be found in killing as many Jews as possible? How can they not seek to defend themselves when the natural outcome of such teaching is perpetrated on them daily? What I find remarkable is how much effort Israel has made over the years to try to do these very things: make peace and find common ground, and how often they have refrained from defending themselves, even though sometimes a straw like Hezbollah breaks the camel's back.

I have an even more disheartening question regarding Arab nations and the way they teach their children: when they are washed in such unreasoned malice, practically from the cradle, what child can resist such lies? What will break the cycle, so that the next generation is not bathed in the same filthy water? What possible chance is there that the next generation will break the bonds of indoctrination and seek to end the constant strife? Is there any hope that the governments now conditioning their youth to blindly hate "the Zionist Aggressors" will change, and seek to teach peace instead? I have no answers for these questions. I have very little faith that Iran will ever turn from the Hellish road they now march. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon? Who can say? Reasonable people can only hope, at this point, and pray.

Unbelievable

I ask you, who attacked whom? Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei is saying--now get this-- that the U.S. planned the Israeli attack on Lebanon, in advance, in order to take over the whole Muslim world. Boy, does he think we have a lot of power. (Of course we need a lot of power, what with our designs on ruling over almost a third of the world's population and all.) Apparently, not only do we control Israel, but Hezbollah, as well. How else could we get them to cross the Israeli border, kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, in order to get this "taking over the Muslim world" show on the road? We must have Hezbollah on our subversive payroll. Yet, by Khamenei's count, Hezbollah is "the front line of defense for the Muslim nation," in a holy war, no less, against a racist and bloodthirsty Zionist regime. Again, I ask you, who attacked whom? Is there anyone in power in Iran who isn't insane?

Update: Iran is putting its money where its Hezbollah-backing, inflammatory, jihadist mouth is. According to Jane's Defense Weekly, via Yahoo! News, the Iranians are supplying Hezbollah with ever more sophisticated weapons:

Iran will supply Hezbollah with surface-to-air missile systems in the coming months, boosting the guerrillas' defences against Israeli aircraft, according to a report by specialist magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, citing unnamed Western diplomatic sources.

In a meeting, held late last month, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia called on Tehran to "accelerate and extend the scope of weapon shipments from Iran to the Islamic Resistance, particularly advanced missiles against ground and air targets."

Hat tip for the post and the update: Michael Totten--guestblogging at Instapundit

Hoping Still

I have been reading Israeli, Lebanese, and other Middle Eastern blogs over the last few weeks with an odd mixture of sadness and curiosity about how people from all sorts of different political, religious and cultural backgrounds view and are affected by the current Israeli-Lebanese-Hezbollah conflict. I had been reading many of these same blogs well before the recent violence began, and was encouraged by the way so many bloggers were reaching beyond the barriers, both actual and perceived, in real efforts to communicate and understand each other's worlds.

It's been so disheartening of late to see people who, before the latest war began, had been working so hard to overcome both their own prejudices toward others and the prejudices of others toward them, but who, with the onrush of emotion, anger, and fear that war inevitably brings, have since lost back much of the ground gained to hatred and hardened hearts. The anger and fear are completely justifiable. Who can look on while their world is destroyed and not cry out in anguish? Yet, I pray for them all that this loss of ground is temporary, and the search for understanding among individuals can continue, no matter what governments do.

I recently read a post by an Israeli blogger who puts words to these same types of thoughts, only from a much more personal perspective, since she is in the thick of things, and much more intimately affected by the war, and the threat to relationships she has worked so hard to nurture in the incubator of the Internet. She includes a link to a Jordanian blogger, which I will also include here. These people are not only on the ground, watching the world turned upside down around them, but can speak about what it was like before the fighting began. Through their blogs, they have shared from their own experience what it is like to try to form bonds which the rules of culture, politics, and even religion declare to be forbidden, or at least in bad taste, and despite the obstacles find bonds with people that manage to get beyond all those things which make that connection seem impossible. Now they are also sharing what happens when the unthinkable descends upon them, and all their effort seems futile and hopeless. What is amazing to me is how some of these cross-cultural bloggers, these everyday folks living their lives as the world spins out of control, even now find the ability to hope for better things, for better understanding, and for the connections they have made, despite boundaries, to survive, despite war. I feel privileged to be able to glimpse inside their realities, and see these people who dared to hope, and to seek "the other" in the first place, dare to continue hoping still. The hope is battered, beyond question, but it is not defeated.

A Tale Of Two Minds

Michael Totten pointed me to a fascinating post by Lebanon Profile at Lebanese Political Journal. It's a look at the many facets of thought in Lebanese political life--the many facets of thought in individual Lebanese, actually. Michael Totten says that Lebanon has more opinions than people. The conclusion I draw from reading both his writing and Lebanon Profile's is that many Lebanese hold what we would think are extremely conflicting ideas very comfortably in one brain. LP examines how it's possible for someone to genuinely support Hezbollah, and yet not hate Israelis or want to destroy Israel at the same time. He looks at individual Lebanese who have close relationships with Israeli Jews, and yet vote for Hezbollah in elections. Confused? I am still a bit confused myself, even after reading the post. Western thought and Middle Eastern thought simply are not the same animal, but Lebanon Profile does explain it well, and I understand the truly foreign politics of Lebanon a lot better than I did. As the conflict between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon continues, it can only help the situation for as many people as possible to gain insight into the thinking of "the other." It may not change conditions on the ground now, but it holds hope for the future, and if ever there was a situation that needed some hope...

A "Back To Reality" Update

After posting yesterday about possible good that could come out of the Lebanese/Israeli conflict, in the form of the legitimate Lebanese government finally looking to gain control of the southern region of the country and taking it out of the hands of the Hezbollah militia that has controlled it for the last decade or so, this report from the Associated Press (at ABC News International) is a grim reminder of why this part of the world has seen constant turmoil for so very long. Lebanon herself is so divided between opposing factions that the government is paralysed; standing up to Hezbollah could plunge the nation into another civil war. Since the country had finally been starting to recover from the last civil war, which consumed more than a decade's worth of her blood and treasure, it's easy to understand that no one in Lebanon wants to start that miserable cycle up again. The irony is that this is such a fearsome prospect that the government would rather take a horrible pounding from Israel than face down its own militia, in effect trusting Israel to do less damage than Hezbollah.

Update to the update: Meryl Yourish has a war news roundup with this interesting element (apologies for the colorful, if descriptive, language):

This one’s big: The U.S. will not try to negotiate a cease-fire, according to Condi Rice. Translation: This time, Israel gets to kick the bad guys’ asses. There’s also a note about selling Israel jet fuel in the article, another crucial piece of information. President Bush has obviously instructed his people to block all attempts to stop Israel, as is usually done, before the situation can be fully resolved. Think about how different the world would be if the UN had not stopped Israel on the road to Damascus in 1967.

It's clear Yourish's sympathies are entirely with Israel here. I agree that Israel has every right, in fact obligation, to defend her people. I really hope that Israel hits Hezbollah unmercifully, and the terrorist militia is rendered permanently irrelevant by her actions (as unlikely as that sounds given Hezbollah's Iranian and Syrian backing), but I also hope that those Lebanese who have been opposed to Hezbollah's insanity throughout all this don't pay the highest price for their government's weakness. The more precisely Israel targets Hezbollah, the better.

Miracles Happen

Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh sees pigs flying at the conference of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo. Arab governments are actually criticizing Hezbollah for the attack on Israel from Lebanon and the abduction of Israeli soldiers that has set off the current round of bombings out of Israel.

Update: He also has some advice for Israel concerning Lebanon. Excerpt:

Let us look at what happened so far. Almost all Arab countries are criticizing Hizbollah and blaming it for instigating this crisis. The Lebanese prime minister asked for help in deploying the country's army in the south. He couldn't have uttered these words a few days ago. Things are changing. I believe Israel should halt its operations and allow all parties involved, the Lebanese and the Arab countries, to ponder about what just happened and come up with a way forward.

I tend to agree with him. (I'm not married to my opinions here, but this is how it's striking me after what has transpired to date.) Israel has made a pretty strong point, and (as the original Big Pharaoh link in this post will tell you) thus far even Arab countries are acknowledging Hezbollah's provocation warranted Israel's response. That's flat out miraculous. Keeping some moral high ground here would be in Israel's best interest, especially after the Lebanese Prime Minister's plea. I've read lots of Lebanese and Israeli blogs and news stories today, and by all accounts the Prime Minister's speech was a moving call for peace between Israel and Lebanon, including a call for aid from the international community to help the Lebanese government to gain control over the southern regions of the country--the region controlled by Hezbollah for years as a separate country within a country.

This could be the opportunity for the heretofore weak (albeit new) Lebanese government to assert some authority over its own territory, reclaiming it from being a terrorist stronghold to being a peaceful neighbor to Israel. Israel would be wise to foster this outcome, strengthening the legitimate government of Lebanon by cooperation. The non-Hezbollah Lebanese certainly don't want war with Israel, if bloggers are any indication. I understand Israel's desire to eradicate Hezbollah once and for all, but having taken out Lebanon's bridges and blocked the ports, along with bombing the airport, they've already cut off Hezbollah's escape (and aid from the real string pullers--Iran and Syria.) Taking a break from the bombing campaign to allow the Lebanese government the chance to garner help and establish control would not lose Israel the opportunity to wipe out Hezbollah, but it might gain them an ally in the process. They have already made clear that they expect their captured soldiers (the trigger to this whole explosion) to be returned, and obviously, they can start the bombing again at will. Arab governments are actually seeing their side in this thing; even if they can't actually declare Israel to be in the right, at least they're pointing fingers at Hezbollah for a change. Miracles happen. Israel needs to take note of these miracles, take advantage of them as opportunities, and take the high moral ground, while it's available. Israel and Lebanon could both benefit.

Update II: J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss at TCS Daily have a different take, and some good points. Could international affairs get more complicated?

War, continued...

Michael Totten blogs about Lebanon and Israel.

War

Israel is entering into a new conflict with Hezbollah, trying to recover two Israeli soldiers captured in an attack by the terrorist organization operating out of southern Lebanon. According to CNSNEWS.COM, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that the abduction was an act of war, rather than a terrorist attack. Wednesday, Hezbollah fired "dozens of rockets and mortar shells at Israeli communities along the border", when they captured the two soldiers, and injured 11 others, and Israel then responded with "heavy artillery fire and aerial attacks on at least two bridges to prevent Hizballah from escaping with the soldiers." This is now the second front in a growing conflict:

The attack on northern Israel effectively opened up a two-front war for Israel, which also expanded its two-week old military operation in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday morning. Israel went into Gaza, hoping to force the release of another captured soldier and to stop the continual firing of Kassam rockets into Israel.

Pajamas Media is reporting on the situation and also quoting the story from CNSNEWS, making it clear that Israel means business, warning Lebanese civilians to get out of the way:

"Israeli Air Force combat aircraft drop leaflets on the Lebanese civilian population (a paraphrase): seek cover if you aren’t Hezbollah…stay away from Hezbollah offices and buildings.

The leaflets said the army operations would last as long as necessary to determine the whereabouts of Corporal Gilad Shalit, abducted two weeks ago.

"People who try to disrupt the [Israeli army's] activities, which are meant to ensure the safe return of our soldier, are doing so at their own risk," the leaflet said.

One of the things Hezbollah is demanding in return for the soldiers they are holding hostage is a prisoner exchange. One of the men they want released from Israeli prison is really a monster, as you can tell from this post at Shrink Wrapped. If you want some insight into the psychology of terrorists, this is a really good link to follow. The blogger is a psychoanalyst, and puts to rest the whole "blowing themselves up in desperation" concept that is the popular way to blame victims for the attacks that terrorists perpetrate on them. Read it if you can; it's heartbreaking, but oh so relevant.

Update: The Jerusalem Post says that Hezbollah is trying to transfer the captured soldiers to Iran. That's a rather interesting development, if true. HT: Atlas Shrugs

Update II: Pajamas Media is reporting that eight Israeli soldiers were killed in the Wednesday Hezbollah attack in which the two other soldiers were taken hostage. The report looks at current conditions in Lebanon, including further attacks by both the Israelis and Hezbollah. Lebanon has apparently been cut off from the rest of the world, with both ports and airport shut down. The situation continues to develop. Pajamas Media is a good source of information, and Instapundit has ongoing links to the latest.

Sonic Boom

See Michael Totten's very brief post about Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, and what happened recently with Israel. Make sure you read the update. It's short, but makes a very good point.

A Totten's Eye View Of Israel

Michael Totten's been back from the Middle East for a little while, and is writing about his wanderings. Yesterday's installment began a recap of his trip to Israel. As usual, his discoveries are surprising, and I highly recommend him as a travel guide. Let me add, however, that this is not a "things you've got to see while you're in the country" kind of travel journal. It's more about the tone of the country, and what it's like after years of armed conflict. He's insightful and observant. His site is a must-read from my perspective. If you head over to his site, stick around awhile. He's got fascinating tales of his time in Lebanon, and Northern Iraq, and Turkey. (Someday my husband and I are going to Istanbul, and it's going to be because of Michael Totten.) Enjoy.