Totten Takes The Beirut Tour

Michael Totten's been wandering around Lebanon again, and is his usual articulate and informative self, relating his experiences in a way that puts you right there with him. His latest post is a continuation of his experiences in Beirut, as Hezbollah was still drawing supporters to the city center in an attempt to overturn the duly elected Lebanese government. He talked with locals, and the "Party of God" recruits. Exploring the gathering as an obvious foreigner, he couldn't blend into the crowd. (He looks much more like an Irish Catholic than an Arab Islamist.) He's had run-ins with Hezbollah before, and the testosterone tends to run pretty high when thousands of Arab men gather to overturn a government, so this time he donned a bit of Hezbollah apparel, a scarf, and found that the effect was quite remarkable. The scarf didn't completely overcome the fact he's American, but did garner him a much less hostile reception from the watchdog thuggery that had heretofore followed him with suspicion. Wearing the thing made him uncomfortable, but gave him a slightly different view into the world of Hezbollah.

I find his reports fascinating. One of the things which struck me very forcefully as I was reading this one was what Totten pointed out about the shift in Arab relations throughout the Middle East, as illustrated by regional reactions to the war this past summer between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. He writes of a conversation he and his friend Noah Pollak had with a couple of Hezbollah supporters:

An older fat man in a red shirt interjected himself into our conversation. He had the wide open eyes of an agitated extremist. He got into a mildly heated political argument with Noah, who remained calm and collected throughout. I was having my own conversation with the more civil and interesting young man named Jad. I did catch two telling points from the enraged man in red, however, and they bear repeating.

“Gulf Arabs give bombs to Israel to kill my people!”

This, of course, is nonsense on stilts. Israel does not receive weapons from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other Arab country. Don’t write off what he said as just another Middle Eastern conspiracy theory, though. He is aware that an important geopolitical shift has occurred.

Sunni Arab regimes – most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia – took Israel’s side during the opening of the July War. And every Arab government in the world except for Syria’s supports Lebanon’s government against Hezbollah’s “resistance.”

I remember when this happened; it was like gravity had reversed itself. That any Arab regime would take Israel's side in anything shows that there have been some radical changes in the Arab political landscape. Totten goes on to note that fellow Muslims rank higher on Arab "things to worry about" lists than does the hated nation of Israel:

Six Arab governments – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Tunisia – say they will pursue nuclear weapons programs now because Iran’s atomic bombs need to be countered. None of these Arab countries sought nuclear weapons to offset those acquired by Israel. They fear and loathe the Shia of Lebanon and Iran (and most likely Iraq, as well) more than they worry about the Zionists regardless of what they may say.

This doesn't necessarily bode well for Israel in the short term, however:

The wider Sunni-Shia war in the Middle East, whose epicenter now is in Baghdad, may supplant the Arab-Israeli conflict some time in the future. For now, though, the Arab-Israeli conflict is used by both sides of the inter-Islamic divide to score propaganda points against the other.

Oh great. Just what Israel needs, to be the ball in a game of Arab propaganda polo. Lovely. Most of Totten's post isn't about the Arab/Israeli issue, but this part did really catch my eye. Anyway, if you'd like another look into Lebanon, read the rest of what Totten has to say. It's very interesting.

Checking In

Like most of you, I'm just poking my head back into the www (wonderful worldwide web, or would that be wwww?) after a busy time with family and friends. We have had a lovely holiday spell, which isn't quite over, as Kedley's on vacation this week, and we have filled his free days up appropriately. We still have music to hear, and lights to see, and friends to play with, leading to the last bash of the year, which a friend is graciously hosting, sure to be full of bountiful merry-making, music-making, and (most importantly to my husband) good food. I have a little down time right now, though, so I thought I'd nose around the Net a bit to see what I've been missing.

The thing I've found the most interesting thus far is a look at the Hezbollah "protests" in Lebanon, from a recently returned Michael Totten. He had a Lebanese blogger, Abu Kais, fill in for him at his Middle East Journal, covering the events in Lebanon during his trip (most ably I might add), while he took an "under-the-radar" trip to the Land of Cedars. He's back now, and has a first-hand report, and photos from the first day of the Beirut demonstrations--Hezbollah's latest attempt to topple the Lebanese government. He gives us a good feel for what things are like right now in that shaky democracy, and his obvious love for the country does not impair his ability to give a clear picture of her current conditions. Totten plans to share the rest of his trip with us, and, no doubt, has a great deal to say. This is just the beginning of the story, but should be enough to get you started on the road to understanding the latest machinations in Lebanon, if her fate interests you. If you're like me right now, not fully immersed in the Webberverse, but interested in getting a glimpse of what's going on in the world, have a look.

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.

Everybody Needs A Mentor

We were discussing in the comments of an earlier post the role of technology in the Islamist world. One commenter wrote about terrorists' use of the Internet, how many terrorist websites have sprung up over the last decade or so, and another commented on what a shame it is that regimes such as Iran don't use technology to benefit their citizens, but rather fear its potential to give information to the masses, so they end up arresting bloggers and destroying satellite dishes. It's an odd combination, don't you think? One arm of Islamofascism fears the effects of technology, and the other is anxious to use it for their own twisted purposes. One can only hope that what Jesus said in Matthew 12:25, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand," applies to terrorists, fascist regimes, and the Internet.

Anyway, the comment about mushrooming terrorist websites made me take note of this Weekly Standard article, by Emily Hunt, who writes about the effectiveness of terrorists who forgo the usual camp training and go in for do-it-yourself bomb making and the like. What she has to say is on some levels encouraging. She makes the case that Internet-trained terrorists generally turn out not to be very good at it. Bomb-making is apparently a tricky business, frought with peril:

Even the savviest of terrorists have a low attack success rate, and Murphy's law--that everything that can go wrong, will--applies to terrorists and law enforcement alike. Inexperienced individuals are especially prone to error during the planning stage, and bomb construction remains one of the most daunting obstacles. Minor miscalculations in constructing an explosive device can result in significant setbacks, injury, or even death. Since September 11, hundreds of aspiring terrorists all over the world have been killed by the premature detonation of their own bombs.

Hunt says that it's not just the practicalities of bomb-making and the like that cyber-trained terrorists lack. She explains the benefits of learning from seasoned instructors:

But the psychological benefits of training and mentorship may be as important as the tactical ones. Learning from an expert can provide a novice with the necessary confidence to keep his cool and evade law enforcement. Time at a training camp also creates an opportunity for ideological indoctrination and interaction with a community of dedicated militants, which can galvanize the will of a young operative.

Okay, so the ones who go it on their own are going to be more likely to crack under scrutiny, and bail on the whole "martyrdom" thing when the chips are down. Good. That's what I like to hear. I vote for the do-it-yourself movement. Maybe more of these poor deluded souls will lose their nerve before they reach the actual exploding stage of their self-imposed missions, or at least be dumb enough about it that they get caught before the big bang.

If only that were the end of it. While Hunt's assertion that isolated individuals picking up the terrorist trade from online instructions lack the skills and will required to make their plotting truly effective is something of a comfort, her article doesn't stop with a big sigh of relief. On the contrary, she looks at where the proper training is to be had. It turns out, many terrorist roads lead to Pakistan. The recent arrests of the would-be plane bombers have led straight to Pakistan, and highlighted Pakistan's, and President Pervez Musharraf's, bi-polar approach to terrorism:

Pakistan has a history of supporting militant groups in the region that long pre-dates Musharraf--a policy originally conceived to help counter-balance India's regional power. However, in the post-September 11 environment, Pakistan now has an interest in reining in those same militants, both to avoid provoking the United States and to assure the stability of Musharraf's regime. Simultaneously, the Pakistanis wish to maintain the militants as leverage against neighboring countries.

Hunt points out that the U.S. is generally pleased with the Pakistani government's cooperation on terrorism. The latest airplane plot was foiled with their assistance. However, and here's where it gets weird, the Pakistani government fears the terrorist element because of that cooperation, and yet wants on some level to keep them around as a way to keep India in check. Once again we are faced with a house divided. Pakistan is going to have to make up its mind on this one, hopefully coming down on the side of denying the terrorists a place to lay their heads. Hunt suggests that the recent arrests in London, which, as I said, lead back to Pakistan, should urge the U.S. to apply pressure in that direction:

This thwarted attack suggests that the United States must exert more pressure on reluctant states to crack down on terrorist sanctuaries and sympathizers. At the same time, the Bush administration must do more to assist those states that have the will but not the capability to fight terrorism. From Pakistan to Lebanon to the Sahara desert, this week's close call demonstrates that denying terrorist's sanctuary has never been more important.

Clearly, Hunt is right. If terrorists truly are less capable of carrying out their wretched plans without the benefit of mentoring, and the camps which provide the environment for that mentoring, then President Bush's original premise that we must confront any nation that gives them haven is even more crucial. I also think she is right in calling for the administration to assist those nations that have the will but not the capability to fight terrorism. What's been happening in Lebanon springs quickly to mind. Not every nation that has terrorists wreaking havoc in their land are inherently agreeable to the situation, and we don't need to threaten to bomb them to kingdom come to elicit their cooperation. As we've already determined, learning, oddly enough, from the example of terrorists, everybody needs a mentor. Some of these countries we really just need to stand firmly beside, without wavering, and assure them of our determination to assist them in their struggle--and then back it up with the actual "standing beside them" part. (Much like the U.N. is not doing in Lebanon.) Herein, of course, lies the rub. Determination and not wavering in our aid of them, as we take our mutual stand, can only happen if we ourselves are not a house divided. Judging from U.S. politics of late, that's a pipe dream. We're not only a house divided; the parts of the house are on floating islands growing farther apart by the minute. What I'm hoping is that there are enough of us on the "determined" island to make us able to stand, that our combined wills can bring us to anchor, and that the place we come to anchor is the right one.

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.

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.

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.

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.