MATTHEWGOODONLINE

In July of 2006, I spent many nights up listening to bombs go off. Everyday that passed I would feel more and more helpless and yet my hate for what Israel would only increase. We couldn’t leave our homes, The airport was blocked off, and Hizbullah we thought would be our own way out. Though I never was a Hizbulllah supporter, never agreed with their views, at that time I respected them for standing up to those who were invading.

Today David has become Goliath, Hizbullah no longer points its guns at israel in order to Defend Lebanon, instead they have turned their guns on their own people. And as the days pass the death toll rises, and hate grows. They have taken human life and have taken the right of the other side to even speak, by closing down pro-gov’t Future TV. Freedom is lost.

I came across this video of Noha, a Beirut resident, who is now a prisoner in her own home care of the recent fighting, and invasion of Beirut. Her video moved me cause she reminded me of what I went through during the July 2006 Israel war on Lebanon. Israel 2006 = Hizbullah 2008.

Noha, a Beirut Resident, shares her experience

It started two days ago. Earlier in the week the government announced its decision to replace the Beirut airport security chief Brig Wafiq Shoqeir for alleged ties to Hizbullah, He allegedly allowed Hizbullah to install their own security network with in the airport. The government also announced that it will close down Hizbullah’s telecommunication network. And thus overnight Hizbullah leader Hassan Nassrallah contended that these decisions are declarations of war and thus moved his gurilla army to take over Beirut. And so much like Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon, Hizbullah has launched their own version of that war internally.

Once Hizbullah vowed never to use their arms in internal fighting but much like other promises they made they also failed to keep this one. On Wednesday, May 7, Hizbullah supporters closed off the airport road, leading to the complete shut down of Beirut’s international Airport, a similar move to what Israel did in 2006. What Israel didn’t do however Hizbullah did. Yesterday they moved into Beirut and have officially taken over the capitol. Today they burned down one of Future TV’s building and have forced the pro-government TV station to shutdown.

Friends living in Beirut are living in Terror. Random bullets are flying into residential homes. People are sleeping away from windows. Hizbullah is detaining pro-government supporters. People are scared to speak out, already worried that Hizbullah is monitoring their phone calls. They are turning Lebanon into another totalitarian state. The whole country is completely shut down. This is what Hizbullah Leader Hassan Nassrallah calls a democracy.

I am so disappointed, upset, mad, and completely disgusted with Hizbullah. We are on the brinks of a shia vs sunni civil war. History doth repeat itself.

Andrew Cockburn comments on a new US covert initiative that is truly frightening in its scope…

“Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.”

What is it about people who when angry resort to burning tires? There must be stocks of tires waiting for such occasions in the areas surrounding the airport. Last year on January 23rd the opposition decided to enforce their type of democracy by forcing the country to shut down. They burned tires and blocked roads and eventually lead to the deaths resulting from clashes. Last week in an ingenious effort by the opposition to remember that day they staged another protest, this time the army was ready for them, and no roads were blocked.

But today was unexpected. Protesters in the area of Sheiyah took to the streets to protest the recent power outages, a problem that most of Lebanon suffers from, a problem that I had touched on back in a post I called H2O. I am not sure why the rest of Lebanon isn’t burning tires but the opposition supporters seem to choose tire burning and blocking the airport road as their main mean of protest. Do they even think about the toxins they and their families are inhaling?

A state of lawlessness is the biggest fear that Lebanon faces today. People that are angry and frustrated are taking matters into their own hands. Leaders’ broken promises and the countries failing economy are only making matters worse. And with all the chaos what starts out as a protest ends as a riot, what might start off peaceful ends in death. Today’s death toll so far is 8 with many injured. Political leaders urged their citizens to get off the streets but as the day passed things worsened and tire burning turned into bullets and grenades flying. The airport road was blocked and the army was mobilized in order to end the ensuing chaos. By the end of the day the streets were cleared and tomorrow Lebanon has issued yet another day of mourning.

A day of mourning means a day of school and university closure. Lebanon usually declares days of mourning as a way to prevent further violence. I used to work at a Lebanese university and have seen my fair share of students beating the crap out of anyone who opposed their political views. A day of mourning usually gives them a day to let out steam.

I of course am sitting half across the world in my safe living room, but can’t help and panic over family and loved ones back home. I thought things would get better as days pass but it just seems to get worse. Presidential elections have been postponed over 13 times, in the last two weeks there have been two terrorist related bombings and a riot. People are becoming less tolerant and fear of escalating bursts of violence and terror are almost a certainty.

In a speech yesterday in the UAE, President Bush called Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, to some, that might not sound unseemly, but it shouldn’t be overlooked that Iran is the UAE’s number one trading partner, which Bush completely failed to mention in the speech. Nor did he mention that the UAE is one of the most important conduits for Iranian imports despite US Sanctions, the fact that a significant Iranian ex-pats community that plays a central role in commerce in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, that human rights violations are commonplace in the UAE, or the fact that power is commonly inherited and that democratic development is, at best, a façade.

Instead, he praised the rulers of the UAE for luring foreign investment.

Dancing around such issues is not uncommon. Obviously the remarks regarding Iran were made for the sake of the Iranians and the American public, not necessarily those in attendance, some of whom took offense given their connections with Iran. Bush’s remarks regarding “free and just societies” were also not well received given that those he was addressing have absolutely nothing to gain by the implementation of serious democratic reforms.

With regards to the overtones of Mr. Bush’s speech, it should also not be overlooked that the UAE was one of only three nations to acknowledge the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan when it was in power, the very same group that the United States has accused the Iranians of militarily assisting. Of course, when the Taliban was in power, Tehran did not recognize it as the nation’s official government.

Beyond all of this, and the fact that there is always the issue of arms agreements lurking in the shadows during such visits passed off as joint security initiatives, there are also the contradictions that the United States is currently in negotiations with the Iranians with regards to Iraq, and that while the President is promoting “free and just societies” in the region, the United States is militarily occupying two of them.

Probably the most hypocritical, not to mention historically astonishing, statement made during the speech was…

“For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability. Today, your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Of course, the United States was, and still is, one of the leading nations with regards to supporting autocratic regimes in the region, something that people in the region have certainly not forgotten, even if people on this side of the world have. While the President talks freely of liberty and justice in the Middle East, the United States remains as committed as ever to their relationships with the ruling factions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. It recently penned an agreement promising $20 billion dollars worth of military aid over the next decade that all of them will benefit from, and yet the President, who has full knowledge of that fact still has the audacity to talk about “free and just societies”. Let’s also not overlook the fact that, by entering into such an agreement the United States had to counteract it by offering the Israelis $30 billion dollars in aid over the same period of time.

The goal of the President’s speech was to target the Iranians, and in doing so speak more so to his domestic audience than anyone else. Unlike those in the region in which he gave the address, domestic perceptions regarding the ‘threat’ that Iran posses are primarily formed based on the constant stream of alarming information provided by the administration and others in the government. The same cannot be said for your average person on the street in the UAE.

This leads us to the inevitable question – is Iran truly the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism?

Examining who has been behind most of the international attacks since the mid 1990’s, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Iran has no affiliation with al-Qaeda or groups linked to it. It does not, unlike elements within Saudi Arabia, Libya, the UAE, and Syria, support the efforts of Jihadists in Iraq, it’s primary link being with militant Shi’ite groups, some of which have substantial influence within Iraq’s Interior Ministry itself – which means the armed forces and police. Thus, if anything, it is guilty of supporting factions within Iraq’s most predominant group, the very same group that did not play a significant role in the rise of the Sunni based insurgency, and one that has, since sectarian tensions came to a head, conducted violent campaigns against Sunnis, which constitute the majority of the insurgency and Jihadist groups whose ranks are replete with foreign fighters.

If anything, Iranian interference in Iraq has been solely based on aiding radical aspects of the Shi’ite population who have had links with Tehran since before the US invasion of the country.

Looking abroad, there is no arguing the fact that Iran supports Hezbullah and other such groups. In truth, though still indefensible, their support of such groups has been largely aimed at helping them in their struggles against other regional powers, many of whom are backed by foreign powers, in an attempt to consolidate power and expand their influence, something that, like it or not, the United States helped write the handbook on.

Also rather telling is this passage…

“They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Like the people of Chile stood with the United States against the ‘brutal ambitions’ of Salvador Allende, their fears erased when the CIA helped engineer the coup that put Pinochet in power who then went about ‘disappearing’ tens of thousand of Chileans?

Next to the covert global foreign policy undertakings of the United States, Iran is a snow white virgin by comparison. And don’t think that the United States hasn’t endeavored to sponsor terrorists either. In 2005, Luis Posada was held in Texas on the charge of Illegal Presence. The charges were later dropped. While the US Justice Department requested that the court keep Posada in jail because he was, of his own admission, the mastermind behind numerous terrorist attacks, Posada was neither charged with crimes relating to those admissions, nor was a Venezuelan extradition request approved because the a US Immigration judge ruled that were he to be extradited he would face torture.

In 1976, Luis Posada, a long-time asset of the CIA with links to the Cuban American National Foundation, a CIA shill, masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people. He was also involved in the 1997 bombing of numerous Cuban hotels and nigh clubs. While being found guilty in absentia for numerous terrorist attacks and unrealized plots. Ironically, unlike those being held at Guantanamo, Posada was granted his rights under the Constitution with regards to his seizure and the legal proceedings that followed.

The truth is, the United States has another word for ‘terrorist’ when they are the ones producing them. They tend to call them ‘assets’ or ‘paramilitaries’, many of which were trained at the notorious School Of The Americas [1], whose graduates include Manuel Noriega, Cid Diaz, and others used in violent operations by proxy regimes in Latin America.

So is Iran the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism? Have they perhaps been gifted that title because they are a powerful player in a region in which the United States currently finds itself militarily and politically treading water? Is the President’s rhetoric an attempt to whitewash the recent findings of the recent National Intelligence Estimate? Is Iran a nation stupid enough to engage in a clandestine nuclear weapons program with the whole world watching and then provide a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization? Would they be stupid enough to do it were they not being scrutinized? What are the actual logistics involved in employing a nuclear device capable of causing serious damage? Can such a device be contained within a backpack? And if that is a possibility, and something of that nature did occur, is the Iranian government stupid enough to believe that an immediate retaliation of vastly greater proportions wouldn’t be rained down upon them in the event that it happened? And if they aren’t that stupid, would they seriously consider gifting such a device to a terrorist group? Would members of the Revolutionary Guard do it, knowing full well that by doing it they would be forfeiting their lives and the lives of perhaps millions of others, their families included?

I have written about this in the past, so won’t bother retracing my steps, but consider this. The United States has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Its destructive power is so great that even a portion of it could render this planet completely uninhabitable. They have the ability to launch weapons from domestic and foreign silos, from aircraft, and from naval vessels. In fact, a single Ohio Class nuclear submarine could devastate the Iranian population and launch its compliment from the Gulf providing little to no warning whatsoever. In truth, they could park themselves 20 miles off the Iranian coast and launch submerged and no one would know a thing until it was all over.

This world might be home to moronic fanatics that don’t care about their own lives because of religious zealotry, but they have to get their guns and ammo from somewhere. Those that provide them their wares usually aren’t the sort that are stupid enough to completely overlook what would befall them were they to hand over a nuclear device.

Now, we can claim that by employing preemptive military force we can assure something of that nature won’t occur. Then again, we’re not prepared to deal with Pakistan, which has an arsenal of its own, and whose military establishment has longstanding ties with known militant organizations. Unlike Iran, it’s a nation in chaos, one in which terrorist attacks have been on the rise, and one in which elements of the Taliban, and groups sympathetic to their plight, operate largely unhindered. And while there has been a great deal of talk regarding the uncertainty that the unrest in Pakistan has produced, it is not seen as the sort of threat that Iran is.

Demonizing Iran is, in truth, wholly to the benefit of the United States. It remains the most powerful nation in the region opposed to the US occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. By supplanting a friendly regime in Tehran, the United States would, in essence, created a unified operational area stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. And that reality is something that, in all of this, has remained largely overlooked.

No news is good news. For the last month, I have given up on the politics of Lebanon. Internal bickering has left me sick and nauseated. Presidential elections have been postponed for seven times in order for the two feuding parties to come to a consensus. The opposition seems to find fault in anything put forth by the majority and the majority makes empty threats of not involving the opposition if they don’t participate willingly. This has been going on for months. One day you see Hariri and Berri shaking hands and the next Aoun is out screaming new demands.

Enter Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Sulieman. After disagreeing on 12 different candidates for reasons of being too pro-government or too anti-government, both sides start voicing favourable thoughts on setting General Sulieman as the consensus president. Of course without fail even in agreeing both sides still couldn’t come to agree on the full details. For months the opposition has been letting everyone know that Sulieman might be a good candidate and so once the Pro-government political leaders agree that he might be a good choice, then more demands pour in from the opposition. Mostly from power hungry Aoun who suggested, with the blessings of Hizbullah, that the opposition will only accept Sulieman for a 2 year term instead of the usual 6 year term. Aoun justifies his demand by stating that since Sulieman is a consensus leader then when a new parliament is in power 2 yrs from now then they should have the right to vote for who they choose. Nicely put Mr. Aoun, but how come this current parliament doesn’t have the luxury of democratically electing the president, could it be cause your party and your Hizbullah allies are in the opposition. Is it because you use scare tactics to black mail the majority into meeting your demands? My guess is yeah that might be the case.

And as soon as a ray of hope shines through, even though it hardly can been seen, a bomb blast hits much deeper. Today on his way to work Brigadier General Francois Hajj was assassinated in yet another car bombing. The general was in line to succeed Commander General Sulieman as head of the Lebanese Army. The attack comes as a shock since Hajj is the first figure to be assassinated that does not have any political affiliations. The reason behind his assassination was speculated to be anywhere from an act of revenge for heading the Lebanese army in the fight against Fatah El-Islam militants at Nahr El Bared to a message to Sulieman that no one is safe. Whatever the reason, another man fell today as a result of the continuing political instability of a once flourishing nation. So many have died for this country, how many more will it take?

When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…

“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.

“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.

“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”

“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”

While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.

As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.

In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?

In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.

I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?

If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?

I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?

Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.

The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.

Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.

When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.

No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.

There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.

There he goes flexing his muscles again. I am sick of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nassrallah’s unrelenting threats and hypocrisy. In his latest speech Nasrallah went on to remind the world that he will not allow anyone to disarm Hizbullah. He argued that Hizbullah’s weapons & fighters were prepared “day and night” to defend Lebanon.

“The resistance is ready, day and night, to defend South Lebanon as well as all of Lebanon … to achieve a historic victory that will change the face of the region,” he said.

Well that is interesting… Where were these Hizbullah protectors of Lebanon during the Nahr El Bared Conflict? How come they didn’t use their weapons to protect the innocent from terrorists. I mean if Hizbullah was only protecting Lebanon from Israel then they should say so, and with 13,000 UN peace keepers on the Lebanese/Israeli border I would think that job is pretty much covered.

On the political Scene Nasrallah went on to threaten the majority of electing a president if one is not reached by consensus. Saying that if consensus is not reached, then a simple majority shouldn’t be used to elect the new President and that instead they should hold early parliamentary elections. So here I question Nasrallah, what if the new parliament is similar to the current one (i.e. Hizbullah being in the minority) would he then allow a simple majority vote or is a simple majority vote only acceptable if Hizbullah was part of that majority.

In his speech Nasrallah asked the current president not to allow a simple majority vote “Do not allow the country to fall into the hands of thieves and murderers.” referring to the majority government as thieves and murderers. Here is the part that confused me. The only people that were being assassinated in Lebanon were from the same majority that Nasrallah just called murderers.

Of course Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat lashed back at Nasrallah’s speach saying

“This contradicts the image of thieves and killers who hide themselves under the name of the resistance to turn Lebanon into an arena to serve the thieves and killers of the Syrian regime and their Iranian partners,”

Many others have also criticized this latest speech.

The Lebanese Presidential elections have already been postponed 3 times in order for a consensus to be reached. The latest date is Nov 21st which comes only 3 days prior to President Emile Lahoud’s extended term in office expires. I’ll be waiting, though I doubt consensus will be reached by then and I am afraid Hizbullah will prevent a vote.

Two years ago, Lebanon held its first elections free from Syrian interference. The anti Syrian opposition won, finally turning around a country that has been Syria’s puppet for years. Out of 128 seats in parliament, the Anti Syrian Cedar Revolution Coalition won 70 seats. Since then, 4 of those MPs have been assassinated. MP Gebran Tueini, MP Pierre Gemayel, Mp Walid Eido, and today another name was added to the list - Lebanese Member of Parliament Antoine Ghanem who was killed in a horrific car bomb which also claimed the lives of 7 others and wounded 56.

The assassination comes days before the much controversial Presidential vote in which the March 14th coalition (Pro Government/Anti Syrian coalition) was hoping to oust the current President whose term was unconstitutionally extended by the Syrian regime at the time. Today’s assassination sent a shock throughout the country and the pro government movement whose members are being taken out one by one. Since the last assassination, 1 MP from the anti government movement had won a by-election, thus reducing the number the Majority. After today’s assassination the number is further reduced to 68 pro vs 59 anti.

The speaker of the house, Nabih Berri, who is an alley of Hizbullah and part of the anti government movement, had declared that he will only hold Presidential elections if 2/3 of the House would be present on September 25. However, the opposition has threatened to boycott the vote and deny Parliament its required quorum, thus blocking the process.

And so with the killing of more of the majority’s MPs, the easier it is becomes for Pro Syrian opposition to twist the majority’s arm into agreeing on a Presidential candidate, one that will have Syria’s interest at heart. Mission accomplished, and another sad day for Lebanon.

As some of you are aware, the United States has recently promised some $20 billion dollars in military aid to numerous Middle Eastern countries over the next decade. To counter-balance this, they are also promising the Israelis $30 billion dollars over the same period. According to the BBC, Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, asserted that the deal would ensure Israel’s military advantage over others in the region, the primary concern of the United States being Iran.

That said, of particular interest is a piece entitled In 2006 Lebanon War, Most Crimes Were Israeli by Jonathan Cook. In it, Cook writes…

“The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who has been widely blamed for the army’s failure to subdue Hezbollah, appointed the Winograd Committee to investigate what went wrong. So far Winograd has been long on pointing out the country’s military and political failures and short on explaining how the mistakes were made or who made them. Olmert is still in power, even if hugely unpopular.

In the meantime, there is every indication that Israel is planning another round of fighting against Hezbollah after it has “learned the lessons” from the last war. The new defense minister, Ehud Barak, who was responsible for the 2000 withdrawal, has made it a priority to develop anti-missile systems such as “Iron Dome” to neutralize the rocket threat from Hezbollah, using some of the recently announced $30 billion of American military aid.

It has been left to the Israeli media to begin rewriting the history of last summer. Last weekend, an editorial in the liberal Haaretz newspaper went so far as to admit that this was “a war initiated by Israel against a relatively small guerrilla group.” Israel’s supporters, including high-profile defenders like Alan Dershowitz in the US who claimed that Israel had no choice but to bomb Lebanon, must have been squirming in their seats.

There are several reasons why Haaretz may have reached this new assessment.

Recent reports have revealed that one of the main justifications for Hezbollah’s continuing resistance – that Israel failed to withdraw fully from Lebanese territory in 2000 – is now supported by the UN. Last month its cartographers quietly admitted that Lebanon is right in claiming sovereignty over a small fertile area known as the Shebaa Farms, still occupied by Israel. Israel argues that the territory is Syrian and will be returned in future peace talks with Damascus, even though Syria backs Lebanon’s position. The UN’s admission has been mostly ignored by the international media.

One of Israel’s main claims during the war was that it made every effort to protect Lebanese civilians from its aerial bombardments. The casualty figures suggested otherwise, and increasingly so too does other evidence.

A shocking aspect of the war was Israel’s firing of at least a million cluster bombs, old munitions supplied by the US with a failure rate as high as 50 per cent, in the last days of fighting. The tiny bomblets, effectively small land mines, were left littering south Lebanon after the UN-brokered ceasefire, and are reported so far to have killed 30 civilians and wounded at least another 180. Israeli commanders have admitted firing 1.2 million such bomblets, while the UN puts the figure closer to 3 million.

At the time, it looked suspiciously as if Israel had taken the brief opportunity before the war’s end to make south Lebanon – the heartland of both the country’s Shi’ite population and its militia, Hezbollah – uninhabitable, and to prevent the return of hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites who had fled Israel’s earlier bombing campaigns.

Israel’s use of cluster bombs has been described as a war crime by human rights organizations. According to the rules set by Israel’s then-chief of staff, Dan Halutz, the bombs should have been used only in open and unpopulated areas – although with such a high failure rate, this would have done little to prevent later civilian casualties.

After the war, the army ordered an investigation, mainly to placate Washington, which was concerned at the widely reported fact that it had supplied the munitions. The findings, which should have been published months ago, have yet to be made public.

The delay is not surprising. An initial report by the army, leaked to the Israeli media, discovered that the cluster bombs had been fired into Lebanese population centers in gross violation of international law. The order was apparently given by the head of the Northern Command at the time, Udi Adam. A US State Department investigation reached a similar conclusion.”

In the case of all those being provided military aid by the United States, it should never be overlooked that the use of it is not always as intended or, for that matter, advertised.