Yes, indeed it is sad, but not just for Lebanon, and not just because of the response of Israel. It is sad for all of us when deep-seated problems fester and explode, when grown men and women can only kill each other to try to resolve grievances.

But are these grievances the type which one would expect to arise over sharing land and resources for mutual prosperity ? There seems to be a slightly different edge to this political cum military confrontation than just worrying about whether there will be enough water to irrigate the southwest 40.

After all, it has gotten ugly. One party wants the other party anihilated, wiped off the face of the earth. That does not sound like fertile ground for reconciliation or mutual co-existence.

And it is a bit distressing to still hear from otherwise apparently intelligent people how we simply need to be more understanding of why the party of the first part wants to wipe the party of the second part off the face of the planet, and figure out what we need to do to apologize, win either their heart or their mind, calm them down, offer them 15,000 bonus miles towards a college tuition, and get back to our cappuccinos.

Beverly Gray quotes (at length) a chap named Colin Chapman, who sounds at first like he might have a good perspective, on the 50-yard line and all that.

However, when Chapman says things like:

"If the West had responded to 9/11 first of all by trying to understand the anger of Muslims and asking whether there might be good reasons for their anger ..."

and

"And the West has allowed the conflict to drag on year after year without resolution"

he has exposed multiple achilles heel in his 'logic' because of the assumptions which he chooses to accept as undeniable truths. The first quote above is at the heart of the "it's our fault" guilt trip. [Refer once again to the stated objectives and actions in support of those objectives by the party of the first party referenced above. Answers at end of chapter ] Exercise for the reader to show why that approach to the problem does not cut it.

The second quote completely shows in an explosion of false causality the underbelly of the false illusion of reasonableness that Mr. Chapman strives to attain. How in [pick your] God's name are these events and these political forces merely actors on a stage which the West is somehow controlling, and can start and stop at will, or change the set or show times ?

The problem with trying to make reasonable work out of unreasonable situations is that, in order to continue to be able to convince one's self that one's approach or attitude or belief or theory or emotion is TRUE, and therefore defensible, one must sometimes gloss over glaring logical flaws and somehow paper them over with backwards inferences that would, when played forward, conclusively result in whatever situation is being lamented. Reasoning backwards occurs when reasoning forwards fails, and yet we cannot somehow give up the notion that we are trying to defend or prove.

Obviously, the creation of Israel by carving it out of Palestine has proven to be an issue that will not go away, and the conflict, which has been with us since the inception, is clearly a political struggle.

And now it has become entangled in another phenomenon of an entirely different kind, one where the party of the first part wishes to obliterate the party of the second part, and one where the party of the first part finds complete justification and rationalization for this obliteration in religious scripture.

Blaming ourselves for either what we did to cause fanatical Islamists to want to bury us or for our inability to redirect the flow of human events in the Mideast to a better current status are intellectually weak and logically flawed, and will only result in reacting to events ineffectively and without a good assessment of the cloud's center or mass, and we are likely to lose our way in the fog of this emotional war.

PLEASE, Someone tell me why the US is rebuilding Lebenon? Is it guilt for our support in what Israel did to that country? I am not anti-semetic or wish any ill upon the people of Israel. But when do they start being held accountable for what they do. Hezzobola should also be accountable and rebuild what they destroyed in Israel. This whole this is so out of hand and we dish out money, people's lives and kill so many innocents. And when it all comes down to it, we really don't have a clue why! Somebody tell me what is going on, without their ideologe slant on things. I am tired and sick of it all.

what I would like to see someone say or at lest recongnize at least once. this is the idea that both sides are wrong. everyone thinks the world has to pick a side. both sides are wrong, realize it, it is true. no one has the right to attack someone when they themselves are not being attacked, by this I mean Hezbollah of course. now here comes the "radical" part and it is not that fact that Israel is attacking on a bigger scale than deserved. now know that I am not of any religion at all. technically Israel has no right to exsist, at least only as much as the confederacy did in the U.S. and when the south succeded the civil broke out. the south claimed it was it's own country just like Israel did in 1948. the only difference is that Israel (the Zionist movement) did not even occupy that land with a large population until a few years before. there numbers swelled in Palestine follwing and during WWII. end then the decided to tell the Palenstinians that it was now there land and they took it over. thhe palenstinians had right to that land through the fact that they had an established country and the Israeli just had a book that said it was theirs becuase an unprovable God said so. anyone with common sense can see how they are wrong, how they both are wrong. but rightly thhe land does belong to the Palenstinians. Read your history please everyone. otherwise we will never learn the truth.

The following may have already been received by you, however, as it was unconfirmed I want to resend it. It was sent to me by a Lebanese friend from Beirut, and is the truest, most concise and educational articles I have read over the internet in the past four weeks. It's titled "A Lamment Over Lebanon" by Reverand Colin Chapman, who was until 2003, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at the Near East School of Theology, Beirut, Lebanon, and now lives in semi-retirement near Cambridge. He has worked for 17 years in different places in the Middle East, and also taught at Trinity College, Bristol and Crowther Hall, Selly Oak, Birmingham.

A LAMENT OVER LEBANON

Colin Chapman

‘How lonely sits the city that once was full of people!
How like a widow she has become, she that was great among the nations!
She that was a princess among the provinces has become a vassal.’
(Lamentations 1:1)

This description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC in the book of Lamentations could easily be applied to the city of Beirut in July 2006. It has been a painful experience during the last few days to watch Lebanon being torn apart through the ferocity of Israel’s attacks. As we’ve watched on television each day, we’ve been re-living the years that we spent as a family in Beirut from just after the start of the civil war in 1975 until the Israeli invasion in 1982 – with various evacuations in between.

The writer of Lamentations weeps over the devastated city, describing the humanitarian crisis which follows. But he also attempts to understand how God could have allowed this disaster to happen. He is very aware of the sins of his own people, and points the finger of blame at political and religious leaders who have led their people astray.

What follows is a personal attempt to make sense of the disaster unfolding in the Middle East before our eyes, written on 22 July, ten days after Hizbullah’s attacks on Israel and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon began. These, I suggest, are some of the major factors which need to be understood if we are to make any sense of what is happening and work towards ‘the things that make for peace’ (Luke 19:41).

Hamas

This organisation didn’t come into being until 1987. It was created as an Islamic alternative to the more secular approach of Arafat and the PLO who, it was felt, had already made too many concessions to Israel. It probably won the elections early in 2006 because of widespread disillusionment with the legacy of Arafat and the corruption and inertia of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas was more in touch with the aspirations of ordinary Palestinians and offered a much more robust defence of Palestinian rights.

In recent years the leadership of Hamas has demonstrated not only its commitment to an ideology that is based squarely on a particular interpretation of the Qur’an and Islamic theology and tradition, but has also shown a strong pragmatic streak which has enabled it to be flexible in its response to changing circumstances. It is therefore unfortunate that Israel, the US and the EU refused to give Hamas the time and space to work out its own way of participating in democratic processes, and instead made immediate demands which seemed reasonable to outside observers but amounted to conditions which could hardly be met immediately.

The refusal of both Israel and America to negotiate in any way with the democratically elected Palestinian leadership has simply exposed the hypocrisy of America’s passion to spread democracy in the region. It seems that they only want democracy if it throws up leaders who are likely to respond to western agendas, and that they cannot handle an elected government which expresses more faithfully the aspirations of the people. If we in Britain have over so many years watched the painful process by which the IRA has slowly renounced violence and committed itself to democratic processes, could we not believe that, given time, Hamas might be able to transform itself into a different kind of movement? The Israeli, American and European refusal to do business with Hamas and the cutting off of vital funds have made it impossible for the elected government to function, placing it in an impossible position.

All this has been going on while the world has begun to realise that Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza may not have been as generous as it was made out to be. Sharon himself made no secret of the fact that he would use the withdrawal from Gaza to strengthen his claim to hold on to most of the settlements on the West Bank. And after the Israeli withdrawal, Gaza was left as a huge, open prison, with all exits, all natural resources and the whole economy totally in the hands of Israel. Meanwhile on the West Bank Israel continued its arrests of Palestinians, its targeted assassinations and land grabbing; and the Security Barrier has been extended, separating communities from their schools, clinics, orchards and vineyards, in one case going through the middle of the playground of a school and in another town right through the middle of the main street . Should anyone be surprised that the humiliation and despair created by the occupation have led some to suicide bombing and the majority to support Hamas?

Hizbullah

This movement is supported by most (but not all) Shi’ites and by many (but not all) Sunnis in Lebanon. While Christians have recognised the role that Hizbullah played in getting Israel to withdraw from the south in 2000 and in providing for the needs of its community, few have actually supported them and many have been apprehensive about its growing power which has almost created a state within a state. Most Lebanese Christians are therefore extremely angry and resentful that Hizbullah’s provocative attack on Israel, without the knowledge and approval of the government, has brought the wrath of Israel down so severely on the whole country. But their anger at Hizbullah is likely now to be overtaken and superseded by their anger against the US and its allies for allowing Israel to punish the whole country so severely for the crimes of one group within it.

This movement came into being in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and it occupation of the south. Of course it has been supported at every stage – financially, morally and materially - by Iran and therefore shares much of the ethos of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. But it’s a genuinely Lebanese movement which responded to the intolerable situation of Israeli forces remaining in the country as an oppressive occupying force. It is far from being simply a ‘terrorist organisation’, since it has developed remarkably holistic programmes with schools, hospitals, clinics and social welfare of different kinds meeting needs which have not been met by a weak central government. Sheikh Nasrallah is an incredibly charismatic and gifted orator who can hold crowds spellbound for hours (I have often watched him on television) not only by talking politics, but by expounding the Qur’an and communicating a very genuine Shi’ite spirituality.

Newspaper reports suggest that Nasrallah had been planning some kind of attack on Israel for months, and timed the fateful capture of the two Israeli soldiers to demonstrate support for Hamas’ similar attack on the borders of Gaza. While he probably expected strong retaliation from Israel, I very much doubt if he expected that it would be as fierce as it has turned out to be. Since he had succeeded on an earlier occasion in pressing Israel to release Lebanese prisoners in exchange for the release of the remains of Israeli soldiers, he no doubt hoped that he could do the same again this time. Having made the initial provocative attack and continued to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel, he feels that he cannot now lose face and gain absolutely nothing by giving in to Israeli demands that the hostages are returned and Hizbullah disarmed. However much we may condemn the initial attack which triggered this crisis, and however uncomfortable we may be with Hizbullah’s rhetoric about destroying Israel, we should not lose sight of the fact that the original raison d’etre of the movement was an understandable opposition to Israeli occupation. Perhaps here is another example of a movement which needed time and space to transform itself to take on a different role in changed circumstances.

Israel’s end-game

Several observers have suspected that Israel had been planning attacks on both Hamas and Hizbullah for some time, and that the capture of the single soldier by Hamas and the two soldiers by Hizbullah simply provided Israel with the pretext for launching serious attacks. Hamas and Hizbullah may therefore have played into Israel’s hands, giving it the moral justification for punishing both movements. It could perhaps be argued that by escalating their violence, Palestinians have lost the moral high ground that they once had, and have in a sense been shooting themselves in the foot.

This isn’t the first time that something of this kind has happened. Before the invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 Palestinian attacks across the border had been minimal. It was the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London which gave Sharon the pretext for invading Lebanon. It almost seems, therefore, as if a pattern has repeated itself: Israel has its plans for dealing a serious blow to its enemies, and then uses the enemy’s provocative attacks as a justification for a major offensive.

There are many who believe that in the early years Israel actually encouraged the growth of Hamas in order to weaken Arafat and divide the whole Palestinian movement. In recent years, however, Israel has declared its determination to weaken Hamas and its refusal ever to negotiate with a government led by them. Prime Minister Olmert and others in his government have stated very clearly that this time they are determined to destroy Hizbullah once and for all. One might have hoped, however, that Israel might have learned from its disastrous invasion and occupation of Lebanon that it cannot crush the Palestinian movement or any other Arab movement by force. Arafat and his colleagues were able to escape from Beirut and set themselves up in Tunis. And it has been argued that Israel’s failure in Lebanon led ultimately to the first Intifada in 1986, which began as a spontaneous explosion of the anger among Palestinians on the West Bank who felt that they were not prepared to live under occupation any longer.

It seems to the Palestinians that Israel has been doing its utmost in recent years to humiliate and crush them into submission, and to postpone or even prevent face to face negotiations which would tackle the crucial issues in the conflict – the final borders, the right of return and the status of East Jerusalem. Israel has illegally taken over more and more land on the West Bank in the name of security. But it has now become clear to many that their ultimate goal is either to prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state or to ensure that any Palestinian state that might one day be created will be as small, as impotent, as divided and as meaningless as possible. If we simply look at all the facts that Israel has created on the ground on the West Bank since 1967, it’s hard not to understand that this is what the Palestinians see as Israel’s real end-game.

Diagnosing the nature of the problem

George W. Bush and Tony Blair seem to believe that Hamas and Hizbullah are ‘the root of the problem’. It’s understandable, therefore, that they have effectively given Israel the green light to do its utmost to destroy both these organisations. But if Israel’s present policies are having such disastrous consequences, and if, as many now believe, Israel will not be able to achieve its goal of destroying both movements, might the President and the Prime Minister ever be willing to consider another possible diagnosis of the problem?

This alternative diagnosis would suggest that the roots of the recent stages of the conflict have to be traced back to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank since 1967. Most of the world still believes that the occupation, the settlements and the Security Barrier are a violation of international law. The first and second Intifadas were protests against the continuing occupation, and the suicide bombings have been an expression of the despair of Palestinians who feel that they had been badly let down by their own leaders, by Israel, by Arab states, by the United Nations and by western powers. From this perspective, Hamas and Hizbullah are not the root of the problem, but only symptoms.

Israel argues that Lebanon has not complied with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called for the disarming of Hizbullah, and that Israel is simply trying to do what the Lebanese government hasn’t had the courage or the power to do. But if Israel itself had complied with the famous UN Security Council Resolution 442 in 1967 calling for ‘withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict’, we wouldn’t be in the situation that we face today. It is Israel’s continuing, illegal occupation of the West Bank that has created the context in which both Hamas and Hizbullah came into being.

Since Israel’s present policy of attempting to crush both Hamas and Hizbullah has led to more and more suffering for millions and probably doesn’t have a chance of solving the problem, perhaps we should be urging our governments to consider this other diagnosis. If it’s more realistic and actually addresses the root of the problem, it might in the long run lead to a resolution of the conflict and bring some kind of peace with justice. If Condoleezza Rice doesn’t want to return to the status quo ante and really wants to work for a new Middle East, perhaps this is where she might need to begin.

Self-defence and proportionate response

No one disputes Israel’s right to defend itself against attack. What is much more questionable, however, is whether Israel has a right to punish and destroy a whole country in order to defend itself against attacks launched by one group within that country. Localised attacks on missile sites inside the Lebanese border might have been regarded as legitimate and proportionate. But devastating attacks on the international airport, fuel tanks, power stations, bridges and roads all over the country – and even on the new lighthouse on Beirut’s sea-front – is increasingly being regarded as totally disproportionate. This is not ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ (Leviticus 24:20) - a principle which in its original context was intended to set limits to revenge - but a return to pre-Mosaic, unlimited revenge and retaliation.

In recent days many will have read at least one account of a convoy of cars leaving villages in the south of Lebanon in response to Israeli calls to evacuate, and then being attacked by jets with many casualties, including children. If and when the dust settles, will there be any way of calling Israel to account for these attacks on innocent civilians? It seems that in this war Israel is acting as if it is above the law. It alone is allowed to determine what is a proportionate response. Meanwhile the leaders of the US and Britain not only refuse to call for a ceasefire, but cannot even bring themselves to say that Israel’s response has been excessive.

The war on terror

The US responded to 9/11 by launching its war on terror. The Taliban and al-Qa’ida were the first target, and then the focus turned to Iraq in the war of 2003. Ariel Sharon cleverly aligned himself more closely with the US, arguing that Palestinian terrorists were no different from the suicide bombers of 9/11.

What has happened therefore is that both George W. Bush and Tony Blair have tended to see their whole foreign policy in relation to this region in terms of ‘the war on terror’. This has become the lens through which they see every conflict – whether it is Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Israel/Palestine. This simplistic outlook which reduces all the different conflicts into one major conflict inevitably distorts vision and makes it impossible to understand each conflict in its own terms and respond in appropriate ways.

If the West had responded to 9/11 first of all by trying to understand the anger of Muslims and asking whether there might be good reasons for their anger, they would have realised (as Tony Blair seems to have done at certain stages) that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at, or very near, the top of the list of grievances against the West. They might have done more to adopt a more even-handed approach to the conflict which would force both Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. Instead the continuing, one-sided support of Israel – political, economic and moral – and the refusal to deal with the roots of the problem have simply fuelled the anger of Arabs and Muslims.

Over this issue, therefore, the West – and particularly the US as the one superpower – is faced with a clear choice between two options. The first is to continue as they are doing at present and allow Olmert to remain in the driving seat and unilaterally impose a settlement on the Palestinians. The second option is to force both sides to negotiate face to face on the basis of international law. What seems to prevent the US and Britain from even considering this option is the fact that the agendas of the Jewish lobby, the neo-cons and the Christian Right have converged over this issue. And the West has allowed the conflict to drag on year after year without resolution, with the result that so many facts have been created on the ground that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to see how to unscramble the egg.

These, I suggest, are some of the areas in which we in the West have to do the hard soul-searching reflected in the book of Lamentations: ‘Let us test and examine our ways and return to the Lord …’ (3:40). What kept me sane and enabled me to hold onto my faith during the dark days of the civil war in Lebanon and through all that has happened in the Middle East since then has been the writings of the biblical prophets. There we find a world-view which sees all history in the hands of a holy and loving God who is at work both in judgement and in mercy, in and through all the terrible events that we witness.

‘The thought of my affliction and my homelessness is wormwood and gall!
My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me.
But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope:
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness’
(Lamentations 3:19-23)

More books by Rev. Chapman include Whose Promised Land? (Lion, 2003), Whose holy City? Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Lion, 2004); and ‘Islamic Terrorism’: Is There a Christian Response? (Grove, 2005).

Congratulations to you, Ann Curry, on your reporting of and from the Middle East, and on your “cyber column,” which allows those of us who have thoughts, opinions and feelings about this terrible crisis to air them. I have very strong thoughts, opinions and feelings about what is happening in Lebanon right now. I visited Lebanon in the late 90s, as the guest of dear Lebanese friends. They were proud to show me their beautiful country and share their friends with me: Muslim and Christian alike. The country was beautiful, the people gentle and generous, the culture and nightlife like that of any European city, and the food, best in the entire region. So you can understand why it breaks my heart that every morning I turn on my television and see what is now happening to this beautiful country, and to witness with each passing day the ongoing and escalating horror these gentle people are now enduring,

But it seems that Lebanon’s problems are almost over because now the Bush administration has a plan that will sow the seeds for a lasting peace in the region. Ha! US foreign policy is so obviously and completely one-sided in the Middle East that we no longer have any credibility with a single - not one, Arab country in the area. The Bush/Rice/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration blew that totally and steadily starting with the Iraq debacle. Does the administration not know this? How does the Bush administration realistically expect to broker anything, especially a lasting peace, in the region when we are seen to be totally on the Israeli side of every dispute?

It is beyond my humble comprehension that now, after close to four weeks of horrific pounding on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon boarder; not to mention the destruction of huge parts of Lebanese infrastructure, we have a workable plan that will lead to a lasting peace between Israel and its enemies on the Lebanese side of the border. And there are a lot more of these today than there were three and a half weeks ago. Yep, we have a plan now. Despite steadfastly refusing to join the rest of the civilized world in demanding an immediate and unconditional cease fire over the past four weeks of slaughter we expect the world to believe that now we have the beginnings of a workable solution. Who do we think are we kidding?

As I said, my feelings center on the injustice to Lebanon and to the Lebanese people in this horror that Israel and Hezbollah are forcing them to endure. Lebanon has been turned into a war ground and the Lebanese population is right in the middle of the battlefield. And, what is most striking in this conflict is the Lebanese seem to be the only ones without a say in the matter of when, and under what conditions a cease fire will happen. Meanwhile, Lebanon; that beautiful jewel of a country where heretofore, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Armenians, Europeans, North Americans and a host of other religious, ethnic and cultural groups lived in peace and harmony is being totally destroyed and its population decimated.

THE US IS HELD HOSTAGE. NO POLITICIAN OR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN SAY ANY THING CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF AIPAC ( AMERICAN ISRAELI POLITICAL COMMITTEE)
THOSE WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO CRITICISE THE JEWISH LOBBY HAVE FOUND THEM SELVES REMOVED FROM OFFICE.EXAMPLE :CYNTHIA MCKINNEY FROM ATLANTA GORGIA
IF YOUN ARE A JOURNALIST AND HAPPENS TO SPEAK THE TRUTH YOU ARE OFF THE SCREEN. WHO OWNS THE NEWS OUTLET? YOU HAVE IT ---THE JEWISH PEOPLE. ----THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD!

There is Big double standard here when American and Israeli forces are the only countries allowed to defend themselves with the most high-tech weapons and intelligence information. This situations makes arab countries like palestine and lebonan powerless if they should ever get threatened. Why cant other middle-eastern countries defend themselves without being called terrorists. Hezballa condemed 9/11 because it was down right wrong and they only believe in fighting to defend lebanon. The group was created in 1983 when Israel invaded lebanon and they strictly believe in protecting their borders. Why are they called terrorists when they dont even carry a a quarter of the weapons Israel has and they are trying to defend there country? And i think its really sad that Israeli life is considered more valuable than an arab life, as this is what is countinually illustrated in american media. The media is so bias even when reporting on the casualties in lebanon. Please be fair and compassionate to all those lives lost.

Ann: About a week ago you conducted an incredible interview on the Israeli spokeswoman on the use of excessive force and targeting civilian locations. You did a fabulous job! NBC needs to re-air that tape as well as airing more of your interviews with the spokeswoman. You bring to life many questions that the many at home are asking.

Be well and safe.

Ann Curry is one of the best human beings on tv, hope she and all the reporters come back safe and whole. I think she should replace Katie; I am also changing channels now that Ann is not here, Campbell is good but they do EXPRESS interviews now; Mat and Brown ask the questions in a hurry and dont follow the answers it is like competition, why is that now?

Ms. Curry,
I would like it if you came home and did other stories. I enjoy seeing you on the television very much. It would be a shame if something happened to you. I hope you and your friends stay safe and come home soon.

I truly admired Ann Curry for her work and dedication, she is indeed someone that brings meaning to compassion. I just don't understand why wasn't she chosen to take Katie's place. I truly love watching her as a co-achor for Matt, I taped the Today Show when she is co-anchoring but lately with Campbell Brown as a co-anchor I stop taping it. Don't give me wrong Campbell Brown is good, but she does not have that ability to keep televiewers, I changed channel. Please we would like to have Ann Curry be the co-achor.

The Israelis do not want the war in Lebanon more than anyone else does. It amuses me to hear and read about Americans who somehow think the folks in Israel should show restraint against Hezbollah or any other entity that wishes to destroy them. Let the liberals in America and elswhere lose a few loved ones to a bomb or other means by some terrorist a few times and we would see how much restraint they would show. The people who would ask the Israelis to do so or suggest that we should get out of Iraq to let those people be destoyed by evil people also are simply a bunch of cowards who would fear anyone who is trying to do what is right when the going gets a little rough. They are the same people who would say, "Let someone else do it!" Israel need our support, and we need to be ready for when the terrorists come to our shores again, which sooner or later they will. How quickly people forget when tragedy does not strike them personally. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Israel has the right to defend themselves and exist.

Ann and Crew,
Please be safe. Thank you for all of the work that you do. Come home safe. Continue to stay strong and put your heart into your work. All of you stay close and come home soon.

Has the world lost its conscience? Has Bush not seen the slaughtered defenseless children last Sunday and the last few weeks in Lebanon? Has the media lost its total objectivity by purporting that Hizbulla is shelling Northern Israel and Israel has to defend itself when we all know Israel started its offensive when two soldiers were abducted to exchange them for Palestinian prisoners? the BBC just broadcast an interview with an Israeli official describing their plans against Hizbulla and Lebanon long before the soldiers were abducted...Why is no one calling Israel's actions terrorism when they target children... These are very sad days in a consciensless world...

a question: with what type of moral authority the US can demand other nations (like Syria and Iran) to stop sending armament to third parties (like hezbollah) when the US is doing with impunity (like with Israel)
isn't that a Double Standard?

I wonder if Hezbollah can remotely control their rockets from the mountains or wherever they may happen to be, if they are not in the houses themselves. Also, do you think the civilians could be taught to launch the rockets? Also, why doesn't Hezbollah tell the civilians to get out, since they know that Israel has the technology to tell exactly from where the Hezbollah rockets are launched? They are masters of deceit.

Those familiar with other news outlets should read Nasrullah's english translation of his speech. Hizbullah only started their onslaught of rockets into northern occupied Palestine AFTER Israel destroyed civilian infrustructure. He clearly said if that's the style of war you [Israel] want, that's the kind of war you'll get. Also, initial reports said that Hizbullah crossed into occupied Palestine -- but reports now say that Israeli soldiers 'accidently' ventured into Southern Lebanon. And finally, maybe Israel should stop seizing loved ones (women and children) in attempts to force confessions or having people surrender. And then maybe they wont have their soldiers captured and used as bargaining chips. Hmm... just a thought.

Yuri Boroda

You comparing Lebanon/Israel to 9/11 is as misleading and political as George Bush invading Iraq and screaming Al Queda.

Imagine this: Terrorists are shooting off rockets from just over the US border in Canada. Launch sites are buried in high density civilian complexes in Montreal and Toronto. The targets are Buffalo, Boston, and cities and villages in between.
Now, imagine the US response....

Imagine this: teenagers waiting on a line to enter a nightclub in LA are blown to pieces by a suicide bomber. A wedding becomes a massacre in Chicago as a suicide bomber detonates his payload. A crowded city bus carrying shoppers explodes in downtown Manhattan. A river cafe in downtown Savannah becomes awash in blood after a terrorist goes to join his Leader.

Now, can anyone imagine how to remove the core of this evil? What is the root cause? Land? Money? Power? Belief in G-d? Sadly, it is simply another chapter in the long history of war that mankind has historically played....we are our own enemy.

May all those who risk their lives to send home the news be safe and return soon. I thank you.

Israel has no choice but to continue their offensive until the Hezbullah terrorists are ousted once and for all. Whether we like it or not - Israel is doing the entire WORLD a favor... 9/11 still lies FRESH in oour memories! Terrorists, by definition, will NEVER settle for peace - it is against their morals and values. Just look at all the PR Hizbullah continues to spread about civillian casualties, and yet continues to hide in their midst. GO ISRAEL!!!

Israel must absolutely complete its mission to destroy Hezbollah. If they stop now, this will only encourage other terrorists, including Hezbollah, to launch further attacks on Israel. Israel has the right to defend herself at any cost. All terrorists have no regards for human life and that is why they hide behind innocent women and children whom they claim they are fighting for.

I am sorry for the civilian casulties but for those who mention the killing of innocent civilians and condem Isreal shouldnt you lay equal blame on Hezbolla? They fire a rocket from near a house full of women and children then quickly transport the launcher away since it draws Isreal's airstrikes, leaving the women and children. Guess you cant fire women and children at haifa,so the rocket launcher must hold more value to them.

You can't kill the terrorists by killing innocent civilians (even if accidentally and even appologizing after - just go and explain this to the relatives of the vicitims). Killing innocent civilians only feeds the hatred and the ranks of Hezbollah. Izrael is supposed to be the smarter side here, what is smart about creating more suicide bombers in the future?!?! In the 80s izrael did the same, went after the terrorists and where are we 25 years later?!

I am prepared to openly question the threat Israel says it is under. I grant that Hizbullah has launched over 1600 weapons into israeli territory, and Hizbollah has killed 18 Israeli civilians. This means that Hebollah has launched 1/10 the weapons at Israel compared to the weapons Israel has dropped on Lebanon, and at the same time Hezbollah has a 2:1 military to civilain casualty ratio, compared to Israel that has less than a 1:10 military to civilian casualty ratio. From those numbers, who, would it seem, are the terrorists in this case? Make no mistake that this is anything other than an excuse-driven pretext for an aggressive war on the part of the US-backed Israeli government.

The only truth about this “Israeli war crimes” is that it exactly matches the coward nature of the American aggressor in IRAQ that only relies on air power and civilian destruction.

I just can't wait to see Bush and his gang behind bars in a warm crime court and FOX/CNN staff sititng next to him behind bars.