Kasparov v. Cohen on the Future of Russia

Last night's Charlie Rose Show provided a welcome relief from the Lebanon war, the diverting topic of "The Future of Russia." Gary Kasparov faced off against Professor Stephen Cohen, who I believe is married to Katrina vanden Heuvel, millionaire oligarch of The Nation magazine. Charlie Rose, as usual, was completely out of his depth and didn't appear to know what anyone was talking about. But the Kasparov-Cohen faceoff was instructive. I actually came to like Kasparov, when he got sick and tired of Cohen's condescending attitude and snapped at him not to tell him what to do. Real Russian pride--just like the Russians I met in Moxcow, Kasparov didn't want to be bossed around, especially by an American. Good for Kasparov!

Let Russia be Russia...

I've printed some criticism of Kasparov on this page, but his backbone versus Cohen makes me think that he might actually be able to pull something off. And if not, he's still very good on TV. Next time, I hope Charlie Rose lets him appear solo.

You can watch the video here.

JTA Video News From Israel

Here's a link to the website of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

IsraPundit: 1948 Redux

From a Letter from a European Friend:

Israel is back where it started in 1948. Peace is impossible and negotiations lead to nowhere. What is left is only the use of force. But this is not without problems either. Israel is expected to fight without killing and this is clearly not possible. Muslim fundamentalists are simply not impressed by blowing up empty buildings. Neither do they care if their activities ruin the country from which they operate. Anyway they get their money from Iran. Basically Israel will need to kill a lot of Hezbollah terrorists in order to win this conflict, but the West will not allow this. Doing nothing would surely have been fatal, but this counter offensive in Lebanon could be very risky indeed. If Israel cannot, or is not allowed to, break Hezbollah then the North of Israel, including Haifa, might suffer missile attacks for a long time to come. I am sure that terrorists in the West-Bank are taking notice as well. Israel might very soon be confronted with a situation where missiles strike anywhere in the country at anytime.

Rabbi Aron Moss on Proportionality in War

From Arutz Sheva:

Q: Isn't Israel's response a bit disproportionate?

A: If Israel were merely taking revenge, then it would need to be proportionate. But Israel is waging a defensive war. Since when is war proportionate? In war, you don't measure your response to the enemy by what they have done to you in the past, but rather by what needs to be done to stop them attacking in the future. Israel's actions are proportionate to the threat, not to the damage done.


Q: Doesn't Israel understand that they are just creating more terrorists? The anger and fury at Israel as a result of bombing Lebanon will only make more people want to join Hizbullah.

A: Feelings of frustration, anger, fear and rage do not make you into a terrorist. A culture of death and an education of hate does. Israel doesn't need to do anything to create terrorists - Islamic extremism does that - but Israel must act to destroy those who threaten its people.

Q: Hizbullah indeed has a militant wing, but it also does a lot of good. They are responsible for social programs, educational projects and humanitarian work in South Lebanon. By destroying Hizbullah, Israel also destroys all the good they do. Isn't that demonising a group that is not all bad?

A: If a serial killer also happens to volunteer for his local hospital, has donated money to an orphanage, and looks after his ailing grandmother, he is still a serial killer, and should be treated as such. The danger he poses far outweighs the concern for any good he may do.

Q: By using violence, how is Israel any better than its terrorist enemies?

A: That is as ridiculous as saying that a woman who fights off an attacker is no better than her attacker. Israel would not touch Hizbullah if it did not attack. Israel seeks to live in peace with its neighbours; Hizbullah and its allies seek to destroy Israel, no matter what Israel does.

Look at the Hizbullah flag. It depicts a rifle lifted in the air. Violence is a part of its very identity. On the other hand, the very name of the Israeli army defines its purpose: the Israel Defense Forces. Its flag depicts an olive branch and a sword: peace is a priority; war is a last resort.

For Hizbullah, war is holy. For Israel, war can never be holy. War may be necessary, like when your citizens are being attacked unprovoked. War may be moral, like when innocent lives are being threatened; but even then, war is never holy.

There is a world of difference between a moral war and a holy war. A moral soldier fights reluctantly, while holy warriors glory in the fight. A moral soldier is burdened by the obligation, while holy warriors delight in the pain inflicted on the enemy. A moral soldier fights when there is no other option; a holy warrior seeks violence as a way of life. A moral soldier takes measures to limit innocent casualties; a holy warrior seeks to maximise them.

A holy warrior fears times of peace, because then he has no purpose. A moral soldier dreams of a time when peace will reign. Then, the Israel Defense Forces will be made joyously redundant, as "one nation will not lift a sword against another nation, and they will no longer learn to wage war."

Israel's Actions are Legal

In today's Washington Post--a paper whose news coverage of the war has quickly deteriorated from bad to worse--there is a quite reasonable defense brief for Israel's actions under international law, written by attorneys David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey:

Israel's conduct has been fully compliant with the applicable norms of international law.

The primary claim by Israel's critics is that it used force disproportionately in response to Hezbollah's initial attack against Israeli soldiers, eight of whom were killed and two captured. The underlying assumption appears to be that Israel should have treated these provocations as terrorist acts and limited its response accordingly, rather than as justifications for a full-scale attack on Lebanese territory.

But in determining the existence of a legitimate casus belli , a state is entitled to consider the entire context of the threat it faces. Hezbollah is not simply a terrorist gang, like Germany's Baader-Meinhof or Italy's Red Brigades. It is a substantial political and military organization that has more than 12,000 short- and medium-range rockets and that has operated freely on Lebanese territory for many years, periodically launching attacks against Israel. Its stated goal is Israel's destruction, and it is the client of a major regional power -- Iran -- whose government appears dedicated to the same goal.

Moreover, although international law requires a state to have a lawful reason to use force -- such as self-defense -- it does not mandate that a state limit its military response to "tit for tat" actions. Once a country has suffered an armed attack, it is entitled to identify the source of that attack and to eliminate its adversary's ability to attack again. Its actions must be consistent with otherwise applicable international norms, but it is not required to accept a limited conflict that fails to meet and resolve the danger it faces.

That Lebanon has suffered from Israel's actions does not change the legal rules involved. No state has the right to permit a foreign military force to use its territory to launch attacks against another country. Indeed, every country has an obligation to control its own territory. Lebanon's failure (or refusal) to expel Hezbollah would in and of itself have been a legitimate cause for Israeli military action. It was the Taliban's sheltering of al-Qaeda that was the basis of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan in 2001. And, although the current Lebanese government is certainly more democratic than the feudalistic Taliban, democratic credentials cannot insulate a state from responsibility for controlling its territory.

The specific aspects of Israel's military operations in Lebanon and Gaza have also been condemned as being disproportionate and as thereby violating the laws of war. Although there is some grim humor in the spectacle of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose troops have ravaged Chechnya, criticizing Israel for a "disproportionate" use of force, the claims -- including dark warnings from Louise Arbour, U.N. high commissioner for human rights, about "war crimes" liability for Israel's leaders -- are without merit.

If the authors are right, and I believe they are, then it certainly is time for Louise Arbour to go...

NATO's "Disproportionate" Bombing of Serbia

Among others at the time, the World Socialist Website condmned NATO for "disproportionate" attacks on Serbia in 2000:

Human rights advocates accuse NATO of deliberately bombing Serbia's civil infrastructure. The executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), Kenneth Roth, said the targets chosen by NATO were "disproportionate and should be found violations of international humanitarian law".

HRW is drawing up a detailed report that will be submitted to the war crimes tribunal at The Hague. Among the examples of targeting violations it will cite are electricity grids, oil refineries and radio and television stations.

The report is also expected to attack the use of cluster bombs by US and British aircraft. At least 5 percent of these bombs failed to explode on impact, and many lie unexploded in Kosovo, where HRW say they are still killing or maiming two civilians a day.

HRW place the number of civilian Serbs killed by NATO bombing at around 600, and Belgrade claims the figure is as high as 2,000. The charges being brought forward against NATO by HRW and others serve to unravel the tissue of lies assembled in Washington, London and Brussels to justify the bombardment of an innocent population.

Russia's "Disproportionate" Chechnya Campaign

From the BBC's December, 1999 report:

NATO has condemned Russia's military campaign in Chechnya, saying that disproportionate and indiscriminate force was being used against civilians.

The RAF's "Disproportionate" Bombing of Iraq

Anti-war websites also called Western military action in Iraq "disproportionate." For example, this Common Dreams post condemns Britian's Royal Air Force bombing of Iraq :

Ministers were last night asked to explain the circumstances in which the RAF participated in a spectacular increase in bombing raids on Iraq in apparent defiance of Foreign Office legal advice.

"It did not take very much to work out that the increase in bombing bore no relation to the protection of Iraqi citizens in the north or the south of the country," Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said referring to the ostensible reason for the "no-fly" zones. He told the Guardian: "The obvious explanation was that air defenses were being degraded deliberately and that any provocation by the Iraqi military would be met with a disproportionate response".

America's "Disproportionate" Bombing of Afghanistan

The condemnation of Israel reminded me that I had heard similar complaints about "disproportionate" use of force and civilian casualties before--from critics of America after the US bombed Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.

Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire has a website still dedicated to attacking the 2001-2002 Afghan campaign. Here's a sample of his criticism:

The American Afghan War -- historically the Fourth Afghan War -- is anything but a 'just war' as James Carroll has adroitly pointed out.26First, the disproportionate U.S. response of making an entire other nation and people 'pay' for the crimes of a few is obvious to anyone who seeks out the real 'costs' perpetrated upon the people of Afghanistan. Action should be based upon some measure of proportionality, which here clearly is not the case. Secondly, this war does little to impede the cycle of violence of which the WTC attacks are merely one manifestation. The massive firepower unleashed by the Americans will no doubt invite similar indiscriminate carnage. Injustices will flower. Thirdly, by defining these events as a war rather than a police action without providing any argument for the necessity of the former, the American Afghan War is un-necessary and, hence, not 'just.' As Carroll writes, "the criminals, not an impoverished nation, should be on the receiving end of punishment."

It is simply unacceptable for civilians to be slaughtered as a side-effect of an intentional strike against a specified target. There is no difference between the attacks upon the WTC whose primary goal was the destruction of a symbol, and the U.S-U.K. revenge coalition bombing of military targets located in populated urban areas. Both are criminal. Slaughter is slaughter. Killing civilians even if unintentional is criminal.

Sound familiar?

An Israel-Hezbollah War Blog

Here.

Here's an interesting graph from the blog, showing a pattern of recent Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel:

What Next for Israel & Lebanon?

Writing in Haaretz, Amos Harel says Israel's next steps will be tough. (ht War and Piece)

Where do we take it from here? The general staff admits that Nasrallah can go on firing at Israel for many days. Some of the officers are talking of the necessity for a diplomatic move, at the same time as the ground action, that will speed up the conclusion of the battles without the IDF's going into too many more villages and suffering heavy losses. But Israel still has two basic problems: Only a massive blow to Hezbollah can lessen its stranglehold over the Lebanese government, something which has not yet been achieved. Secondly, even if this is achieved, it will be necessary to have a very strong political arrangement to prevent Iran from rearming Hezbollah and waiting to open another round next summer.

Israeli TV News in English

You can watch here.

Francisco Gil-White:Why Hezbollah is Responsible for Civilian Casualties

Francisco Gil-White makes a logical case with this analogy:

The argument that the Israeli response is ‘too harsh’ says that some Lebanese civilians are dying as a result of Israeli firepower, and this means that Israel is guilty for their deaths and hence ‘too harsh’ in its response.

To see whether this is a valid argument, let us conduct another thought experiment.

Suppose that a criminal is shooting at you and your family. You shoot back in self-defense, to protect your spouse and children -- your life. Accidentally, you shoot dead a bystander. Question: Who is morally responsible for the death of the bystander? Morally responsible. You were not aiming for the bystander, and you would not have used your gun if this criminal had not been shooting at your family in the first place. And you do have an obligation to defend your family; you cannot simply turn your family over to anybody who is prepared to use violence. Therefore, the moral responsibility for the death of that bystander belongs to the man who decided to shoot at your family and in so doing forced you to perform your moral duty and defend it. If the bullet that killed the bystander came out of the barrel of your gun, that does not absolve the man who attacked your family, and neither does it convict you.

Now, consider the situation of Israel.

Hezbollah means to kill every last living Jew. Hezbollah is growing fast inside the Lebanese state across the border. And Hezbollah attacked Israeli civilians. When the Israeli government retaliated against Hezbollah, this was its moral obligation, because the Israeli government must protect Israeli citizens. Hezbollah must be destroyed because the purpose of Hezbollah is to kill all the Jews. No such organization can be allowed to exist, and recruit, and arm itself to the teeth. If we tolerate such organizations, we tolerate genocide. Therefore, Hezbollah must be destroyed. This is the morally correct thing to do.

In the effort to reduce Hezbollah, the Israeli government has not been able to keep casualties of Lebanese civilians to zero, this is true. It is a terrible thing when anybody dies, but we are not discussing whether this is good or bad -- we agree that the deaths of civilians are a terrible thing, and the same goes for the deaths of soldiers. What we are trying to do is decide whose fault this is.

Hezbollah’s core doctrine is to seek the total destruction of the civilian Jewish population, and it deliberately targets Jewish civilians. The Israeli government, by contrast, is not trying to kill Lebanese civilians: it is dropping leaflets to warn civilians before it strikes a place. And the Israeli government would not be shooting at all if Hezbollah had not attacked Israeli civilians in the first place. In attacking Hezbollah, the Israeli government is discharging its moral obligation to Israeli citizens, precisely in the manner that you protected your family in the above thought experiment. Israel is not guilty for the deaths of the bystanders. It is to Hezbollah that you should account these deaths, because Hezbollah forced the Israeli government to attack Hezbollah, and the Hezbollah ‘soldiers,’ like the cowards they are, hide among Lebanese civilians, thus endangering them.

David Horowitz v The Nation

Do readers of The Nation care about this David Horowitz blast?

The Nation’s current apologetics for the terrorist bloc continue a nearly 100-year tradition of its editor's support for the totalitarian enemies of America and the West. For nearly 100 years, the editors of the Nation explained and justified every Communist tyrant from Stalin to Castro; when terrorists slaughtered the innocent on 9/11, the Nation's editors decried American jingoism and America’s “empire;” they opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and they continue to attack the liberation of Iraq as an imperialist “occupation” and democratic America as a “terrorist state.”

But even in the context of this sordid record, the Nation’s present support for the agents of the second Holocaust marks for it a new moral low. Its role in this war, as in the war in Iraq, is too transparent to be defended. Its editors may not openly embrace the goal of eliminating the Jewish presence in the Middle East, and possibly can’t even admit to themselves that this is the radicals’ goal. But the Nation editors are nonetheless dedicated to justifying the jihadists who are pursuing this goal, and for that they cannot be forgiven.

Michelle Malkin on Hezbollah's American Victims

NGOs Repat Hezbollah Party Line

From NGO Monitor:

Following NGO Monitor's July 18 report, "NGOs quick to exploit Lebanon Crisis to attack Israel," a number of NGOs have issued further statements, many of which focus disproportionately on condemnations of Israel.

Common themes among the NGO statements include:

* Accusations of "disproportionate force" by Israel, with no explanation of what would comprise a proportionate response to Hezbollah terror attacks.

* Criticism of Israel's targeting of bridges, major roads and the Beirut Airport as "collective punishment," despite the clear military rationale of sealing off air and sea ports, roads and other such targets to prevent the re-supply of arms from Syria and Iran.

* No mention that Hezbollah's concrete reinforced military headquarters are located under buildings in southern Beirut, and that the positioning of military/guerrilla installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7), relating to human shields. Hezbollah also stores and launches missiles from civilian villages in southern Lebanon, but no NGO explores the human rights implications of Hezbollah's use of human shields.

* Few NGOs call for the release of the two abducted Israeli soldiers.

Pierre Rehov's Middle East Documentaries

Thanks to a mention by Phyllis Chesler, I found filmmaker Pierre Rehov's website, a welcome alternative to the mainstream media, which reveals how enemies of Israel deliberately use women and children as part of their war and propaganda machine--then blame Israel for any deaths or injuries...:

"Palestinian mythology is based on an absurd "martyrdom
philosophy" that every reporter working in the "territories" is forced to buy, in order to work safely.

There is no freedom of press under the Palestinian Authority, and no journalist can report honestly without risking is life.

Palestinians deserve a country and self determination, but that will not happen as long as Israelis are described the way they are by most TV networks.

That leads to a situation where Palestinians are not considered grown-ups, while Jews are demonized in the same way they have been during the worst periods of their tragic history.

If a Palestinian child is found in the streets, throwing stones at a soldier, you have to ask yourself: "Who sent him there? Where are the parents ? Who is hiding with a gun behind him?"

I saw that happen many times, and I am asking you:

If you want to protect Palestinian children, don't let them be used as human shields by Muslim extremists! Don't keep silent! Do something, now!"

Who is an Israeli? (cont'd.) by Joseph Agassi

From Joseph Agassi's eulogy for Hillel Kook:

Hillel Kook said repeatedly that Israel’s leadership stole form
the Israeli people their nationality. The French Jew is both French and
Jewish. The American Jew is both American and Jewish. Only Israeli
Jews are not Israelis. OF course, Israel is a Jewish state the way Franc
is a Catholic state. And why can an Israeli not declare, as Hillel Kook
did repeatedly, I am 100% a Jew and 100% an Israeli? Why not?
Because if this were admitted, than it would also be admitted that
Israel has also nationals who are 100% Israeli but not Jewish at all,
but Muslim or Christian or Druse, or whatever else they may be.
Israeli Jews find this unacceptable. And on the ground that Israel must
be the state of all Jews no matter where they live. And this on the
ground that we must avoid the repetition of the shameful abandonment
of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. And so Israelis find the
right to religious discrimination in the Holocaust and in the
irresponsibility of their leadership then.

Religious discrimination has made Israel bi-national de facto.
As long as she maintains a national minority, said Hillel Kook, she
will not be viable. Most regrettably, recent events prove him right.
The national minority in Israel ahs the peculiar status. Its members
have the right to elect and to be elected, but not to bear arms. This
amounts to the idea that weapons speak louder than laws, that soldiers
are mightier than legislators. This is an intolerable insult to the laws,
and it introduces violence into all areas of life here. In Israel there is a
clear preference for contempt for the law, since the settlers violate the
law of the land. They imitate the heroic settlers in the period of the
British Mandate. In that period the British government had betrayed
its Mandate. Today the Israeli premiere praises the lawbreakers and
thus belittles the law and the government that rules by the law and
himself as its head.

Hillel Kook demanded all his life that we establish an Israeli
Republic that will be a normal nation-state in the western liberal
democratic pattern so that its government could initiate practical
political solutions to the difficult problems of the day that no Israeli
leader claims to have a plan for its solutions. Hillel Kook changed his
positions repeatedly in the light of changing circumstances and in
accord with the principle that a responsible government should display
one-sided political initiative. He was amazingly free of dogma. The
fact that he stuck to the idea of nationalism has no basis in any dogma.
It rests on two facts. First the sense of duty that he had towards the
people who dwell in Zion. The second is the absence, to date, of any
form of government that is preferable to the western-style liberal
democratic nation-state. This form is far from perfect. He was
convince that a day will come and nations will disappear, so he wrote,
and the unity of all humanity will prevail. But he added to this that if
we will not fulfill our national purposes, then we will have no
descendents to witness that great day. It is a matter of life and death.
We take leave of Hillel Kook with the promise not to forget his
message. It is a matter of life and death.

Art Kills 2, Injures 13

In England, according to the Guardian:

Two women were killed and a three-year-old girl seriously injured yesterday when wind flipped an inflatable art installation 30 feet into the air, tipping out as many as 30 visitors.

The accident at the Riverside Park, Chester-le-Street, County Durham, left another 12 people needing hospital treatment. They included an elderly man and woman who suffered heart attacks.

It happened at around 3.30pm when the Dreamspace inflatable, five metres high and the size of half a football pitch, broke its moorings, rose up and moved about 60 feet. The Arts Council-funded PVC installation crashed to the ground after colliding with a CCTV camera post.

Saudi Arabia to Join Moscow's Lebanon Push?

Middle East diplomacy could be getting interesting, according to Russia's RIA Novosti:

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister and national security chief will arrive in Moscow Tuesday to discuss ways to curb violence in the Middle East, the Saudi foreign ministry said.

UN Official Blames Hezbollah for Civilian Deaths

Let's see if this statement by UN representative Jan Egeland gets the Western media coverage that it deserves:

On Monday, he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel, captured two soldiers and killed eight others on July 12, triggering fierce fighting.

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

(ht lgf)

An Animated Map of Hezbollah Rocket Attacks

In case your local newspaper or television news didn't mention this, here's a link to a flash animation map of Hezbollah's rocket launches:

Names of Israeli villages and towns hit by missiles:
Ein Keniye, HaGoshrim, Beit Hillel, Amir, Ne’ot Mordekhai, Ma’ayan Baruch, Misgav Am, Rajar, Kfar HaNasi, Tuba, Amiad, Korazim, Kfar Zeitim, Kfar Hittim, Kfar Yuval, Or HeGanuz, Safsufa, Peki’in, Yechiam, Tzuriel, Alkush, Matat, Shumrah, Ben-Ami, Evron, Abu-Snan, Mitzpe Shlagim, Har Hermon, Tel Dan, Hulata, Mishmar HaYarden, Machana’im, Gush Chalav, Dishon, Yiftach, Malkieh, Bar’am, Sasa, Dovev, Biranit, Majad El-Krum, Even Menahem, Kabri, Gesher HaZiv, Achziv, Chorfesh, Hanita, Kiryat Motzkin, Kiryat Haim, Kiryat Yam, Kiryat Tivon, Kfar Szold, Sde Eliezer, Dalton, Ma’alot, Hosen, Bustan HaGalil, Julis, Tel El, Lochamei HaGhettaot, Nazareth, Haifa, Tiberius, Acre, Kiryat Shmona, Manara, Avivim, Hazor HaGlilit, Ramot, Rosh Pina, Yesud HaMa’ala, Shetula, Meron, Safed, Nahariah, Nesher, Migdal Ha”Emek, Afula.

(ht Michelle Malkin)

Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Am Israel Chai...I'll be back"

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Governator spoke at a pro-Israel rally in Los Angeles:

Schwarzenegger told the crowd, "It is great to be here during this difficult time Israel is facing. We are all here to support the State of Israel.

"While we all regret the loss of innocent life, there is no doubt that Israel has the right to take all appropriate steps to keep its people safe.

"I have been to Israel many times," he said. "I started in the '70s as a body-building champion. I went back in the '80s as the Terminator. I went back in the '90s to open my Planet Hollywood restaurant, and Israel was the first country that I visited after I became governor of the great state of California."

"There is nothing Israel wants more than to live in peace. That is why I am happy to be here to be supportive of that here today ...Am Israel Chai...I'll be back," said the governor.

Benjamin Netanyahu: No Cease Fire in Lebanon

From the Wall Street Journal:

At stake in the current operation is not only Israel's security, Lebanon's democratic future, and stability in the region, but a central principle in the war on terror. Soon after Sept. 11, President Bush made clear that America would no longer make a distinction between the terrorists and the regimes that harbor them. This policy is essential because international terrorism cannot survive without the support of sovereign states.

In order for the global terror network to be dismantled, its support by sovereign states must end--whether that supports comes in the form of actively perpetrating terror attacks (as in the case of Iran and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority), providing safe havens for terror groups (as in the case of Syria) or not acting against terror groups within their borders (as is the case in Lebanon). A world in which the international community does not hold states accountable for the terrorism that emanates from within their borders is a world in which the war on terror cannot be won.

That is why any cease-fire or diplomatic effort that does not have as its objective the disarming of Hezbollah will only strengthen the forces of terror. And that is also why the world should fully support Israel in disarming Hezbollah--for Israel's sake, for Lebanon's sake and for the sake of our common future.

Russia Enters Lebanon Crisis

When we lived in Moscow last year, it seemed to be full of Syrians. We even ran into them in a cafe at the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall, where they were doing "business" over espresso and croissants. Now, it appears that Russia may be using Syrian connections to broker a peace deal in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel--and if they can pull it off, show up the USA--according to The Moscow Times:

Russian and German intelligence services are trying to help secure the release of three Israeli solders captured by Palestinian and Lebanese militants, Germany's DPA news agency reported Friday.

Both countries' spies have a history of dealing with Hezbollah and Hamas, and Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency has brokered prisoner swaps between Israel and Hezbollah in the past.

A spokesman for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service declined to comment about the DPA report on Friday.

International Federation of Journalists Sides with Hezbollah

And, according to Haaretz, Israeli members have resigned in protest:

A group of Israeli journalists renounced their membership in the International Federation of Journalists yesterday, after the organization's general secretary refused to retract his condemnation of the Israel's bombing of Hezbollah's Al-Manar television station in Beirut.

IFJ General Secretary Aiden White proposed coming to Israel to settle the dispute, but Israeli journalist and IFJ member Yaron Anosh told him that as long as the censure remained in effect, White would be unwelcome in Israel.

The Israel Air Force attacked Hezbollah's television station shortly after it began its offensive in Lebanon last week. The IFJ said in a statement last weekend that the strike is "a clear demonstration that Israel has a policy of using violence to silence media it does not agree with."

IFJ members in Israel demanded that this statement be retracted immediately and asked why the IFJ did not condemn Hezbollah for firing rockets at Israeli journalists. After the IFJ refused to retract its condemnation, six Israeli members announced their immediate resignation.

"I have no intention of being a card-carrying member of an organization that would give a similar card to a Hezbollah member, whether he is firing a Katyusha or serving as the group's propaganda officer at its TV station," Anosh said. "A terrorist is not a journalist, and if an international organization prefers to have terrorists as members - then count us out."

Fouad Ajami on the Lebanon War

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Mediterranean vocation of Lebanon as a land of enlightenment and commerce may have had its exaggerations and pretense. But set it against the future offered Lebanon by Syria, and by Tehran's theocrats seeking a diplomatic reprieve for themselves by setting Lebanon on fire, and Lebanon's choice should be easy to see.

The Lebanese, though, are not masters of their own domain. They will need protection and political support; they will need to see the will and the designs of the radical axis contested by resolute American power, and by an Arab constellation of states that can convince the Shiites of Lebanon that there is a place for them in the Arab scheme of things. For a long time, the Arab states have worked through and favored the Sunni middle classes of Beirut, Sidon and Tripoli. This has made it easy for Iran--overcoming barriers of language and distance--to make its inroads into a large Shiite community awakening to a sense of power and violation. To truly turn Iran back from the Mediterranean, to check its reach into Beirut, the Arab world needs to rethink the basic compact of its communities, and those Shiite stepchildren of the Arab world will have to be brought into the fold.

Lebanon's strength lies in its weakness, went an old maxim. And the Arab states themselves were for decades egregious in the way they treated Lebanon, shifting onto it the burden of the Palestinian fight with Israel, acquiescing in the encroachments on its sovereignty by the Palestinians and the Syrians--encroachments often subsidized with Arab money. Iran then picked up where the Arab states left off. Now that weakness of the Lebanese state has become a source of great menace to the Lebanese, and to their neighbors as well.

No one can say with confidence how this crisis will play out. There are limits on what Israel can do in Lebanon. The Israelis will not be pulled deeper into Lebanon and its villages and urban alleyways, and Israel can't be expected to disarm Hezbollah or to find its missiles in Lebanon's crannies. Finding the political way out, and working out a decent security arrangement on the border, will require a serious international effort and active American diplomacy. International peacekeeping forces have had a bad name, and they often deserve it. But they may be inevitable on Lebanon's border with Israel; they may be needed to buy time for the Lebanese government to come into full sovereignty over its soil.

The Europeans claim a special affinity for Lebanon, a country of the eastern Mediterranean. This is their chance to help redeem that land, and to come to its rescue by strengthening its national army and its bureaucratic institutions. We have already seen order's enemies play their hand. We now await the forces of order and rescue, and by all appearances a long, big struggle is playing out in Lebanon. This is from the Book of Habakkuk: "The violence done to Lebanon shall overwhelm you" (2:17). The struggles of the mighty forces of the region yet again converge on a small country that has seen more than its share of history's heartbreak and history's follies.

Ze'ev Schiff: 2006 is not 1982

Haaretz's veteran defense correspondent explains why this Lebanon war is different from the other one:

The two wars are even different in terms of modus operandi. In 1982, IDF divisions launched a ground offensive from the south, and Israeli forces were also brought in by naval craft so that they could reach Beirut and proceed northward to join up with the Phalangists. Today, the Israel Air Force and Military Intelligence are leading the offensive. The IAF can launch quicker, more precise strikes thanks to its guided weapons; furthermore, aerial attacks mean fewer casualties.

Yet the IAF alone obviously cannot solve all the problems, including the presence of thousands of rockets in Lebanon. Many people, including citizens of Arab states, understand that this time, Israel is facing not one Palestinian organization fighting for its nation's independence, but two radical Islamic terrorist organizations plus a state like Iran, which seek Israel's annihilation, and Syria besides.

Israel circa 2006 is trying to avoid repeating the mistakes it made in the 1982 war. Little wonder that many people today support Israel, in contrast to the past, when international public opinion was hostile to Israel. If Israel makes no substantive changes in its objectives, takes greater care to avoid harming the Lebanese people and keeps its operations to the proper proportions, the support it enjoys in the present war will continue unabated.

Louise Arbour Should Resign

Israel's ambassador to Canada has complained about UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's call for war crimes charges against Israel:

"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says.

I'll go further than that. She should resign at once. If not, John Bolton, our man in Turtle Bay, should demand that she be fired.

It is outragous and immoral to prejudge any case about war crimes against anyone. Tellingly, Ms. Arbour didn't call for war crimes charges to be brought against Hezbollah or its Iranian and Syrian backers. Which means she's taken sides--with people who deliberately target civilians, threaten to destroy an entire nation (fyi, Ms. Arbour, that's called "genocide"), and commit acts of agression that are obvious "causus belli."

For America to regain some prestige, and the UN begin to be cleansed of its anti-Jewish cabal, Ms. Arbour must go NOW.

"Be Polite--Or Else!"

Reader's Digest ranked New York City number one in the world for politeness and good manners in the June issue. How come? They cite a number of factors, even interviewed Ed Koch who cites 9/11, but don't mention the factor I remember best (I'm a native New Yorker)--Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "Be Polite--Or Else!" campaign. It was part of his quality of life initiative, where he eliminated "squeegee men", cleared homeless off the streets, cracked down on crime, and enforced anti-nuisance laws. Guess what? It worked like a charm--long before September 11th. So, when the Reader's Digest testers examined over 30 cities worldwide, New York came out on top. If Giuliani could turn NY city around, he can turn the country around, IMHO. (London and Paris tied for 17th place, btw).

Letter from Italy

Last night we watched Marcello Mastroianni with hypnotic fascination--as well as lots of laughs--in Divorce Italian Style, via Netflix. Five stars.

Which reminds us that our friend at This 'n That is blogging from Italy:

Currently it is extremely hot and humid here in Orvieto, Italy where this writer has been since early Sunday morning. Sweltering is a better word. I was here for the same reason last year, and found the weather more tolerant with many more cool breezes and lower temperatures. But it was the first of July rather than mid to late July then. The tourist season seems to be at its peak, too. Sunday morning of my arrival, as I sat on the steps of the Cattolica Universita, I observed bus after bus come and go, each one so full that several passengers had their faces pressed against the window glass. Contorted as these strange faces were, it did not prevent them from bounding out of each bus, cameras at the ready, to begin recording every step they took towards the famous Duomo...

Israel & the Arabs v. Iran

Michael Rubin writes in the Wall Street Journal:

An old Arab proverb goes, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger." Forced to make a choice, Sunni Arabs are deciding: The Jews are cousins; the Shiites, strangers. U.S. diplomats may applaud the new pragmatism, but the reason behind it is nothing to celebrate.

Who Is An Israeli? by Eliyho Matz

From a recent speech about the Lebanon war by Ehud Olmert, it looks like the Israeli Prime Minister may secretly agree with Eliyaho Matz that the moment has come for Israel to recognize it is more than just a Jewish state:

In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence, of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual responsibility.

I highly value and appreciate the way the Opposition has been conducting itself in the Knesset these days. The human competition and personal rivalries are dissolved and instead our feeling of mutual responsibility arises, our sense of partnership, and primarily, our eternal love for our people and our land.

This is such a moment! All of us - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians - now stand as one person, as one nation, subject together to the same hatred and malice, and fighting against it in consensus and partnership.

When missiles are launched at our residents and cities, our answer will be war with all the strength, determination, valor, sacrifice and dedication which characterize this nation.

In this context--and Hezbollah's kidnapping Arab Bedouin Druze Israeli soldiers to start a major war--this essay building on ideas first expressed by Hillel Kook and Samuel Merlin, two founders of the Irgun who served in the the first Israeli Knesset, seems particularly timely:

Who Is An Israeli?
by Eliyho Matz
Throughout the centuries, Jews have lived dispersed over many lands. They have always considered themselves a Religion-Nation, and the world has likewise recognized them as such. This concept originated over a period when Jews lived without sovereignty over a specific, identified territory of their own.

But since then, times and political conditions have drastically changed. In 1948, Palestinian Jews achieved what for many generations had been an impossible and imaginary dream, for in that year, they won both self-determination and sovereignty over a parcel of the land which in ancient times had been inhabited by their ancestors. With the ruling Palestinian Jewish leadership’s declaration proclaiming Israel to be an independent nation, the political status of this branch of the world’s Jews consequently changed from that of a non-sovereign people to a new, sovereign political entity. The process was very traumatic; nonetheless, a change was in fact achieved, although in practice its political ramifications still go unrealized many years after the event.

Regrettably, a majority of people outside and inside of Israel seem to view the State of Israel as an oversized, social community of Jews rather than as a political entity. The cost of this thinking has been the loss of a political identity for the nation’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike. Consequently, the most important decision concerning the survival of the Israeli nation is rooted in an unnamed and almost undiscussed subject, which I will name the Israeli Political Identity (IPI). This is not to say that the State of Israel is without many other problems, nor to imply that the IPI issue alone, once resolved, will automatically eliminate all internal and external difficulties for Israel. But it is essential that this matter of IPI be recognized and addressed before a safe and better future with a vision of lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors can be secured.

Israel’s current political confusion is an offshoot of the identity problem and can serve as an aid in understanding the IPI. Political issues in Israel fall, for one reason or another, into two arenas: the first is Israel’s political relationship with world Jewry; the second is Israel’s attitude toward the so-called Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People. In this short essay, I will attempt to examine and suggest solutions to these two concerns.

Israel’s Political Relations with World Jewry
Until the creation of the State of Israel, Zionism was a confused political, social and religious movement among a minority of world Jewry. In 1948, when Israel was declared an independent nation, a home for those Jews who desired it, Zionism as a political movement achieved its final political goal. In the years since Israel’s independence, a myth has evolved which suggests that there exists a uniformity of interests between Israel and world Jewry, a claim which is now especially associated with American Jewry. However, Israelis must come to the realization that American Jews cannot be expected to conduct themselves as though they are living in Tel Aviv, and this concept must be clear to all parties involved. The fact is, I find it dubious to assume that similar interests do exist between Israelis and American Jews. It stands to reason that the political, economical and social differences between the two societies and nations would make divergences inevitable. By the same token, many American Jews seem to think that Israel exists as a protector of American interests in the Middle East; this clearly is likewise a very dubious notion. As of yet, divergent priorities have caused no serious breach in the US-Israeli relationship. But the situation is not static. It is clear that Israeli national interests cannot be expected always to coincide with American or American-Jewish interests, and vice-versa, and the same holds true vis-à-vis Israel’s relationship with Jewish communities worldwide. This basic reality must be recognized before a meaningful relationship can be built between Israeli Jews and Jews of other nations.

This notion that there exists a common interest among all Jews is a fundamental misconception nurtured by the fact that Israel is a State which is not founded upon modern political precepts. It is the only state in the world that belongs, supposedly, not to a defined population of citizens, but rather to an ill-defined international body of people, at the cost of denying definition to its actual population. The fact is that a large sector of Israeli leadership, both on the Right and on the Left, are prepared to wait, as long as necessary, for the “Jewish People” to come “Home,” a concept which is of course politically absurd, and which in practice, produces an astonishing measure of political confusion for all Israelis who must ask themselves how they fit into this scenario.

Israel can be defined as a theocracy which was established by a secular majority. As it is politically organized now, the State does not officially concern itself with, or for that matter, acknowledge, its own people, the “Israelis,” as a political or social entity that is significant and worthwhile in itself with its own essence as a nation. To date, Israeli political leaders still do not grasp the fact that in 1948, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations community to be a sovereign state, an opportunity was given to Palestinian Jews to determine their own political identity, or in political terms, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty. It seems as though Israeli politicians do not wish to deal with this fact at all. But this is the crux of Israel’s existence: i.e., how to deal with its own self-determination, sovereignty and political identity.

Certain errors have been made by Israeli political leaders since the establishment of the Israeli nation. One fundamental failing that has led to this deep confusion concerning identity is the circumstance whereby the Constituent Assembly was abolished on the same day that it was assembled, and no constitution was ever drawn, either on that date or at any later date. Consequently in Israel a body of laws has taken the place of a desired constitution. And although these laws legally serve as a substitute for a constitution, they avoid dealing with many of the State’s most vital questions. For example, they fail to set forth a clear definition of such national concerns as civil liberties, the relationship between Nationality and Religion, and just who constitutes its citizenry. Since each of Israel’s political parties maintains its own national goals, no consensus has ever been reached on the manner in which the State should treat both its neighbors and its own non-Jewish, yet Israeli inhabitants. Israel’s isolation in the region is first of all a problem stemming from its lack of political definition vis-à-vis the question “Who is an Israeli?”, which is not to be mistaken for the legitimate theological question” Who is a Jew?” There was no need to establish a State in order to define this latter question. Hence, if no Israeli national identity exists, then the term “citizenship” is not serious, as it does not include non-Jewish Israelis, and to possess “citizenship” means nothing more than to hold a bureaucratic paper. It would thus follow that if there exists no Israeli Nation, then Israelis are just wasting their time in their desire to pursue self-determination. However, an Israeli Nation does exist, but it is a Nation that does not acknowledge its own existence.

Why as Jew and as an Israeli who lives in Israel must one also have to define himself as a Zionist? It is a paradox today that Zionism, a confused, politically and religiously undefined ideology, does not in essence recognize the State of Israel. For according to the Zionists, Israel does not belong to Israelis, but rather to a whole mixed spread of Jewish people. There is an attempt among Zionists to make the uniqueness of Jews, and Jewish life, a norm in Israel. As an example of the Zionist stand, one must only look at the phenomenon whereby Zionist Congresses continued to be held even following the proclamation of Israel’s statehood, just as they had been held before this event. One can only wonder whether it would thus follow that the State of Israel were suddenly to vanish, then too the Zionist Congresses would likewise continue to convene as if nothing had ever happened.

It is not possible, practical or desirable to force Israeli national allegiance upon the Jews of the world. One must become accustomed to the idea that there are well-meaning Jews who prefer not to live in Israel; also, that there are Jews living outside of Israel who are politically different from Israelis. This in no sense should imply that Israeli Jews and other Jews cannot develop a meaningful cultural or any other type of positive relationship, if they should so desire. But it does draw a line to the fact that not all Jews belong to the same political entity, and consequently no unfaltering political connection or destiny does or can exist between Jews of Israel and Jews of other nations. Certain steps must be taken immediately in order to effect a drastic change in this state of political confusion in Israel. This then leads us to the second part of this paper.

Israel’s Attitude Toward Israeli Arabs & the Palestinian People
The solution to the question concerning Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People constitutes part of the confusion of the IPI. In political terms, the solution is very simple: the government of Israel must give Israeli Arabs a political option to become part of the Israeli Nation. This would include military service or other similar options on their part, and full citizenship in return. If, on the other hand, an Israeli Arab should choose not to become a citizen, then he would be able to become a resident, such as the US offers, in which case he would be required to obey the laws of the land and would be able to work, but he would be unable to vote or voice otherwise justifiable complaints that he is a second-class citizen. Should this political goal be realized, it would, I believe, effect a giant change and debate among Israelis, as well as a change towards Israel’s chances for survival in the region. However, the mentality in Israel today is such that everyone speaks of the Palestinian people in the West Bank as a problem, while ignoring the core issue of a million Israeli Arabs who carry Israeli identity cards, yet do not see themselves as part of the Israeli nation.

Political recognition must also be given to the Palestinian people. Their political identity has developed throughout the years and has been shaped without question and with Israel’s help.

The Palestinian problem has to be faced squarely and realistically. There is a Palestinian people! I see no reason to continue claiming that there is no such people In the long run, the Palestinians and the Israelis will have to develop the best of relations and cooperation because of the geopolitics of the area. This will lead to the promise of a better future for both nations and to the potential prosperity of the region.

The material presented here as a suggestion for a different Israel must be initiated by the Israeli Government. Before this can happen, however, some major political changes will have to occur in the State of Israel. Among them are the following:
- A separation between Religion and Nationality. This distinction would, on one side, strengthen respect for religion and religious people and enable religion to be a moral driving force behind Israeli society. On the other side, a constitution separated from religious biases would set the foundation for a workable solution to the question of Israeli nationals, a group to include anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who desires to swear loyalty to Israel.

- The abolition of the Law of Return. This act would serve to diminish further Yerida, as it would finally amend Israel’s discriminatory attitude toward its own citizens. The rescinding of the Law of Return does not mean that Israel would turn its back upon persecuted Jews. But is would mean recognition of the idea that fifty years is a long enough period of time for Jews so desiring to have returned to Israel. All laws of immigration must be reexamined and modernized in their approach. Clearly, however, in any case where Jews are in physical danger, the State of Israel would as policy do anything possible to extend aid, bringing outside victims to Israel only if they should so desire. To promote Aliyah and condemn Yerida would no longer be a matter of the State. Jews of all nations and Israelis would be free to choose where they want to reside.

- A change in the role of the Zionist movement, which would hence come to recognize the State of Israel as a political and sovereign entity. The Zionist movement might then be replaced by a new body, if such is desired, which might be called, for example, “Friends of Israel.” This organization would not be involved in Israeli politics and could perhaps carry out a more constructive role by undertaking various sorts of social work or cultural projects in Israel. It might also serve as a friendly ambassador for the State of Israel among Jews and non-Jews living outside the State.

James Na on Sex Slavery in DC

James Na says that he's seen evidence of trafficking in persons in Our Nation's Capital:

It says "Sauna, body shampoo, table shower, body scrape, massage, private room" on top, followed by "New Management, "Spa 14K: We have really different choices," "We take credit card."

This "spa," by the way, is only one block away from my office, amidst all the lobbying firms and such. The ad, along with several others like it, was found in "Korea Entertainment Weekly" published by none other than The Washington Times! So much for family values (to be fair, The Washington Post also runs ads for "escort service" and such, apparently).

The image of a demure, vulnerable Asian young woman clutching her knees has all the markings of a brothel ad.

Katherine Chon of Polaris Project, a pioneering non-proft that combats trafficking in persons, told me that such a place is usually run by ethnic Koreans in D.C. On the question of whether the "spa employees" are voluntary prostitutes or victims of trafficking, she told me that the answer is difficult to ascertain due to scarcity of information ("the women are rotated often") and because the boundary is blurred to the extent that some women/victims have trouble telling it apart due to "conditioning."

Coercion, whether actively physical abuse or threats/psychological intimidation (or of deportation), is widely suspected to be used, but again, without the ability to interview the women, it is difficult to tell.

Some Chicago Landmarks

Last time we took the Gangland tour of Chicago. This visit, we were more cultured, attending a performance of three late Shostakovitch string quartets, performed by the Emerson Quartet at the Ravinia summer music festival; taking an architectural boat tour of historic buildings in 90 degree plus weather (melting...); seeing Frank Gehry's bandstand in Millenium Park next to the Chicago Art Institute; visiting the new Harold Washington Public Library; lunching at the University of Chicago's Newbold Club after touring Frank Lloyd Wrignt's Robie House; and driving north and south on Lake Shore Drive, watching the bathers swimming in the shade of the skyscrapers. What a city...Powell's Bookstore in Hyde Park--the original shop opened by Michael Powell, who went on to found Portland Oregon's Powell's books.
A 16-foot high Assyrian monument from Khorasand, at the Oriental Institute, now in the headlines over a lawsuit concerning Iranian treasures claimed as damages for terrorist attacks.
Nelson Algren's apartment, where he wrote the Man with the Golden Arm, is on the top floor of this building on Evergreen Avenue.
Louis Sullivan's 1910 Russian Orthodox Church in Wicker Park was dedicated and consecrated by Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow.
View of Chicago from the Wicker Park station.
Marshall Field's famous clock, topped by a chef's toque--to go with the display windows that displayed recipes instead of clothes. This is the end of the line for Chicago's landmark department store--Federated will be changing it to Macy's...

John LeBoutillier: Israel Must Finish the Job

John LeBoutillier sounds like Daniel Pipes:

Israel Defense Minister - and Labor Party Leader Peretz - said on Sunday that “everywhere I go, Israeli citizens say they wish this didn’t have to happen but now that it has, we should go and finish the job.”

“Finishing the job” is the debate today in Prime Minister Olmert’s cabinet.

Now, as the role of the United States: yes, President Bush was correct in saying that Israel was invaded and has every right to defend itself. And Secretary Rice was also correct - in geopolitical terms - to call for Israeli ‘restraint’ - even if we privately approve of Israel’s aggressive counterstrikes in Lebanon.

This battle is part of the world-wide Radical Muslim jihad against the USA and Israel. The only way to survive is to kill the leaders who ordered these attacks on Israel - and, of course, on the USA on 9/11.

Ann Coulter on Israel's Lebanon War

Ann Coulter says Israel's military action is too restrained:

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.

Daniel Pipes: Israel Must Finish the Job

Daniel Pipes says Israel must go all the way:

With the emergence of an aggressive and perhaps soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, the strategic map of the Middle East is in the throes of fundamental change. This overarching threat should provide the backdrop for every Israeli decision going forward — whether to retake territory in Gaza, what to target in Lebanon and whether to launch military actions against Syria.

Paradoxically, developments of the past week bring good news: Many Middle Easterners, not just Israelis, fear Iranian ambitions. Worries about Iran prompted the Saudi kingdom to take the lead in condemning attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel as "rash adventures." As the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh has documented, Israel's counterattacks have prompted "an anti-Hezbollah coalition." Sound Israeli policies will greatly influence the evolution of this nascent force.

As Arabs worry more about Iranian Islamists than Israeli Zionists, a moment of opportunity presents itself. Close coordination between Washington and Jerusalem is needed, including timely reminders to Israelis that they have a war to win.

US Networks Censor Bush

My old acquaintance, Billboard Magazine's Brooks Boliek, has the story:

President Bush's use of the S-word points out the quandary that the nation's indecency laws ensnare broadcasters.

While cable networks are free to air Bush's quote in its entirety -- and it has been burning up the Internet -- broadcast networks risk fines and even their licenses by airing it without bleeping the word.

Bush's candid remark to British Prime Minister Tony Blair was picked up by an open microphone during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit. In the remarks, he expressed his frustration with the United Nations, Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and the group's backers in Syria.

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Video clips of the remark were available on the Internet soon after that, but broadcast industry executives and attorneys said in an interview that airing the remark would put them at risk of FCC sanctions.

"I guess the FCC has performed a new feat by forcing broadcasters to censor the leader of the free world," one executive quipped.

IMHO Bush's frank comment sparked some personal support for the President. For the first time in years, I liked what I heard, and think the President might want to speak like this a little more often.

Speaking of CNN...

CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld, now retired, has some decidedly non-anti-Israel musings posted on his blog, Bits & Pieces.

Now it’s Lebanon. So long as the Syrians ran the country they held Hezbollah somewhat in check because they didn’t want the Israelis to do to Damascus what they’re now doing to Beirut. The poor Lebanese, Christians and Sunnis alike, don’t have the power to reign in the terrorists; Israel is hit, Beirut is devastated and the western world wonders what it can do about it, if anything.

Often it’s better to leave bad things alone.

Thank Goodness for Fox News...

Sitting in a hotel room in Chicago, after visiting a sick friend, channel-surfed the cable TV. After a while, I found I could only watch Fox TV coverage of the Lebanon war. The other channels were so anti-Israel, it was unbelievable. Seemed like pure Hezbollah propaganda. Worse than a crime, a blunder to watch CNN. Fox provided a welcome island of sanity amidst the madness on other cable and broadcast networks. I loved their interview with Newt Gingrich about political strategies to wipe out Hezbollah.

"We report, you decide," they say. OK, I've decided. On this one, I'm with Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume all the way...

Daniel Pipes: Israel Undoing a Decade of Mistakes

Daniel Pipes says that the Lebanon war may turn back the clock in Israeli-Arab relations--and if so, it might be a good thing:

Decades of hard work before 1993 won Israel the wary respect of its enemies. By contrast, episodic displays of muscle have no utility. Should Israel resume the business-as-usual of appeasement and retreat, the present fighting will turn out to be a summer squall, a futile lashing-out. By now, Israel's enemies know they need only hunker down for some days or weeks and things will go back to normal, with the Israeli left in obstructionist mode and the government soon proffering gifts, trucking with terrorists, and yet again in territorial retreat.

Deterrence cannot be reinstated in a week, through a raid, a blockade, or a round of war. It demands unwavering resolve, expressed over decades. For the current operations to achieve anything for Israel beyond emotional palliation, they must presage a profound change in orientation. They must prompt a major rethinking of Israeli foreign policy, a junking of the Oslo and disengagement paradigms in favor of a policy of deterrence leading to victory.

The pattern since 1993 has been consistent: Each disillusionment inspires an orgy of Israeli remorse and reconsideration, followed by a quiet return to appeasement and retreat. I fear that the Gaza and Lebanon operations are focused not on defeating the enemy but on winning the release of one or two soldiers – a strange war goal, one perhaps unprecedented in the history of warfare – suggesting that matters will soon enough revert to form.

In other words, the import of hostilities under way is not what has been destroyed in Lebanon nor what the U.N. Security Council resolves; it is what the Israeli public learns, or fails to learn.

NGOs Join Hezbollah's Attacks

There they go again...

NGO-Monitor reports that international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International Have turned a blind eye to international law, in order to support Hezbollah against Israel. For example:

AI also failed to mention that Hizbollah's military headquarters are located in southern Beirut, and that the positioning of military/guerrilla installations in residential areas is considered a war crime, as defined by Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention, article 51(7), relating to human shields. Hizbollah also store and launch missiles from civilian villages in southern Lebanon, but this is not criticized by AI. The NGO charged that IDF strikes on infrastructure targets constitute "collective punishment", despite the clear military rationale of sealing off air and sea ports, roads and other such targets to prevent the re-supply of arms from Syria and Iran. In contrast, Amnesty failed to condemn Hizbollah's initial aggression or to call for the release of the two abducted Israeli soldiers.

IMHO it might be more honest and "transparent" for AI and other so-called human rights NGOs to call themselves what they have apparently become--NGO terrorist defense counsel. Their special pleading is so obvious, it is embarrassing to any halfway intelligent reader. Their work no longer has much to do with protecting human rights.

Treppenwitz on the Meaning of Israel's Lebanon War

My cousin sent me this link to Treppenwitz, and I think he's on to something...

A difficult lesson

When I was in the Navy, I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish Marine and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship.

All evening the Marine had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine... figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the Marine sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this poor man's mutilated ear.

Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this Marine, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.

Each punch opened a cut on the Marine's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows.

Nobody moved. Not one person.

The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the Marine's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.

Finally the Marine's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly.

Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.

You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]".

He had been repeating it to the Marine almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.

This Marine stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong.

Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully.

Finally, in a wail of agony the Marine shrieked "I give up", and we gently backed the sailor away from him.

I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today.

I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that Marine's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a ceasefire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.

President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire.

Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Dummies Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success:

1. Instigate a war.
2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.
3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.
4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once.

In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel - as a military victory! No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!

President Lahoud has already begun to shriek like a school girl to the UN Security Council to "Stop the violence and arrange a cease-fire, and then after that we'll be ready to discuss all matters."

Uh huh. Forgive me if I find that a tad hard to swallow. He allowed Hezbollah to take over his country. He allowed the regular Lebanese army to provide radar targeting data for the Hezbollah missile that struck the Israeli destroyer. He has turned a blind eye while Iranian and Syrian weapons, advisers and money have poured into his country.

And now that his country is in ruins he wants to call it a draw.

As much as it may sicken the world to stand by and watch it happen, strong hands need to hold back the weak-hearted and let the fight continue until one side finally admits unambiguous defeat.

Newt Gingrich: Help Israel Crush Hezbollah

According to reports, the former Speaker of the House--who was the brilliant strategist of Republican victories in the 1994 election--says this is one battle in a larger war against Islamist extremism, which he characterized as World War III:

Gingrich, speaking on NBC's "Face the Nation," said there's clearly been Iranian involvement in the attacks on Israel.

"The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, 'South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hizballah, getting rid of all 10-13,000 missiles - and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.'"

Gingrich listed all the world's trouble spots, including North Korea firing missiles; the bombing in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists take refuge in Pakistan; the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah alliance; the war in Iraq and the Saudi Arabia; funded by Saudi Arabia and concerns about various terror groups in Britain, Canada, and the U.S.

"We're in the early stages of what I would describe as a Third World War, and frankly our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough, and we don't have the right attitude about this."

Gingrich said the U.S. ought to be helping the Lebanese government eliminate Hizballah as a military force in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah & Hamas v USA

Daniel Pipes explains the history of Hezbollah & Hamas' war against America, providing some useful history behind current fighting in Lebanon:

Almost without public notice, the two sides have declared war on each other. President George W. Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled." Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage announced in September 2002 that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al-Qaeda is actually the B-team. … They have a blood debt to us, which you spoke to; and we're not going to forget it and it's all in good time. … We're going to take them down one at a time."

These ambitious sentiments have been accompanied by a shift in resources. The Washington Post reported in May that the FBI, "Confident that its efforts to track the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in this country are beginning to pay off, … is devoting more resources to the two Middle Eastern groups, which command more widespread support in Arab and Muslim communities" in the United States. The Post article tells about a November 2002 ruling from a secretive three-judge appeals panel that authorized federal agents pursuing criminal prosecutions of terrorist suspects to exploit the previously inaccessible vast backlog of classified wiretaps and intelligence reports from foreign security agencies. This has led to "stepped-up investigations in at least two dozen U.S. cities." The first public result came in February 2003 with the indictment of Sami Al-Arian and seven others. Current investigations are focused on the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and several individuals, including Abdelhaleem Ashqar, Mohamad Hammoud, and Ali Nasrallah.

Today, Hezbollah gave its fullest retort to date, in an interview by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to the Times of London. Nasrallah overtly threatened American interests around the world if the U.S. government does attempt to eradicate Hezbollah. "In such a case Hezbollah has a right to defend its existence, its people and its country through any means and at any time and in any place." To back this up, he noted that "There are many people throughout the world who love Hezbollah, who like Hezbollah and who support Hezbollah," he said. "Some may not sit idly by when seeing a brutal aggression against Lebanon."

Comment: It appears that Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just Israel's problem but increasingly America's as well. (July 28, 2003)

BTW, from Pipes' article, it looks a little bit like Israel is carrying water for America against Hezbollah--which blew up hundreds of US Marines in Beirut during the Reagan administration. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

Hezbollah during the Lebanese war (1982-1990)[edit]

Combat Operations

After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second resistance movement (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect[citation needed] in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational forces, whose stated purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy, which killed 63, including 17 Americans; of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut (see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen; and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Hezbollah has always denied having any involvement with these bombings, although regarding them as justified. [citation needed]

Elements of the group have been "linked" to involvement in kidnapping, detention and interrogation of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon by groups such as Islamic Jihad who claimed the hostage-takings were in retaliation to the detentions, hostage-taking and torture by the Israeli proxy army South Lebanon Army (SLA).
[edit]

Allegations of Hezbollah involvement in terrorism

Using names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States and some other countries' intelligence agencies to have kidnapped and tortured to death with no clear evidence [11] U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.[12] Hezbollah was accused by the US government of being responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome.

It is believed that Hezbollah had a hand in the terrorist attacks in Argentina in 1990 and 1994: the Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires and the AMIA Bombing, respectively.[13]

Another View of "Another Russia"

Sergei Roy's Intelligent.Ru has this interesting account of an American-sponsored [National Endowment for Democracy paid the bill] meeting of opposition forces in Moscow:

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006
From: Sergei Roy
Subject: Another Russia

Ambassadors in a Zoo

A “forum of oppositionist forces,” pegged to the
upcoming G8 summit, opened Tuesday in Moscow with
a series of scandals as grotesque as the
gathering itself, comprising a variety of
individuals whom the Political Journal referred
to as “political microbes.” Seeing that
microbes, though often deadly, are not notorious
for the amount of noise they make or any
particular hooliganism they indulge in, I would
rather opt for the Lunatic Fringe Zoo or some
such description of the “forum.” Their
self-appellation is “Another Russia,” though they
might just as well call themselves “Anti-Russia” and be done with it.

Most conspicuous at that jamboree were Eduard
Limonov’s National Bolsheviks, for they were
entrusted with the rare privilege of organizing
the forum’s security. In their enthusiasm they
started revising the lists of accredited
journalists, and threw out a couple of lady
journalists they for some reason took a dislike
to. While they were thus engaged, two young
gentlemen sporting clean-shaven heads infiltrated
the auditorium, scattered anti-Orangist leaflets,
yelled “Up the Empire!” at the speaker on the
podium (who happened to be Her Majesty’s
Ambassador to Moscow Anthony Brenton), and
completed their exploits with a poke at
ex-Premier Kasyanov’s face (eyewitnesses of the
episode report, with visible chagrin, that the
punch did not connect as solidly as it might have
done). An unseemly scuffle followed as the
Limonov security detail overpowered the attacker and carried him outside.

Well, one can sympathize with the Limonov
kids. Their Führer promised them they would jump
off helicopters, shoot their AKs from the hip,
hurl hand-grenades at the enemy ­ and all they
have been hurling to date at various public
figures has been raw eggs and the occasional
packet of cream. The scuffle with Dugin’s
“Eurasians” was at least more
physical. Interestingly, on this occasion the
National Bolsheviks refrained from yelling their
most endearing slogan “Stalin­Beria­GULAG!” One
wonders why. Perhaps they feared Mr. Brenton
might misunderstand them ­ or understand them too well…

The extreme left, bright-red flank was
represented at the “forum” by Viktor Anpilov,
leader of the Working Russia movement. It would
be interesting to find out, though, if there is
much to the “movement” besides the leader. In
the ‘90s Anpilov’s babushkas made striking
pictures on TV as they marched through downtown
Moscow with empty pans on their heads, which they
banged with spoons most noisily. Some people
said that heads might be employed to better
purpose, but the pictures, I repeat, were
TV-worthy, no question about that. In the Putin
years, though, those empty pans have been filled,
the old age pensions are increasing and almost
catching up with inflation, and Mr. Anpilov is
now only intermittently employed, invariably
treating his listeners to Hitler-like yells and
gestures and facial expressions to
match. Another Russia, indeed… Whenever I see
that mug on TV, I recall October 1993 and the
aftermath of the red putsch, when that worthy was
bodily dragged out of a haystack where he was
hiding in fear that the democrats would do to him
what he had fervently intended to do to them. He
has risen high in the world since then, to be
greeted, along with others, by HMA Brenton so
warmly as a true representative of “Russia’s real civil society”…

Other members of “Russia’s real civil society”
included representatives of that curiously named
organization AKM ­ Avangard Krasnoi Molodyozhi
(Vanguard of Red Youth). The acronym AKM is
clearly intended to coincide with that of
Assault-rifle Kalashnikov Modernized. It would
again be interesting to learn if Ambassador
Brenton got that message ­ and if he did not,
what was he doing being an ambassador to
Russia? Another interesting question to ask
would be this: How would Her Majesty’s
government react if some foreign-funded
organizations called a similar gathering in the
UK ­ and greeted attending Real IRA members as
true representatives of real British civil society…

And it is a fact that the gathering at the
Renaissance-Moscow Hotel was fully funded by
foreign structures ­ Soros’s Open Society and the
National Endowment for Democracy (of the latter,
the Wikipedia says: “Although administered by a
private organization, its funding comes almost
entirely from a governmental appropriation by
Congress.”) And that is the only feature that
all members of the assembled zoo share: red,
black, pink, orange ­ they are mere tools in the
hands of foreign forces hostile to
Russia. Unable to find any other political
agents willing to jeopardize their relations with
the electorate by figuring too obviously as
puppets in foreign hands, these Russophobes
scavenged around the lunatic fringes of the
political arena ­ and naturally came up with a bunch of real weirdos.

You would have to seek high and low among these
members of the “real Russian civil society” to
discover a single individual elected by the
people. I haven’t. The electoral potential of
the zoo members is so close to a flat zero as to
be indistinguishable from it. Garry Kasparov’s
electoral potential would have to be counted in
millionths of a percentage point. Misha “Two
Percent” Kasyanov will be beside himself with
glee if he gets anything like two percent come
2008 ­ not in kickbacks, as in his
prime-ministerial past, but in votes. Unelected
and unelectable, that’s what they all are.

People with any claim to political respectability
with the Russian electorate have boycotted the
gathering. All of them ­ Zyuganov’s Communist
Party, the Union of Right Forces, Yavlinsky’s
Yabloko, all of them. Valeria Novodvorskaya,
that venerable and prominent member of the
Russian demshiza, the “democratic psychos,” went
so far as to picket the zoo carrying the plackard
that said, “Do not attend the councils of the impure!”

Well, foreign ambassadors did not heed that
plea. Apart from Mr. Brenton I have mentioned
before, mixing with the zoo inmates were observed
Canada’s Ambassador to Moscow Christopher
Westdal, the prominent US diplomat Ambassador
Richard C. Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of
State Daniel Fried, and smaller fry. What price
diplomatic tact, you might ask ­ but you would ask in vain.

A Canadian journalist asked President Putin, in
one of the series of interviews he was granting
in the run-up to the G8, what he thought of the
“counter-summit,” apparently referring to the
“Another Russia” gathering. For once, the
redoubtable interviewee Putin was stumped ­ he
clearly did not understand what the hell she was
talking about. The lady prompted him that it had
even been attended by foreign ambassadors. The
president deadpanned: “Well, if they wish to
interfere in another country’s affairs, God help them.”

I somehow do not think that even He will help them. Not in today’s Russia.

More about this meeting on Konstantin's Russian Blog...

Lebanon War: It's Iran, Stupid...

I know nothing that I don't read in the papers or see on TV, but that won't stop me from saying something....

My guess is that the G-8 summitteers are jaw-jawing about Iran right now. From the press accounts, it looks like a strange alliance of Israel and her Arab neighbors against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. If things heat up, this could be the beginning of a new "Persian war." Or, maybe not.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer had a very intersting discussion of this angle last night:

RICHARD HAASS, President, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, what we've seen, Margaret, is a significant deterioration of the security situation in the region that comes against the backdrop, as you know, first of all, of the growing Iranian nuclear challenge.

It comes against the backdrop of years of a deteriorating stability in Iraq. It comes against the backdrop of Israeli exchanges with Hamas, given the situation in Gaza. So it's not as though this is creating a problem; rather, it's exacerbating the problem.

And one of the common threads here, I think, you have to say is Iran. Here it is, six years after the Israelis left Lebanon unilaterally, and they don't enjoy security there. Hezbollah enjoys significant support from Syria, and in particular though from Iran.

And we have a situation where the Lebanese government is either unable or unwilling to fulfill the obligations of a sovereign state, which is not to allow acts of violence to be committed against a neighbor.

So Israel has taken this action. It's unlikely to resolve the situation, but it's one of those awful or frustrating moments, I expect, for Prime Minister Olmert where he knows, if he does these things, it is unlikely to resolve Israel's security dilemma, but he also knows that he must do these things, not simply for domestic political reasons, but to send a message to the region that Israel will not stand idly by if it is attacked...

...MARGARET WARNER: And what about -- briefly, do you think Israel would be tempted to strike Iran?

THEODORE KATTOUF: Well, certainly, Israel would be tempted to strike Iran, because it's an existential question. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's made it very clear it thinks Israel shouldn't exist. The Israelis will certainly have to be thinking about what their military options are, vis-a-vis Iran.

Mayakovsky's Daughter: Putin is Right

Writing in USA Today, Patricia Thompson argues that America should give Putin a break:

President Vladimir Putin is the right man for the right job at this point in Russian history. He has a comprehensive vision for taking the country forward.

His actions and Russia's uneven efforts at self-sufficiency may draw the ire of the Western — particularly the American — press. But much is also wrong with American policy toward Russia.

How could we expect democracy, as we understand it, to take root in a country with a long-standing heritage, from czarist to Stalinist times, of hierarchical top-down planning and autocracy? Was it reasonable to expect Russia to morph suddenly into a participatory democracy?

It takes years of exposure to the notion, and a lot of practice, to be a comfortable citizen of a democratic state with a shared concept of the "common good." Let's be honest. Are we always successful in our own efforts?

Perhaps it is time to recognize that we may sometimes seem to speak with a "forked tongue" when we talk of freedom of the press, transparency and other high-sounding objectives to masses of people who regret losing the security of their past.

The Worst President Ever

The uncle of someone I know passed away last Sunday at the age of 81. He was a WWII Navy veteran of the Pacific theatre, who spent his career teaching around the world for the Department of Defense school system. He loved to travel, and was in England, his favorite country, where he suddenly collapsed and died on his 81st birthday. He had lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. He loved his wife, raised his children through ups and downs, provided for his grandchildren, and took care of his brother. He volunteered as a prison visitor, worked with autistic children, and went to Bible study at his church. He led an exemplary life. He was a great American.

I'll never forget one conversation we had. A couple of years ago, he suddenly said to me, out of the blue:

"George Bush is the worst President this country has ever had."

"Worse than Hoover?"

"Worse than Hoover."

"Worse than Nixon?"

"Worse than Nixon."

"Worse than LBJ?"

"Worse than LBJ."

"Worse than Carter?"

"Worse than Carter."

"Worse than Reagan?"

"Worse than Reagan."

"Worse than his father?"

"Much worse than his father. I told you, he's the worst President this country has ever had."

Lebanon War Spreads

Haaretz reports Israel has bombed Lebanese military bases, and imposed an embargo.