As the blood flows in Lebanon, so do the words about it (and you gotta read 'em to get your blood boiling, dear drinker of words)

1. Dissent Grows in Israel Over Lebanon -- by Ian Black

The government of the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is facing a barrage of criticism over its handling of the war in Lebanon, with questions being raised about the decision to attack Hizbullah, mounting military losses, continuing missile strikes on northern Israel, and disquiet about Lebanese civilian casualties.

Israel has yet to confirm reports of 12 soldiers killed in heavy fighting around the south Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, but analysts in Jerusalem said fatalities on that scale are likely to bring pressure from the army and the public for a significant change of tack.

Two weeks into the fighting, growing unease about a wide range of war-related issues has burst into the open with a series of anxious comments by politicians, former officers and leading experts and pundits.

Few Israelis are protesting against the war, as they did in their hundreds of thousands after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Apart from small demonstrations by Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftwingers, there is broad support for hitting back at the Shia guerrillas after their border raid and abduction of two Israeli soldiers. But what is becoming clear is the deep concern about the conduct and progress of the campaign.

Moshe Arens, a hawkish former Likud defence minister, issued a stark warning that Hizbullah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, could emerge from the conflict undefeated. "This will be a disaster for Israel," he told the Ha'aretz newspaper. "Nasrallah will be seen as someone who fired thousands of katyushas at Israeli communities for weeks and came out unscathed."

Experts say Israel's much-vaunted intelligence services have underestimated Hizbullah capabilities, especially in not knowing it had an Iranian-made missile capable of hitting an Israeli naval vessel off Beirut.

The air force has also come under scrutiny after the loss of three US-built Apache helicopters and an F16 jet, with one helicopter reportedly downed by friendly fire. Five Israeli soldiers have also been killed by friendly fire.

Wall-to-wall TV and radio talk shows have wheeled out reserve or former officers highlighting the shortcomings of those running the show, bringing defensive responses from the IDF general staff and even charges of disloyalty in wartime.

But Ze'ev Schiff, the highly respected doyen of Israeli military commentators, and author of the definitive history of the 1982 war, put it bluntly: "Israel is far from a decisive victory and its main objectives have not been achieved."

Another veteran correspondent, Eitan Haber, wrote in the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot: "This is neither the time nor the place in the middle of serious fighting, but when this is all over the IDF is going to have take a good look at itself."

The main worry is that Hizbullah can still launch 80-100 rockets a day despite thousands of Israeli sorties over Lebanon. Haifa, Carmiel and other northern areas were hit again on today. Israeli ground operations have inflicted losses on the guerrillas in Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil, but none have been mounted in the Tyre area further west from where missiles are being launched at Haifa. Hizbullah has been damaged but is far from crippled. Supplies from Iran and Syria are getting through despite a blockade.

The subtext of much criticism is that Mr Olmert and his defence minister, the Labour party leader, Amir Peretz, have little military experience and none of the stature of the former prime minister, Ariel Sharon. Many of their closest advisers are untried novices - "raw recruits" in the words of one pundit.

Commentators are also questioning whether key government decisions were thought through in the context of an overall strategy. These include the immediate response to the July 12 attack, the bombing of Beirut international airport despite warnings this would trigger retaliation against Haifa, and the destruction of Hizbullah HQ in southern Beirut. They say the government's response has been to shift its goals and lower public expectations.

The original objective of "breaking Hizbullah" has been quietly watered down to "weakening Hizbullah". Mr Olmert's sudden agreement to the deployment of a multinational force on the border reflects reluctant recognition that Israel cannot itself disarm the Lebanese militia and needs a foreign buffer.

International focus on civilian deaths in Lebanon - roughly 10 times the number suffered by Israel - has badly undermined Israel's case abroad, despite the unwavering support of the US. Its own propaganda efforts have been poor and uncoordinated.

"Even before we know who will win this campaign we can state with certainty that Israel has suffered a terrible propaganda defeat in Lebanon and the Arab world," wrote the Ma'ariv columnist Jacky Hugi. "One country cannot destroy another without explaining to the neighbour the logic behind its actions. From being our silent allies the Lebanese have become the victims of our blind pounding."

On top of all that there are bitter complaints about poor conditions in air raid shelters in the north, the failure to compensate those whose property has been damaged by enemy action and the confusion caused by a plethora of officials giving out conflicting messages. Some want a single "war spokesman" to be responsible for all government information, a concept which worked well in the 1991 Gulf war, when Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel.

Nahum Barnea, the country's leading political commentator, warned earlier this week that the Israeli public had exaggerated expectations of what might emerge from this crisis. "Israel is like the guy who promised to jump off the big top at the circus but freezes the moment he gets up there. 'Why isn't he jumping,' the spectators ask. 'No question of jumping,' the guy replies. 'The only question is how I can get down'."


2. Lebanon, Burning -- by Ramzi Kysia

Watching the news today in my grandfather's home in Lebanon, all I want to do is weep. Until today, I was cautiously optimistic. Until today, there were some positive developments in the politics of this war.

It seems almost obscene to say that. Hundreds of human beings lay dead, hundreds-of-thousands more are displaced, living in schools and makeshift shelters all across the country. An unknown number huddle in their homes in the South, as Israel turns Southern Lebanon into an absolute wasteland. Billions of dollars of deliberate damage have already been done to Lebanon's public infrastructure and, regardless of what the future holds, poverty here will skyrocket in the aftermath of this war. So, yes, it seems obscene to speak of "positive developments" while the bombs still fall. Yet there were some.

President Bush sent Condoleezza Rice to Lebanon before her trip to Israel – a symbolic show of support for Lebanon's pro-American government, although certainly not for Lebanon's besieged people. The Israelis stopped bombing Beirut for near two days – in tribute to Rice's visit. It seemed as if Israel had finally agreed to the UN's desperate plea to allow humanitarian aid into Lebanon. Hezbollah reportedly gave the Lebanese government negotiating power to end the conflict although, unfortunately, they still haven't turned over the captured Israeli soldiers to that government. And the general outlines of a plan to cease hostilities seemed to be developing.

To understand that plan, we need to know where we are right now. It's clear that both Israel and Hezbollah miscalculated when they decided to turn on this war. Hezbollah likely anticipated a significant reaction from Israel and, possibly, the re-invasion of Southern Lebanon. They were prepared to weather the bombs, terrorize Northern Israel with countless rockets, and inflict damage on Israeli troops should they enter Lebanon. They chose this path to demonstrate their capabilities, raise their regional profile, counter their opposition in Lebanon's government, and rally people throughout the Middle-East who are frustrated with the current status quo in Palestine.

But it's unlikely Hezbollah anticipated that Israel would completely destroy Lebanon, and demolish near every public infrastructure from South to North. No one could have anticipated such a massively disproportionate response. No one could have foreseen such complete devastation.

Israel, for its part, thought Hezbollah would be an easier target than has turned out. It seems incredible to me that Israel still hasn't been able to destroy Hezbollah's weapons caches and rocket launchers. Invading Israeli troops are running into much stronger resistance than they expected, and Israeli soldiers are dying. It's also unclear that Israel anticipated the anger they've generated around the world by destroying Lebanon. When Ariel Sharon led Israeli troops into Beirut twenty-four years ago, he killed over ten-thousand people here with little outcry (the massacre at Sabra and Shatila caused more of a response than thousands of Lebanese dead). Israel is used to being able to pound Arabs at will, with the world's-- if not approval, at least acquiescence.

But things have not worked out as expected. Hezbollah has not proved to be a painless opponent, and world leaders - from SE Asia to Great Britain - have all but openly called their Israeli counterparts war criminals. (Which makes the mock outrage that American Congressmen are directing toward Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for condemning Israel's deranged bombing campaign all the more idiotic).

Here in Lebanon, Hezbollah must face the rage that non-Shi'a feel for acting unilaterally to draw the rest of Lebanon into an unwanted war. Even Shi'a Lebanese have been guardedly critical of Hezbollah's actions.

The plan that seemed to be developing to bring us out of this madness was troubled but straightforward. Hezbollah turns over its prisoners to the Lebanese government. Lebanon turns them over to Israel, with perhaps an under-the-table agreement for the release of Israel's Lebanese prisoners in a few months. Israel stops bombing Lebanon. Hezbollah stops sending rockets into Israel. A ten-thousand strong force of NATO troops replaces the two-thousand member UN observer force in Southern Lebanon, and a demilitarized zone is set-up for several miles alongside the border. A dog-and-pony show could then ensue with Hezbollah voluntarily making an nominal show of "disarming," and Lebanon could once again begin the long process of reconstruction.

Israel has already smashed Lebanon flat, and set the entire country back at least twenty years. They can claim "victory" at any time. Hezbollah can also claim "victory" in that it stood up to Israel's onslaught and survived. However, Hezbollah would face a tough time in the months ahead. While their stock has been raised in the rest of the Middle-East, Southern Lebanon is in absolute catastrophe, and Hezbollah would have to deal with that reality. Hezbollah is also part of a diverse society, and they'd have to deal with the anger the rest of Lebanon feels toward them - an anger many Shi'a share. In the midst of such anger and devastation, and in the absence of an immediate enemy to rally people around, Hezbollah would be under serious strain and in great trouble for some time to come.

It's lunacy to call this "hope," but we have to take what we can.

To my complete horror, though, even this precarious hope is now being snatched away. Israel is again bombing all of Lebanon, now that Condoleezza Rice has left, and the relief effort is very much in question since Israel is now also bombing UN Peacekeepers and Red Cross ambulances in Southern Lebanon.

Yesterday, CNN reported that before meeting with Israeli leaders Condoleezza Rice said that it was time for "a new Middle East...time to say to those who do not want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail, they will not."

To my complete horror, she apparently means exactly what she says.

Instead of the ten-thousand strong NATO force that Israel was calling for, CNN reported that the United States is insisting on a thirty-thousand member force, and that Bush and Rice are demanding that either Hezbollah accept such a force, or first be defeated militarily.

Hezbollah will never accept that many foreign troops in Southern Lebanon - even ten-thousand was pushing it. And "defeating" Hezbollah will take weeks of intense fighting, if not months, and cause tens-of-thousands more civilian casualties.

The terrifying thing is that the Lebanese government might accept such a plan - as angry as they are at Hezbollah, as desperate as they are to stop Israel's bombs. But European countries would be insane to contribute their troops to such a force.

Thirty-thousand foreign combat troops in Southern Lebanon is more than a face-saving measure, and much more than just a deterrent to future rocket attacks against Israel.

Thirty-thousand foreign combat troops in Southern Lebanon means knocking down every door, in what homes remain standing, to search for militants and weapons. Thirty-thousand troops means arbitrary arrests and indefinite detentions. Thirty-thousand troops means turning the South into Lebanon's very own "Shi'a Triangle," with a bitter insurgency and massive violence at every turn.

Thirty-thousand troops means turning Hezbollah into a world-wide organization that will certainly try and sponsor attacks against any country sponsoring those troops.

Thirty-thousand troops means uniting Shi'a militants with their Sunni counterparts in Al-Qaeda's view of the world.

Despite the tensions of the last year, with Rafik Hariri's assassination and Syria's withdrawal, Lebanon has avoided restarting its bitter civil war. The Lebanese had invested too much time and effort in rebuilding their country. They were too proud of all they had accomplished over these last fifteen years. The memory of that accomplishment has a momentum of its own that might have carried Lebanon through this crisis. But if the Lebanese government accepts the Rice plan then even that hope will be killed.

Lebanese Shi'a will damn well know who put their heads on the chopping block, and they will not sit still for it. Thirty-thousand foreign combat troops in Southern Lebanon means a guerrilla war, and a continuing war means there will be no substantive reconstruction. Therefore there will be no jobs, no money, no future, no hope, and no reason not to restart the Civil War.

The tactics used by many Arab militants should be resoundingly condemned. Both for targeting innocents and for bringing disaster on their own peoples. Even so, underneath America's scorn for Hezbollah and Hamas lies an incredible racism that pretends to believe that no Arab could possibly have any legitimate grievance with Israel. Even as Israel smashes their nations into oblivion. To deliver a solution to this crisis from out that racism is to birth a monster.

For a short time this week I allowed myself to feel some hope. But America's plan for "peace" amounts to throwing gasoline on an already raging fire and standing back while we all burn.

(Ramzi Kysia is an Arab-American essayist and peace activist. He spent a year in Iraq with Voices in the Wilderness, the Chicago-based predecessor to Voices for Creative Nonviolence ( http://www.vcnv.org ). He is currently living in Lebanon.)


3. I Heard A Comment By An Israeli Soldier... by Bill Fletcher, Jr.

I heard a comment by an Israeli soldier on National Public Radio that will probably haunt me for life. Interviewed in southern Lebanon in the midst of the Israeli aggression, he commented on the hundreds of Lebanese civilians killed by the Israelis. His words were chilling: most of the civilians killed, he noted, lived in areas controlled by Hezbollah-- they should have found a better place to live.

In that instant, the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, and the additional one in Gaza, took on a new clarity. It also became evident to me how the Bush administration and the majority of Congress can champion the atrocities that are mounting with each day: the lives of Arabs are irrelevant.

Consider the words of the Israeli soldier and now let’s flip the script. Since 1967 the Israelis, in violation of the United Nations and international law, have occupied Arab land and created illegal settlements. Yet, when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians, whether in a settlement or elsewhere, I cannot remember anyone seriously saying that the Israeli civilians should have chosen somewhere else to live, as a justification for the murder of non-combatants. In contrast, the White House and the Israeli government have decided that Arab non-combatants can be killed indiscriminately as long as an apology is offered afterwards.

What makes Arab lives expendable? This should not be too difficult for us in the USA to answer since it is driven by the psychology of settler colonialism, the same thinking at the heart of the founding and expansion of the USA. Settlers develop a myth that justifies their arrival on and occupation of land which is not theirs. Normally the settler myth involves God allegedly giving the settlers the land. Why God does not explain this directly to the indigenous inhabitants is never made quite clear in the settler myth, but the myth is strong enough to assert that the lives of the settlers are qualitatively more important than the lives of the indigenous people.

The settler is not bound by any agreements that s/he may sign with the indigenous people. The agreements are temporary accords as long as they fit the needs of the settler. When they get in the way, they are abandoned. For us in the USA, think about the great state of Oklahoma. Oklahoma was once called “Indian Territory” because the Native Americans were run out of the Southeast of the USA on something called the “Trail of Tears” by Andrew Jackson. They settled in Oklahoma and were given that land UNTIL oil was discovered there. At that point, Oklahoma was opened up for white settlers.

Thus, when we look at what Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians and the Lebanese we should react with indignation, but we should not react with surprise. The lives of the Arab population are irrelevant to the Israeli government. There is no way that they are even able to justify the bombing of Beirut airport or the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians that makes the slightest degree of sense. It is all an act of ‘faith.’ If you believe that the settler has a God-given right to carry out whatever actions that they deem necessary in order to survive, then it becomes obvious that the Arabs have simply gotten in the way. That the Bush administration is not putting a stop to the Israeli atrocities speaks not only to Bush’s strategic objective to eliminate opposition to the re-division of the Middle East, but as well to his acceptance that largely European settlers have a God-given right to cleanse Palestine (and anywhere else in the Middle East deemed necessary).

The problem is that neither the Arabs, nor non-Arab Muslims have heard God say anything approaching this to them. It is unclear why God would be ambiguous about something so important unless this is really not about religion but instead about settler colonialism and great power politics.

(Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a labor and international activist and writer, and the former president of TransAfrica Forum. Email to: papaq54@hotmail.com)


4. 24/7 Coverage Doesn’t Cover It -- by Molly Ivins

State of play in the Middle East: Lebanon, extensively damaged, plus a half-million refugees; Syria, tired of being dissed; Israel, disproportionate. Are you kidding? Did it work last time they occupied Lebanon? Condi Rice, undercut by neocons at home? Iraq, completely fallen apart. Iran, only winner? Everybody else, mad at Bush. Most under-covered story, collapse of Iraq.

And what do I think this is? A media story, of course.

From the first day of 24/7 coverage, you could tell this was big. By the time Chapter 9,271 of the conflicts in the Middle East had gotten its own logo, everyone knew it was huge. I mean, like, bigger than Natalee Holloway. Then anchormen began to arrive in the Middle East, and people like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson—real experts. Then Newt Gingrich—and who would know better than Newt?—declared it was World War III. Let’s ratchet up the fear here—probably good for Republican campaigning.

By then, of course, you couldn’t find a television story about the back corridors of diplomacy and what was or, more important, what was not going on there. Between Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson, it was obviously World War III, and besides, there were a bunch of American refugees in Lebanon who couldn’t get out, and so elements of the Katrina story appeared. Thank God Anderson was there.

Meanwhile, people who should have known better were all in a World III snit over Chapter 9,271. Actually, they all knew better, but it was a better story if you overplayed it—sort of like watching a horror movie that you know will turn out OK in the end, but meanwhile you get to enjoy this delicious chill of horror up your spine.

What if it really was The End? I mean, any fool could see it could easily careen out of control, and when George W. Bush is all you’ve got for rational, fair-minded grown-ups, well, there it is.

If I may raise a nasty political possibility: One good reason for the Bush administration to leave Chapter 9,271 to burn out of control is that this administration thrives on fear. Fear has been the text and the subtext of every Republican campaign since 9/11. Endless replay of the footage from 9/11 has graced every Republican campaign since. Could it be that 9/11 is beginning to pall, to feel as overplayed as Natalee Holloway? Fear is actually more dangerous than war in the Middle East. For those who spin dizzily toward World War III, the Apocalypse, the Rapture—always with that delicious frisson of terror—the slow, patient negotiations needed to get it back under control are Not News.

All we have to fear, said FDR, is fear itself. And when we are afraid, we do damage to both ourselves and to the Constitution. Our history is rank with these fits of fear. We get so afraid of some dreadful menace, so afraid of anarchists, Reds, crime or drugs or communism or illegal aliens or terrorists that we think we can make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free. We damage the Constitution because we’re so afraid. We engage in torture and worse because we’re afraid. We damage our standing in the world, our own finest principles, out of fear. And television enjoys scaring us. One could say cynically, “It’s good for their ratings,” but in truth, I think television people enjoy scary movies, too. And besides, it makes it all a bigger story for them.

What’s fascinating about this as a media story is how much attention can be given to one story while still only about a fifth of it gets told. The amount of misinformation routinely reported on television is astounding. For example, “Israel is our only democratic ally in the Middle East....” How long has Turkey been a real republic and ally?

The more surprising development is how completely one story drives out another. At other times, the collapse of Iraq would have been news.

(To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com)

5. Who Are the Real Terrorists In the Middle East?
What exactly is being defended? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state?
By Oren Ben-Dor

As its citizens are being killed, Israel is, yet again, inflicting death and destruction on Lebanon. It tries to portray this horror as necessary for its self-defense. Indeed, the casual observer might regard the rocket attacks on Israeli cities such as Haifa and my own home town, Nahariya, as justifying this claim.

While states should defend their citizens, states which fail this duty should be questioned and, if necessary, reconfigured. Israel is a state which, instead of defending its citizens, puts all of them, Jews as well as non-Jews, in danger.

What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.

Many who wish to hide the immorality of the Israeli state do so by restricting attention to the horrors of the post-1967 occupation and talking about a two-state solution, since endorsing a Palestinian state implicitly endorses the ideology behind a Jewish one.

The very creation of Israel required an act of terror. In 1948, most of the non-Jewish indigenous people were ethnically cleansed from the part of Palestine which became Israel. This action was carefully planned. Without it, no state with a Jewish majority and character would have been possible. Since 1948, the "Israeli Arabs," those Palestinians who avoided expulsion, have suffered continuous discrimination. Indeed, many have been internally displaced, ostensibly for "security reasons," but really to acquire their lands for Jews.

Surely Holocaust memory and Jewish longing for Eretz Israel would not be sufficient to justify ethnic cleansing and ethnocracy? To avoid the destabilization that would result from ethical inquiry, the Israeli state must hide the core problem, by nourishing a victim mentality among Israeli Jews.

To sustain that mentality and to preserve an impression of victimhood among outsiders, Israel must breed conditions for violence. Whenever prospects of violence against it subside, Israel must do its utmost to regenerate them: the myth that it is a peace-seeking victim which has "no partner for peace" is a key panel in the screen with which Israel hides its primordial and continuing immorality.

Israel's successful campaign to silence criticism of its initial and continuing dispossession of the indigenous Palestinians leaves the latter no option but to resort to violent resistance. In the wake of electing Hamas - the only party which, in the eyes of Palestinians, has not yet given up their cause - the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank were subjected to an Israeli campaign of starvation, humiliation, and violence.

The insincere "withdrawal" from Gaza, and the subsequent blockade, ensured a chronicle of violence which, so far, includes Palestinian firing of Kasem rockets, the capture of an Israeli soldier, and the Israeli near re-occupation of Gaza. What we witness is more hatred, more violence from Palestinians, more humiliation and collective punishments from Israelis - all useful reinforcement for the Israeli victim mentality and for the sacred cow-status of Israeli statehood.

The truth is that there never could have been a partition of Palestine by ethically acceptable means. Israel was created through terror and it needs terror to cover-up its core immorality. Whenever there is a glimmer of stability, the state orders a targeted assassination, such as that in Sidon which preceded the current Lebanon crisis, knowing well that this brings not security but more violence. Israel's unilateralism and the cycle of violence nourish one another.

Amidst the violence and despite the conventional discourse which hides the root of this violence, actuality calls upon us to think. The more we silence its voice, the more violently actuality is sure to speak.

In Hebrew, the word elem (a stunned silence resulting from oppression or shock) is etymologically linked to the word almut (violence). Silence about the immoral core of Israeli statehood makes us all complicit in breeding the terrorism that threatens a catastrophe which could tear the world apart.

(Oren Ben-Dor teaches philosophy of law and political philosophy at University of Southampton, England. Email to: okbendor@ yahoo.com)



6. A War Without End?
Against an inflexible Hezbollah, Israel no longer counts on anything but force alone.
By Sélim Nassib (from Libération in Paris)

Perhaps the terrible destruction Israel is inflicting on Lebanon will finally find some semblance of political, strategic, tactical justification.... Perhaps the destruction that has struck Gaza will also be regarded as obeying a superior logic of Realpolitik.... But, for now, these destructions appear to the whole world (not only to Arab and Muslim peoples) as expressions of the anger of a state humiliated in its dominion, crazed from having been surprised on its southern and northern borders, and revenging itself with the most extreme violence against civilian populations, their supplies, roads, bridges, power stations, gas stations: everything necessary to their life. And in spite of this intense outburst, Hezbollah's rockets continue to rain down. Supported by a crushing majority of his population, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is candid enough to be outraged by foreign television stations' broadcasts of images from Lebanon that suddenly "make the aggressors into victims." This candor is the sign of persistent blindness at a time when much intelligence and clear-sightedness are required to have any chance of exiting the nightmare by the high road.

For there exists a tremendous international, Arab, and Lebanese consensus to neutralize Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The United States and France godfathered the Security Council resolution requiring its disarmament. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, and especially Saudi Arabia do not mince their words in denouncing its "adventurism"; the head of the Lebanese government and most of the country's political and community forces (with the exception of the Shiites) demand that the militia be replaced along the border with Israel by soldiers from the regular army. Behind this Arab quasi-unanimity looms the Sunni-Shiite conflict, poised to become dominant. While Gaza is strangled and Lebanon destroyed, the bloody war between these two communities didn't stop for a single day in Iraq. In an Arab world characterized by a large Sunni majority, Saudi Arabia has no desire to see Shiite Iran, with Syria and Hezbollah taking up the relay, become the champion of the sacred Arab cause, the "liberation of Palestine." Now tha's what it's really all about, a fight to the death over influence.

Still more important, Hamas could be party to the consensus, so different are its course and its interests from those of Hezbollah. The difference is not only that one is Sunni and the other Shiite. Hezbollah wants to show that an Islam-inspired movement can prevail where others, inspired by a more or less secular Arab nationalism, have failed. It proved that in 2000, when its military action forced the Israeli army to evacuate Lebanon, bringing Hezbollah a tremendous popularity. But with that objective achieved, Hezbollah is left with only a general ideological motivation and its role as an outpost in the war of influence of which Iran - which promises every day "to erase Israel from the map" - is the master-builder.

Hamas is altogether different: in spite of appearances, it pursues the much more concrete objective of having an independent state in Palestine. Proof of that is that just at the moment when the war against Hezbollah is in full force, Hamas makes it known that it is ready to conclude a separate agreement with Israel including the liberation of the kidnapped corporal, withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and a subsequent liberation of Palestinian prisoners. That initiative has just confirmed the historic change that occurred before the before the start of the crisis: the Hamas government's acceptance of the "Prisoners' Document," based on the resolution adopted by the Arab summit of Beirut in 2002, on the initiative of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. In this (almost forgotten) resolution, the Arab world in all its components offered an overall and complete peace, with the establishment of political, diplomatic, and economic relations in exchange for Israel's withdrawal back to the 1967 borders and its accepance of a Palestinian state.

That Hamas's Islamists, brought to power by democratic elections, should agree with President Mahmoud Abbas, representing the Palestinian Old Guard, and rally to the Arab and global consensus is obviously of considerable importance. But this reversal obviously does not please everyone. On the eve of the announcement of the agreement, a party of Palestinian military (belonging to Hamas and other organizations) and the Hamas leader in exile in Damascus, Khaled Mechaal, launched the operation that ended in the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit and the wildfire that followed. Several days later, Hezbollah opened its second front in the north of the country....

Today, an international military force that would cover the border and open the way for a Lebanese army would allow (almost) the whole world to express a sigh of relief. But, in the meantime, the systematic destruction of Lebanon continues, feeding a hatred in the hearts of Lebanese that, paradoxically, Hezbollah's rockets express. The present crisis advances this way, on a razor blade, and everything can upend at any moment.

But if the spectacle of too much suffering ends up imposing a cease-fire, people will realize that a real division has arisen in the Arab and Palestinian world between a large majority who are moving towards a historic compromise and a minority who do everything to prevent it. But who is the statesman, what are the Israeli political forces, capable of seizing this fragile opportunity? In that country, people seem to have ceased to believe that peace is possible; they repeat that "the whole world is against us" and count on force only as a means to settle the problem. As though the problem could be settled without being settled. Most probable - unfortunately - is that Israel will refuse to withdraw to the 1967 borders, although that's the very condition of a universally accepted settlement. Most probable is that it will continue to implement, with the United States' support, policies that make any solution impossible: completion of the wall that cuts the West Bank, annexation of territories on which "blocks f settlements" are built, occupation of the Jordan valley. In other words: constitute Israel as a ghetto surrounded by parcels of Palestinian territory and guarded by military forces capable of regularly launching punitive operations. In other words: war forever.

(Sélim Nassib's last book is Un amant en Palestine [A Lover in Palestine] published by Robert Laffont.)