U.S. report: Hezbollah fought Israel better than any Arab army

"The authors give a high grade to Hezbollah's performance in the 2006 war, describing it as more effective than that of any Arab army that confronted Israel in the Jewish state's history, and that Hezbollah militants wounded more Israelis per fighter than any previous Arab effort."

Or, in other words, Israel got her as* kicked...

'Israeli threats don't scare Hizbullah'

Katyushas prepared for launching by Hizbullah. Photo: AP [file]

The war of words between Israel and Hizbullah continued on Sunday, with a top official in the guerrilla group brushing off "threats" made by IDF Maj.-Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, in which the latter said that the next war would have serious consequences for the villages which support Hizbullah.... "The resistance is completely ready and Israel's threats do not scare [us]," Sheikh Nabil Kaouk said during a rally in southern Lebanon. His comments were published by United Arab Emirates newspaper Al-Hilaj on Sunday.

Israel threatens Lebanon with destruction

Major General Gadi Eisenkot

"We will use disproportionate force against these villages (in southern Lebanon) and cause enormous destruction because from our point of view these are not villages but military bases," Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the top commander in northern Israel was quoted by Yediot Aharonot on Friday.

At some point, you just gotta ask yourself - who are these people???

Hizbullah chief warns Israel against Gaza strike

Hizbullah Chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah warned Monday that if Israel "launches a war against Lebanon, Syria, Iran or Gaza, it will have thousands of scores to settle", adding that such a conflict would have "unclear implications for the Zionists."

Yea, I can see that...

Ban to press Israel for $1bn damages for Lebanon

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, plans to ask the Israeli government to compensate Lebanon, neighbouring countries and the UN with as much as US$1 billion (Dh3.67bn) to assist with cleaning up damage to the eastern Mediterranean coastline from about 15,000 metric tonnes of fuel oil spilled into the sea when Israeli jets bombed a major electricity plant in Jiyeh, Lebanon.

Translation - Ban will ask American tax-payers to settle another Israeli debt...

UN to demand Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in reparations

"The United Nations will require Israel to pay Lebanon nearly $1 billion for environmental damages caused during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported on Saturday."

Israel attempting scuttle $400 million U.S.-Lebanon arms deal

"Israeli authorities have stated that recent events in Lebanon, including Hezbollah's resurgence in the south, have led them to believe that the arms transfer could pose a security threat, namely if future clashes cause government forces to splinter, possibly causing the arms to fall into the hands of the Lebanese Shi'ite militia Hezbollah."

Judging from the 2006 As* whipping Israel took, I can't say I blame them. But, I seriously doubt Hezbollah need US made weapons - they seem to be doing just fine the way things are...

Attack on US vehicle in Beirut kills 4

"An explosion targeted a U.S. Embassy vehicle Tuesday in northern Beirut, killing four Lebanese and injuring a local embassy employee, an American official said."

Israel Rejected Political Settlement in Favor of War to Change Political Landscape

Area map showing Lebanon and surrounding countries and indicating the area of Shebaa Farms.

"During the first week of Israel's Second War on Lebanon Israeli officials refused an offer to transfer captured soldiers used as a pretext for the war to Lebanese president Siniora, with Tzipi Livni nearly "jumping out of her seat." In a new book, "Spider Webs - The Story of the Second Lebanon War" reviewed by Haaretz and published by Yedioth Ahronoth, the story is told how a diplomatic solution to ending the crisis and getting back the captured soldiers was completely refused in favor of continuing the war, UN officials report that the attitude from Israel was "Forget it, we're going to win.""

Nasrallah: We're ready for any of Israel's crazy adventures

Nasrallah speaks on Al Manar Television network.

"Israel will suffer an even greater defeat than that which was suffered during that July, because Hizbullah today has become stronger, braver, and more experienced," Nasrallah said during a meeting with senior Lebanese religious leaders.

What, me worry that Bush is coming?

"Recent experience suggests that we should be very worried that President George W. Bush is coming to the Middle East next week to promote peace. The last time he made such a journey, in June 2003, what ensued was an accelerated cycle of violence and ideological conflict that sees most of the Middle East today wracked by warfare, routine terrorism, and intense political confrontation, threats, and stress."

Lebanon trying to remain free of Israeli bird flu

"After bird flu cases were detected... in the region of Haifa... the ministry of agriculture calls on farmers and hunters... particularly in the southern area close to the border with occupied Palestine, to remain vigilant to birds passing over their regions, and to keep their own birds locked up to prevent them from mixing with them," the statement said.

Israeli Military Clears Itself of Cluster Bomb Misuse in Lebanon

The Mines Advisory Group detonates 47 cluster bombs in Al-Malkiyye, south Lebanon. [Date picture taken: 09/01/2006]

"Israel's military advocate-general, Brig-Gen Avihai Mendelblit, has said the military's use of cluster munitions during the conflict in Lebanon in 2006 was in accordance with international humanitarian law. Human rights groups and the UN had previously condemned the use of the bombs."

Israel :: Humanitarian Law ~ that's an oxymoron.

Hezbollah mystique undiminished

In 2006, Israel bombed Lebanese cities for 34 daysin an attempt to destroy Hezbollah [GALLO/GETTY]

"As political turmoil continues in Lebanon, observers say Hezbollah, the Shia movement, is re-arming and pursuing fresh recruits for its armed wing."

Robert Fisk: Darkness falls on the Middle East

"In Beirut, people are moving out of their homes, just as they have in Baghdad."

Lest We Forget: Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines

"It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel. General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in “life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country.”"

And, I bet you thought it was all about Hezbollah - didn't you?

US 'to build military base in Lebanon'

Press TV News - Oct 17, 2007

The US plans to build an air base in northern Lebanon, in an area which borders Syria and is hardly 140 km from Damascus, sources say.

The American air base will also be located 22 air miles (40 km) from Tartous, Syria's main naval base and the Russian Mediterranean fleet's command center.

“According to US plan six military bases will be set up, three in Iraq, one in Jordan, one in Saudi Arabia and one in Lebanon. It is believed that the Lebanese government is approving the establishment of the base and the name of the base will be the US-Lebanese Center for Rehabilitation of the Army in order to cover the real activity of the base,” Amin Hotait, a retired army colonel told Press TV.

According to reports the Bush Administration gave the go-ahead for the plan following the talks with Chief of the US Central Command Admiral William Fallon and Lebanese officials on July 29.
The air base will bring the American military back to Lebanon after a 25-year absence. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan pulled US troops out of the country.

The US Air Force engineers and technicians have begun work on the new air base.

New report documents past quarter century of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians

"The Price We Pay" seeks to counterbalance influence of Jewish lobbies on US policy in Middle East, questions morality of American aid to Jewish state

by Yasmine Ryan - August 3, 2007

BEIRUT: Israel was once reprimanded by the United States for its use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. In 1984, The New York Times credited Franklin P. Lamb's first book with gathering the evidence that spurred former President Ronald Reagan's administration into cutting off Israel's supplies of US cluster bombs. A quarter-century on, Lamb returned to update "Israel's War in Lebanon" (South End Press, 1984) in the wake of last summer's war. The result is the substantial report "The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel's Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon (1978-2006)."

Extensive documentation from a wide range of sources has been compiled, alongside photographic evidence and personal testimonies. "The Price We Pay" is a well-researched and comprehensive historical record of the damage inflicted on Lebanon by its southern neighbor in the summer of 2006.

The report is written with a clear objective in its sights and makes no bones about it. Lamb is director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace (ACMEP), an organization based in Washington which aims to counterbalance the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on US policy in the Middle East. It is particularly concerned with the provision and subsequent use of American weapons by Israel. Last Friday, Israel officially banned "The Price We Pay."

Above all, "The Price We Pay" questions the morality and legality of the $15.1 million per day in US aid that Israel receives, more than half of which Israel spends on arms and munitions. Beyond this, Israel receives military technology and training and additional grants and special considerations.

For Lamb and ACMEP, the monetary aid would be better spent domestically, and they seek to demonstrate in their report where that cash is going. They condemn the US government's "foreknowledge, acquiescence and complicity in Israel's pre-planned invasion." The war began last July 12 when Hizbullah launched a cross-border raid in which eight Israeli soldiers died and two were captured by Hizbullah, after which Israel responded with air strikes.

One of the most significant points made in the report is the impunity with which Israel has historically deployed US weapons in stark breach of US laws and bilateral agreements between the two allies.

Lamb proposes that aid sanctions be imposed upon Israel for its improper use of American weapons, in accordance with the 1976 US Arms Export Act, the Foreign Assistance Act and the 1996 Interference with Humanitarian Relief Act.

Historical precedence, from the administration of former President Gerald Ford onward, makes this an unlikely possibility, Reagan's ban on cluster bombs excepted. Lamb told The Daily Star that he hoped to complement the increasing momentum of the international campaign to ban cluster bombs. The tome will also be made accessible to members of the US Congress, as was its predecessor.

Given its strong political bias, the work's tone of moral outrage - and at times bitter sarcasm - is not too surprising. For instance, playing ironically upon a headline used by an Israeli tabloid (on American policy during the summer war), the author writes "Take your time, a majority of our Congress repeated as they stumbled over each other jockeying for a good position in line for Israel-lobby cash to fund their next elections."

Potent information is underlined with powerful colors and photographs. A man in Qana appears in a photograph with pictures of his children, who were killed by an Israeli Army attack. "1,250 CIVILIANS KILLED, 416 ARE CHILDREN" reads the capitalized text on the opposite page. A pie chart underlines the assertion that 83 percent of Israel's weapons come from America.

The report also disputes claims that the destruction was simply inevitable collateral damage. Rather than a military strategy which targeted the Hizbullah-led Lebanese resistance, Lamb asserts that "the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy."

The appendix includes a list of attacks on Lebanese civilians, a list of some of the unexploded American weapons in civilian areas of South Lebanon and a list of Lebanese factories damaged by US weapons. There is also a list of US companies which contribute significantly to Israel's arsenal - often courtesy of the American taxpayer.

One chapter focuses on the psychological-operations campaign against the Hizbullah-led resistance, conducted last year by the Israeli Army with US aircraft, propaganda and artillery shells. Lamb suggests that the primary psychological target was the Israeli population rather than the Lebanese, because the leaflets were presented widely on Israeli television and some of those dropped on Lebanese soil were in Hebrew.

Lamb is no newcomer to Lebanon. He first came here in 1982 as a member of a US Congress fact-finding mission and has returned many times since. It was on this initial visit that he and another US citizen, Janet Stevens, founded ACMEP at the American University of Beirut on August 12, 1982.

This date has been labeled by some as Black Thursday because of Israel's 11-hour bombardment of Beirut that left more than 500 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians dead. Outraged by what they were witnessing, ACMEP's founders began a campaign to end their country's role in such attacks. They sought to halt the sale of American weapons and military aid to Israel.

Stevens, a fixer for The Washington Post at the time, was killed in the US Embassy bombing on April 18, 1983.

Twenty-five years later, Lamb has returned to Lebanon to author another installment in their campaign. "The Price We Pay" is available in Lebanese bookstores, and an Arabic version is due out soon, as is the second English edition in the US.

Not all Americans, then, are content to continue the alliance with Israel or to accept justifications like the one made by Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon last July 27 that "all those now in South Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbullah." Whether this is enough to put an end to America's frequently loading Israel's gun is another matter.

Source: The Daily Star

The Hariri Special Court vs the Imminent U.S. Attack on Iran

by Prof. Edward S. Herman - July 22, 2007

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, responding to the UN Security Council vote to set up a special court to prosecute the killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri two years ago, stated before the Council that, “By adopting this resolution, the council has demonstrated its commitment to the principle that there shall be no impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon or elsewhere” (see “UN to prosecute killing of former Lebanese leader,” Globe and Mail, May 31, 2007). This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense, as one of the most obvious facts of contemporary politics and (in)justice is that impunity is a function of power and that there is a very close correlation between the loss of impunity and hostility and targeting by the United States. Syria, a U.S. target, is not a potent force in international affairs, hence it can be subject to a special court. The United States is the hegemon, hence it decides on special courts and is free of any threat that one might be applied to it.

As regards assassinations, while pushing for the Hariri “special court,” the United States openly pays large sums for hired assassinations of its targets, which, as the United States is doing this, are “Rewards for Justice”—language actually printed on the briefcases in which the assassins are paid off (“U.S. hands a $10 million bounty in briefcase for the killing of Muslim leaders,” Daily Mail, June 7, 2007). It bombed Milosevic’s home in Belgrade in an attempt to assassinate him on April 22, 1999. It admittedly tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in its initial “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq and U.S. assassinations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been numerous. (Recall the case in Afghanistan, where a tall man with a beard hunting for scrap metal with two other farmers was gunned down on February 4, 2002, because he looked somewhat like Osama bin Laden, a tiny microcosm of the freedom to assassinate by U.S. armed forces, now used globally (see Michael Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder). But there is no call by the “international community” to bring these assassins and their bosses to book with a special court or otherwise.

Of course, along with the right to assassinate is impunity for gigantic crimes like aggression—and here also the United States is able to engage in major violations of the UN Charter, as in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not only without the slightest threat of any “special court,” but with the eventual kindly cooperation by the UN in consolidating the conquest (see UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, which gives the aggressor in Iraq occupation rights and a UN Security Council blessing).

The U.S. right to assassinate and commit aggression goes back a long way. A 1975 U.S. congressional report on “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders” disclosed a string of U.S. assassination attempts against Fidel Castro (among others) and a former head of the Cuban secret services has calculated that “there may have been a total of 638 attempts on Castro’s life” (Duncan Campbell, “638 ways to kill Castro,” Guardian, August 3, 2006). It was an open secret that the Reagan-era bombing attack on Tripoli on April 14, 1986 was designed to assassinate Kadaffi. It failed in this, but succeeded in killing his daughter, along with over 40 other civilians. This assassination attempt was actually in violation of U.S., as well as international, law—but the higher law of impunity was in force.

Impunity is also a gift of U.S. client state status and, importantly, Israel is free to assassinate, commit aggression, and violate international law across the board with complete impunity. Along with the United States, Israel has the world’s finest remote-control assassination technology ever devised (which some have found of possible relevance to the sophisticated Hariri murder). Like the United States, Israel can even maintain an open policy of assassination—“targeted killings”—as a complement to its steady and ruthless process of ethnic cleansing. No penalties occur and the “civilized” world in Europe and North America continues to enlarge its economic ties with Israel, even as the latter continues to build its apartheid wall in the face of an adverse International Court ruling, assassinates Palestinians on a daily basis, and displays increasing signs of moving toward more openly genocidal violence (see Matthew Wagner, “Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing of Gaza,” Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2007; Ali Abunimah, “Top Israeli rabbis advocate genocide,” Electronic Intifada, May 31, 2007). But no “special court” for Israel, no enforceable action by the UN or governments anywhere.

The contrast with U.S. targets is dramatic. The new Hariri “special court” is designed to focus attention on Syria’s misbehavior in Lebanon and help justify ongoing U.S.-Israeli destabilization efforts and a possible U.S. attack on Syria. Of course, there was no proposal for a “special court” to try the leaders responsible for Israel’s open aggression against Lebanon in 2006, which killed 1,000 civilians, put to flight a million people, and left behind a wrecked and cluster bomb-littered landscape. This was a U.S.-UK supported aggression by a U.S. client, hence subject to the impunity rule.

The Hariri special court is a throwback to the Yugoslav Tribunal, established in 1993, quite clearly to complement U.S.-NATO policy with a faux-judicial and public relations arm that would assist its founders/principals in going after the Serb target. The Rwanda Tribunal, modeled after the Yugoslav Tribunal, has been an equally corrupt political instrument of the U.S. and its allies, protecting Rwanda dictator Paul Kagame, the initiator of the Rwanda killings, whose mass murders in Rwanda and the Congo will match any on the globe in recent decades, but who was trained in the United States and is in service to the Western powers even as he steals and kills in his own and local allies’ interests.

When the Yugoslav Tribunal was formed in 1993, one noteworthy feature was its failure to list as a relevant crime what the Nuremberg Tribunal had declared the “supreme international crime,” namely aggression. This was in accord with U.S. interests and flowed from U.S. power, as the United States wanted no encumbrance to its regular and increasing engagement in the supreme crime. Thus, when it did so in attacking Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999, it had prepared the ground with this exemption built-in to the Tribunal Statute.

Interestingly, in the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which came into existence in July 2002, here too the “supreme international crime” was left out of the ICC’s orbit of jurisdiction. This was done almost surely under U.S pressure and under the impetus of the organizers’ eagerness to induce the United States to join the organization. But in spite of this and other concessions to this country, including the right to enter into bilateral agreements with countries willing to exempt U.S. citizens from the application of ICC claims—Article 98 agreements, also called by critics U.S. Impunity Agreements—the United States has not only refused to join, it even passed an act that threatens to use force against any country that takes a U.S. serviceperson into custody for criminal actions (American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, also known in some circles as the Hague Invasion Act). The problem with the ICC is that it left open the small possibility “that the court free of the discipline of the Security Council (with an American veto), might actually prosecute Americans” (Mandel). Obviously, this would never do. What is equally interesting is how the mainstream media do not discuss and implicitly normalize this consistent refusal of U.S. officials to allow this country to be treated as others, as if it is above the battle and the ruler of the world.

In theory, the Yugoslav Tribunal could have indicted U.S. officials, as its founding Statute made any war crimes in the Yugoslav struggles subject to its jurisdiction. Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth pointed to this, plus the fact that no actions had actually been brought against the United States, to show that the ICC would not be a threat. But Roth misses the point: the Yugoslav Tribunal was organized by and under the control of the Security Council where the U.S. had a veto and its political leverage was great, where all prosecutors and most other high officers were vetted by U.S. officials, and where the U.S. and its allies wielded other forms of control (financial, informational), which made the Tribunal a U.S./NATO-controlled instrument. The ICC would have been less perfectly controlled, and that imper- fection was enough to keep the United States out.

Despite the limits of the ICC’s reach, Kofi Annan still found that with the ICC, “We shall have a permanent court to judge the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,” and that it holds forth the prospect of “universal justice” and ensuring that “no ruler, no state, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity.” This is complete nonsense, as the “supreme international crime” and the supreme international criminal have been and remain beyond the reach of ICC justice. Kofi Annan adapted well to the demands of the supreme criminal— which explains his long tenure as secretary-general of the UN—and he seems to have internalized his master’s view of reality and the master’s rights, which include impunity. But for most of the world, the supreme crimes carried out in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq are “serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole” carried out by rulers and states clearly abusing human rights with impunity.

It is also dramatically evident that in general impunity is a function of power and relationship with the supreme criminal. The perpetrators of the million deaths from the “sanction of mass destruction” in Iraq (Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke) and those with primary responsibility for the half a million or more deaths in Iraq since March 24, 2003 (Bush, Cheney, Blair, et al.), have complete impunity. So do all the mass death-dealing clients of the supreme criminal, who are either free or who have died at home, none subjected to a special court: Sharon, Pinochet, Suharto, Kagame, Rio Montt, among others. In the case of Yugoslavia, Milosevic had his special court, but not Tud- jman, Izetbegovic, let alone Clinton or Blair.

So the special court to deal with the Hariri murder follows a familiar pattern. While the Hariri special court is being organized, at the same time the United States has mobilized a huge fleet of warships in the Mediterranean and off the coast of Iran, it is reportedly engaging in a range of minor actions including direct military incursions and sponsoring terrorist operations within Iran and across Iran’s borders. It has issued a string of charges about Iranian intervention in Iraq and aid to Hezbollah, and is clearly threatening aggression in what Alain Gresh calls “Countdown to War on Iran,” (Le Monde Diploma- tique, June 2007).

In the face of this acute threat by a country that hasn’t digested its last round of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, has the international community erected any barriers against this imminent attack? Has it done anything to reduce the impunity of the supreme criminal that might cause the criminal to hesitate before embarking on another round of aggression? The answer is a resounding no. It not only fails to issue a peep of protest or threat, it continues to help the criminal clear the ground for his next attack by featuring the prospective victim’s foot-dragging in terminating nuclear activities to which it is entitled under the Non Proliferation Treaty, but demanded by the UN Security Council under pressure from the supreme criminal. This is impunity-plus.

AIPAC vs ALIES

By Ben Heine, NWC NEWS - July 21, 2007

US Representatives, Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), and Republicans Mike Pence, Darrell Issa and Charles Boustany met in a secret session last night upon receiving word that ALIES (American-Lebanon Institute for Enlightened Studies) had appended an amendment to their resolution affirming the continued US readiness to provide material and economic assistance to help protect Lebanese sovereignty and independence. The counter-resolution, provided by the registered foreign lobby of the Lebanese government, attacks the AIPAC (American-Israel Paranoia Association of Con-artists) drafted resolution introduced by Ackerman and co-"authored" by Lantos, the principal voice of AIPAC in the House, as one more example of AIPAC control of the US Congress which successfully writes on average of 100 resolutions and pieces of legislation per year for our illiterate representatives to sign, all favorably disposed to Israel. The caustic language of the resolution slams the hypocrisy of the Ackerman and Lantos resolution that indicts Syria and Hezbollah as enemies of Lebanon and not the state of Israel that, only one year ago, razed Lebanon to the ground in its most recent effort to demonstrate its friendship with the Lebanese people.

While it’s not possible in this brief report to cover all the language of the AIPAC resolution and the curt alternative offered by ALIES, I’ll attempt to parallel the most egregious "whereasses" and the corresponding "therefores." It’s imperative that this be done since the sponsors hope for a quick vote before the August recess. No doubt the assistance they seek from the US might be more swiftly deployed to make harmless the thousands of cluster bombs left by Israel in southern Lebanon after their retreat last year. Hundreds of lives could be saved with swift action.

The opening paragraph of the Ackerman/Lantos/AIPAC drafted resolution is worded thus:

"Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon. (Incomplete sentence).

1/Whereas on February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, along with 22 other people, was assassinated by a massive bomb;

2/Whereas Lebanon's Cedar Revolution led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops in April 2005, following 30 years of Syrian military occupation;"

(followed by another 14 "whereasses," most redundant and equally illiterate).

By contrast, the ALIES resolution presents the case explicitly:

"The US House of Representatives expresses its sincere concern for the Lebanese people as they attempt to reconstruct their lives after the harrowing destruction of their people, including the sick and infirm, the old, women and children, their cities, farms, ports, villages, and water, roadway and electrical infrastructures caused by Israel as it attempted to destroy its nemesis, Hezbollah, that operates in Lebanon as an accepted political and humanitarian entity regardless of the US State Department’s categorization of it as a terrorist organization. Therefore, in keeping with this sentiment we propose the following: …"

There are no "whereasses" in the ALIES resolution. Presented here are a few of the contrasting concerns expressed in the respective documents. Let’s begin with:

"Whereass" 4."Whereas Lebanese independence and sovereignty are still threatened by an ongoing campaign of assassinations and attempted assassinations of Lebanese political and public figures opposed to Syrian interference in Lebanon's internal affairs, and terrorist bombings intended to incite ethnic and religious hatred, the continuing presence of state-sponsored militias and foreign terrorist groups, and the ongoing and illegal trans-shipment of weapons and munitions from Iran and Syria into Lebanon;"

That mouthful contrasts with this statement by the writers of ALIES. Note that the following proposal does not omit the illegal interference in Lebanese affairs by the state of Israel.

"Therefore, we propose that the Lebanese people and their democratically elected representatives determine their own course without the interference of self-appointed "deciders" created by AIPAC so that neither Syria or Israel or the US House of Representatives attempt to determine for them their future. This proposal anticipates that Lebanon will seek the removal of all non-Lebanese from internal interference in state affairs including the illegal transshipment of weapons and munitions from Iran, Syria and Israel a state that continues to defy the UN and International law by unilateral invasion of Lebanese air space."

But there’s more. Consider these "Whereasses."

"8/Whereas the Speaker of the Lebanese parliament subverted the clear will of the Lebanese people, and a majority of Lebanese parliamentarians, by refusing to convene the parliament since November 2006 in order to prevent ratification of the statute approved by the Council of Ministers to create a Special Tribunal to bring to justice all those responsible for the terrorist bombing of February 14, 2005;"

"9/Whereas Hizbullah, a United States Department of State designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, and their pro-Syrian allies have declared the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Lebanon 'unconstitutional', and are seeking to topple the government through extra-legal means, including, rioting, continuous street demonstrations outside of the Council of Ministers, and obstructing traffic in Beirut;"

Both of these "whereasses" address parliamentary procedures and policies. What’s of interest is the complete obfuscation of how the Republican Congress for six years used exactly these ruses to prevent open discussion with all the people’s representatives. It’s still happening, as we witness the futile efforts of the Democrats to carry out the will of the people regarding removing our troops from Iraq. Parliamentary manipulation used to stifle debate and action. Here is the response by ALIES.

"Therefore we propose that the Lebanese democratically elected parliament determine its own policies and procedures to carry out the will of the Lebanese people. As in any democracy, if one party obstructs that will, the people can vote them out. They express that will when necessary by taking to the streets with demonstrations outside federal buildings, outside the homes of elected officials and by obstructing traffic. It’s the democratic way."

Let’s consider just two more of the battling resolutions. The first, resolution 10 by the AIPAC designed draft, states the following:

"10. Whereas the transfer of weapons, ammunition, and fighters into Lebanon in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), has twice prompted the Security Council to issue statements, on April 17, 2007, (S/PRST/2007/12) and on June 11, 2007, (S/PRST/2007/17) wherein it expressed deep and serious concern at mounting information by Israel and other states of illegal movements of arms into Lebanon, and in particular across the Lebanese-Syrian border in violation of Security Council Resolution 1701;"

ALIES notes in its draft of their resolution responding to this "whereass," that it’s Israel that has determined for Lebanon that illegal arms have been brought into their country and that Israel cites UN resolutions, 1701 in this instance and multiple others in resolutions 11 and 12, condemning Lebanon for not responding to the UN resolutions. No where does Israel state that it has defied the UNGA 160 times and the UNSC 40. Without the US veto, the number of resolutions defied by Israel would be even higher. Indeed, the US alone vetoed the resolution condemning Israel for invading Lebanon a year ago. The ALIES resolution is quite curt in response to number 10.

"Therefore, we propose that Israel stay out of Lebanon’s internal affairs and if the UN should at some time determine that it wants to bring all nations that defy its resolutions to task, it should begin with Israel."

Finally, ALIES takes "whereas" 13 to task.

"13. Whereas the United Nations Security Council, with the full support of the United States, has sought to assist the Government of Lebanon in extending its authority over all Lebanese territory, including its sea, land, and air borders, through the presence of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon and through technical and personnel assistance;"

Unexpectedly, ALIES agrees with this resolution but words it differently lest any omission in the original be overlooked.

"Therefore, we propose that the United Nations Security Council seek to assist the government of Lebanon in extending its authority over all Lebanese territory including its sea, land, and air borders through the presence of the United Nations Interim Force, but not solely in southern Lebanon, but throughout the country, so that invaders of Lebanon that destroy its airfields, ports, and internal infrastructure, as Israel did one year ago, would be stopped and prosecuted to the full extent of international law."

Needless to say, ALIES does not attach the series of condemnations to its proposals, as crafted by AIPAC, since they are self contained in their set of concerns. They do note that AIPAC cites only Syria and Hizbullah (sic) as the perpetrators of evil against Lebanon. No mention of Israel’s devastation of that state or its people just a year ago. No contrition expressed by Israel for its unilateral and preemptive invasion of a sovereign state or expression by our Congress for supporting that invasion, no request of Lebanon that it forgive those grievous acts, no offer of restitution for the billions of dollars of damage inflicted, only a demand that others take the blame for the chaotic state of affairs now present in Lebanon.

It would appear that Ackerman and Lantos have a significant parliamentary problem on their hands. No doubt they will resort to burying the ALIES resolution lest it be brought before the peoples’ representatives for consideration and not forced on the representatives by AIPAC without deliberation and vote. Perhaps Lebanon’s Parliament will draft a resolution offering advice and aid to the US Congress so that it can avoid blame for introducing nonsense into the democratic discourse.