And there is a paticularized danger which stirs a thick chunk of self-interest into the universalism of enlightened Jewish concern. In terms of the fabled Jewish-interest litmus, it is proving decidedly not "good for the Jews" when Israel gets away with murder. The spillover is ubiquitous. After all, we have it on no lesser authority than New York Times heavyweight Thomas Friedman that, in the early days of the American occupation of Iraq, American soldiers in Iraq were being referred to on the Iraqi street as "the Jews".

The worst-case scenario was laid out with characteristic bluntness by dissident Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in a Zmag interview:

"I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world,s only superpower." Supporting scenario has been sketched in by veteran peace activist Uri Avnery:

"What would happen for example if the United States sank ever deeper into the bloody swamp of Iraq, into an atmosphere of national calamity? When the search for a scapegoat is on, the Jewish neo-cons will stick out. . . .One should not exaggerate these dangers. At present they are hardly specks on the horizon. But I would advise the leaders of the Jewish institutions in the United States to exercise some self-restraint. Intoxication with power can easily lead to dangerous excesses."

Sadly, this advice has not been taken. As a result, it is neither surrealistic or irresponsibly alarmist to worry about a multi-continental outburst of anti-Semitism-- especially when fuel for a new firestorm is being splashed about by those representing themselves as the quintessential defenders of Jewish interests. This present concern should not be confounded with the perennial wolf-crying (the flip side of wolf-baiting) by apologists like the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman. The current unease is a spontaneous phenomenon-- rippling across a broad range of independently minded Jews, stoking a visceral need to express (even if only in the privacy of their own minds) emphatic disavowal of the self-proclaimed Jewish State.

The endgame denoted in the title of this piece, although a seemingly chimerical wet dream today, is a wish list with three main components.

1. In terms of immediate impact, the highest priority would be the withdrawal of lockstep United States support for Israel's provocative adventurism and its brutal stranglehold on Gaza and the West Bank. Maximum U.S. pressure would be applied to hold Israel to its responsibilities under international law and force it to address the basic issues that have generated most of its problems.

2. Another high-impact development would be the voluntary drying up of the river of financial support Israel receives from its many supporters in North America. Obviously, such a stoppage would presuppose a prior psychological upheaval within and among those supporters-- indeed in all diaspora Zionists, i.e., those who believe that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people

3. Such a psychosocial earthquake would involve upending deeply entrenched and cherished beliefs that contribute to a sense of entitlement, such as that which comes to play when, at any point in his/her life, a North American Jew discovers his/her inner Zionist. He/She can draw on sacred and secular authorization to jet off to the homeland and get fast tracked to a swimming pool in a hillside villa--down below which the indigenous holdouts line up for water from the well.

Given Israel's present commanding hegemony of resources and discourse, such an upheaval may appear as unlikely as the "spiritual seizure" which a pessimistic George McGovern wished for on a long-ago Election Day. Nevertheless, there is abundant anecdotal evidence of increasing Jewish alienation. While Israel's life-disrupting separation wall goes forward on the ground, Israel itself is being walled off in independently minded Jewish minds and hearts around the world. (Even some of those who consider their metaphysical identity and destiny thoroughly intertwined with the nation of Israel are troubled by twitches in a vestigial generic-- not proprietary-- human sensitivity. However, the fundamentalist core will cling even more fervently to triumphalism, and carry on with the sanctimonious gong-ringing.)

Always seeking ways to "think outside the box", this writer sees advantage in recycling a pop-psych chestnut to offer non-Jews (not to mention Jews) a certain scope on the unspoken-for world Jewish community. The lens consists of Elsabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Interestingly, they were first labeled the five stages of receiving catastrophic news. Both terms are applicable here: decades of "catastrophic news" about Israel and its history have culminated (sometimes outside of conscious awareness) in widespread Jewish mourning and grieving for a lost Zio-innocence.

The most immediate catastrophic news is coming out of Lebanon, but a steady stream has emerged from Gaza and the West Bank during the four decades of Israeli occupation. Perhaps even more unsettling is the cloud of ethnic cleansing which increasingly hangs over the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. And any rewind winds up in the original traumatic "primal scene": early Zionist settlers' shocked discovery that Palestine was not, in fact, the "land without people" they'd been led to believe.

Many Jews have been shaken out of the denial stage by the substantive force of the bad news, but anger, bargaining ("I promise --.") and depression remain seductive lures. Getting to acceptance implies uncomfortable acknowledgements and adjustments. In the most optimistic of images, it will be a bumpy ride. But no alternative exists. And the hour is late.

There will be no peace in the Middle East without justice, and no justice without truth.

David Himmelstein is a writer and teacher in Montreal. Reachable at chebrexy@hotmail.com.

I remember about 25 years ago explaining to a Jewish-American woman I was having a dinner date with, that an author I was reading was saying that Galileo, Newton and Darwin are the hinges for the modern advancement of our civilization. I thought to myself, Galileo more so than Descarte? Then I tried to express to her that I thought it was sloppy thinking not to see the nuances of dozens of other great thinkers in the sciences in between the era's of these great men, that contributed to their work either in a direct or indirect way. Before I could finish she says "and they were all Jewish." I asked "who?" She says "the three men you mentioned"

My mind was so far removed from knowing who was Jewish and who was not. There was a delayed reaction on my part to her interjection, that had nothing to do with my conversation with her. I then said that I didn't know if Isaac Newton was Jewish, but that Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic church for his thought crimes and I was pretty sure if Darwin was Jewish I would have heard about it from my many ethnocentric Jewish friends. For the sake of the conversation I granted her wanting need for Newton to be Jewish, since I did not know or care. But, she kept insisting that Darwin was Jewish too! My head was spinning with why are Jews so obsessed on who is Jewish and should I confront her about that. Or keep my mouth shut and play dumb, since my goal after dessert was to get intimate with her. Sex or debate? I decided on the debate!

"What difference does it make?" I asked. Well, it got more interesting then any possible sex I could have had with her. She blurted out "Jews are the greatest people on this earth and the worst!" I focused on why she thought the worst. She went on to explain that her father told her that Jews are the ones that create the problems in the world through revolutionary warfare. She thought Napoleon was Jewish. Later she suggested that Hitler was a secret Jew, because who else would cause such havoc. And she was sure Leonardo da Vinci was Jewish, "because he was a genius." The woman was a college graduate!

At a later time frame I relay this to my two Jewish friends who happened to be in the movie industry. Andy Boxer whose father won the Oscar for sound engineering for the movie Apocalypse Now. What I decided to relay was the essence of her thinking, not the fact that she thought every great thinker was Jewish. Much to my chagrin Andy agreed, that Jews cause the problems in the world, but expressed it with pride "it's because we are smarter." My friend Ethan, at the time a film student, was able to see her point of view. And later I would discover that he had a hate and love relationship with his Judaism always saying to me "Jews are always messing things-up and so many have no class." The problem with Ethan is that he thought Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball and what he thought was the classiest guy in show business Bob Hope were all Jewish. I corrected him with the first two comics. At that moment, I didn't have it in me to correct him about Bob Hope after he just told me he thought most Jews had no class. At a later date when I told him Bob Hope was as a WASP, he had an emotional fit.

More recently, I ran into a Rabbi on the street who was visiting his apartment building he owned. We got talking about New York politics and was a big time Rudolph Guliani fan. He told me he would always vote for Italians if any were on the ballot or for any white Gentile conservative for political office over Jews. He just did not trust Jews to run the government. "Too liberal" he would say. His views on Blacks was worse, pointing his finger to his head. Yet he would be boastful and say that Jews financed all the wars in world history in the last 300 years including the U. S. Civil War. He went on to explain that if it was not for Jews since the First World War, the US would not be the super power in the world today if not for Jewish capital. The repetitiveness of his discourse was like a mantra saying that Jews are behind the scenes because "we have the capital and when Jews are in charge they are a disaster. Better to have the Italian's or the WASPs running America. This country needs a Mussolini." The whole time he thought I was Jewish!

I remember having a four hour conversation with an Israeli woman who was a lesbian, and who had the look of a thinner version of Bella Abzug wearing one of those big floppy hats. She thought two problems plagued mankind. Technology and the Jews.

She felt Hitler was right, that the Jews cause most of the problems. And said it with so much joyful glee. And felt Hitler had to have been part Jewish saying "who else could hate Jews so much but another Jew." She felt technology should be destroyed for the benefit of mankind. "Destoyed? Then what about the Jews?" I asked. She would say in essence that the Jews run the world and they can't be destroyed, they are the chosen people. God will always protect them.

Many Jews really believe this zany stuff and most are boastful in a perverse way.

Including another Rabbi I met who thinks God punished the Jews through Hitler saying that Hitler could not have done what he did without the intervention of God's hand. My question to this slow talking Rabbi was why would God want to punish the Jews through Hitler. He said "because they did not obey the Torah." His prediction, God will punish the people of the book again with another Holocaust since most Jews are secular.

The difference about Jews that I know and meet that think like Mel Gibson is that they are not drunk when they express this stuff!

So my statement to the general public at large: Don't tell me you have not met Jews who don't think like Mel Gibson or worse.

Peace.

Blair's spokesman said over the weekend that U.S. President George W. Bush had apologised for the breach of procedure when the two leaders met in Washington last week.

In a news conference on Thursday, Blair signalled that, as long as procedures were adhered to, Britain would not change its rules to block future Israel-bound arms flights.

"The rules of aviation flight should be adhered to. To change our rules at this point would be a very major step, to single out certain countries and not others," he said.

Blair's critics say allowing Washington to use British airports to supply bombs to Israel has hurt London's stance as a neutral party at a time when most other Western countries are calling on Israel to end a bombing campaign against Lebanon.

Blair has drawn fire from critics at home, including senior figures in the Labour Party, for standing with Bush in blocking calls for an immediate ceasefire. Blair says an international force needs to be agreed first.

He denied that this amounted to a "green light" for Israel to continue attacks on Lebanon, which Beirut says have killed 900 people.

"No one's giving Israel a green light. That's just not correct," Blair said. "You've actually got to have the agreement that allows that (ceasefire) to take place."

At a Downing Street reception not long ago, a guest had the temerity to ask Tony Blair: "How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've been responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?" The Prime Minister is said to have retorted: "I think you'll find it's closer to 50,000."

No British leader since Winston Churchill has dealt in war with such alacrity as the present one. Back then, it was in the cause of saving the nation from Nazism. Now, it is in the cause of putting into practice the foreign policy of the simpleton. During his nine years in power, Blair - and in this government it is he, and he alone - has managed to ensure that the UK has become both reviled and stripped of influence across vast stretches of the world. In so doing, he has increased the danger of terrorism to Britain itself.

Israel's assault on Lebanon is, in many respects, as disastrous as the war in Iraq. But at least then the pre-war hubris and deceit were played out in parliament and at the UN. This latest act of folly took place suddenly, with only the barest of attempts to justify it to global public opinion. And it stems from the core Middle East problem: the decades-old conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.

Blair, like Bush, had no intention of urging the Israelis to slow down their bombardment, believing somehow that this struggle was winnable. Israel has a right to self-defence, but it could have responded to the seizure of its soldiers, and to the rocket attacks, by the diplomatic route. That would have ensured greater sympathy. Now, growing numbers in Israel itself realise that military action will bring no long-term solution.

Even if the guns fall silent for a while, the damage has been done. This is the score sheet so far: roughly 800 deaths; shocking images of the slaughter of children in Qana; no clear Israeli military advance. And the transformation of Hezbollah from an organisation on the periphery of Lebanese politics into an object of admiration across the Arab world. But it is even worse than that. Is the assumption that civilians are legitimate targets if they do not flee certain areas any different from the principles that underlay the US war in Vietnam? Blair and Bush have given their blessing to the forced displacement of a large population, in violation of the guiding principles of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Lebanon will now provide a rich source of inspiration to radical Islamists in their distorted quest for martyrdom. Senior Whitehall sources involved in the fight against terrorism are gravely concerned about the consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to condemn Israel's actions. The intelligence services say it is too early to tell whether Lebanon has already contributed to radicalisation in the UK; they work from the assumption that it will, like Iraq and Afghan istan. This is not in any way to justify or suggest equivalence, but it is surely the duty of a leader to produce a risk assessment of his actions. If Blair is prepared to put Britain in greater danger, he has to persuade its citizens that he is doing so for good reason.

Blair, at his rhetorical best in front of friends in California, appears in no mood for self-doubt. "I have many opponents on the subject," he told Rupert Murdoch's elite gathering at Pebble Beach on 30 July. "But I have complete inner confidence in the analysis of the struggle we face." Either he is delusional, or he has no choice but to say what he says. One close aide recalls that when the Prime Minister was preparing a foreign-policy speech in his Sedgefield constituency in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, he considered a mea culpa of sorts, but changed his mind, asking his team: "Do we want headlines of 'Blair: I was wrong' or 'Blair: I was right'?"

Whatever he may think alone at night, the Prime Minister is locked in a spiral of self-justification for his actions in Iraq, his broader Middle East policy and his unstinting support of Bush. His speech in Los Angeles on 1 August was spun as a rethink. If so, it is too little, too late. Historians reflecting on the Blair-Bush "war on terror" that followed the attacks of 11 September 2001 would be right to see it as a joint venture. Ultimately, his US policy is his foreign policy. It has, by his own admission, underpinned his every action.

But one part of the jigsaw that Blair claimed to be vital was never put in place. The "road map", drawn up in 2002 by the quartet of the US, EU, United Nations and Russia, has remained the best hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, yet it was never implemented, because Bush didn't really believe in it. If Blair felt so passionately about it, and if his public silence did win him the influence inside the White House that he claims to have, he could and should have stood up and been counted on that issue, if on no other. Instead, he meekly accepted American inaction. The horrific events of the past three weeks can be traced in large part to that failure. Blair's exhortations to his American audience at least to consider the Palestinian issue were lamentable.

Before taking office in 1997, Blair travelled light on foreign policy. Saddam Hussein's chemical gassing of 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988 passed him by: unlike dozens of other MPs, he didn't bother to sign a motion condemning it. Once in power, and frustrated at the pace of reform in domestic politics, Blair seized upon the theory of "humanitarian interventionism" that grew out of anger over inaction, first in Bosnia and then Rwanda. His decision to back military action in Kosovo reflected that thinking, and led to tension with Bill Clinton over America's reluctance to commit ground forces.

Banalities of "good and evil"

Having spent a month in Rwanda in 1994, seeing attacks take place, I need no persuading that inaction can be as hideous as action. Sometimes it is right to fight, but - as Blair should know from his Chicago speech of 1999, in which he set out the principles of humanitarian intervention - the outcome is what matters. When I began work on my book Blair's Wars, I tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until I realised, on speaking to many people who worked closely with him, how simplistic and impressionable he was.

Now, as Blair hides behind banalities about "good and evil" and the familiar, crude definitions of "terrorism", his ministers look on helplessly. They talk openly to journalists - in the "you can print it, but just don't name me" deal that is the coward's life at Westminster - of Blair's "Bush problem". Shortly before MPs left for their summer break, one senior member of the cabinet accosted me in the corridors of the Commons, and asked: "How much further up their arses do you think we can go?" I suggested that this was more up to him than to me.

At least over Iraq someone resigned. This time, ministers do nothing. Their private complaints have no moral or political value, because they will not stop Blair. Under cabinet rules of collective responsibility, they are endorsing the Israeli assault.

Blair's survival in power is no longer a game of cat-and-mouse with Gordon Brown; it is no longer a question of Labour's ability to stave off the Conservatives. It is far more serious than that.



A record of conflict: the death toll from wars Britain has fought under three prime ministers

Tony Blair
71,617 deaths
9 years in power

Iraq war (2003-)

115 UK troop deaths 30,000 Iraqi troop deaths (estimate by Gen Tommy Franks in Oct 2003) 39,460-43,927 civilian deaths (Iraq Body Count)

Afghanistan (2001-)

16 UK troop deaths (as of 1 August 2006)

1,300-8,000 direct civilian deaths (Guardian estimate). Unknown Taliban deaths

Sierra Leone (2000-2002)

1 UK troop death 25 foreign troop deaths (at least)

Nato bombing of Serbia (1999)

No UK troop deaths. Unknown Serbian troop deaths 500-1,500 civilian deaths (according to Human Rights Watch/Nato estimates)

Operation Desert Fox (1998)

200-300 Iraqi deaths (based on UN estimate)

John Major
22,316 deaths
7 years in power

Gulf war (1991)

16 UK troop deaths 20,000-22,000 Iraqi troop deaths 2,300 civilian deaths (according to the Iraqi government)

Margaret Thatcher
1,013 deaths
11 years in power

US bombing of Libya from UK bases (1986)

100 Libyan deaths

Falklands war (1982)

255 UK troop deaths 655 Argentinian troop deaths 3 Civilian deaths



The figures do not take into account the estimated 350,000 Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions between 1991 and 2003 - under John Major and Tony Blair.

Blair's body count is probably underestimated here because there are no figures for Taliban and Serbian military deaths.

Estimates for Iraqi deaths range between 30,000 and 300,000. The official Bush estimate is 30,000 deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates between 39,460 and 43,927, although it admits this is far below the real total, as the database counts only reported deaths. A Lancet report in 2004 estimated 100,000 deaths, although one of the authors says the total could be 300,000.

Research: Daniel Trilling
This article first appeared in the New Statesman.

Always, in every country and after every war, when the generals fail, the "knife in the back" legend raises its head. If only the politicians had not stopped the army just when it was on the point of achieving a glorious, crushing, historic victory.

That's what happened in Germany after World War I, when the legend gave birth to the Nazi movement. That's what happened in America after Vietnam. That's what is going to happen here. The first stirrings can already be felt.

THE SIMPLE truth is that up to now, the 22nd day of the war, not one single military target has been reached. The same army that took just six days to rout three big Arab armies in 1967 has not succeeded in overcoming a small "terrorist organization" in a time span that is already longer than the momentous Yom Kippur War. Then, the army succeeded in just 20 days in turning a stunning defeat at the beginning into a resounding military victory at the end.

In order to create an image of achievement, military spokesmen asserted yesterday that "we have succeeded in killing 200 (or 300, or 400, who is counting?) of the 1000 fighters of Hizbullah." The assertion that the entire terrifying Hizbullah consisted of one thousand fighters speaks for itself.

According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli army has not "delivered the goods". Bush sent them into war believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms, will "finish the job" in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and perhaps also open the way to "regime change" in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry.

Ehud Olmert is even more furious. He went to war in high spirits and with a light heart, because the Air Force generals had promised to destroy Hizbullah and their rockets within a few days. Now he is stuck in the mud, and no victory in sight.

AS USUAL with us, at the termination of the fighting (and possibly even before) the War of the Generals will start. The front lines are already emerging.

The commanders of the land army blame the Chief-of-Staff and the power-intoxicated Air Force, who promised to achieve victory all by themselves. To bomb, bomb and bomb, destroy roads, bridges, residential quarters and villages, and - finito!

The followers of the Chief-of-Staff and the other Air Force generals will blame the land forces, and especially Northern Command. Their spokesmen in the media already declare that this command is full of inept officers, who have been shunted there because the North seemed a backwater while the real action was going on in the South (Gaza) and the Center (West Bank).

There are already insinuations that the Chief of Northern Command, General Udi Adam, was appointed to his job only in homage to his father, General Kuti Adam, who was killed in the First Lebanon War.

THE MUTUAL accusations are all quite right. This war is plastered with military failures - in the air, on land and on the sea.

They are rooted in the terrible arrogance in which we were brought up and which has become a part of our national character. It is even more typical of the army, and reaches its climax in the Air Force.

For years we have told each other that we have the most-most-most army in the world. We have convinced not only ourselves, but also Bush and the entire world. After all, we did win an astounding victory in six days in 1967. As a result, when this time the army did not win a huge victory in six days, everybody was astounded. Why, what happened?

One of the declared aims of this war was the rehabilitation of the Israeli army's deterrence power. That really has not happened.

That's because the other side of the coin of arrogance is the profound contempt for Arabs, an attitude that has already led to severe military failures in the past. It's enough to remember the Yom Kippur war. Now our soldiers are learning the hard way that the "terrorists" are highly motivated, tough fighters, not junkies dreaming of "their" virgins in Paradise.

But beyond arrogance and contempt for the opponent, there is a basic military problem: it is just impossible to win a war against guerillas. We have seen this in our 18-year stay in Lebanon. Then we drew the unavoidable conclusion and got out. True, without good sense, without an agreement with the other side. (We don't speak with terrorists, do we? - even if they are the dominant force on the ground.) But we did get out.

God knows what gave today's generals the unfounded self-confidence to believe that they would win where their predecessors failed so miserably.

And most of all: even the best army in the world cannot win a war that has no clear aims. Karl von Clausewitz, the guru of military science, pronounced that "war is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means". Olmert and Peretz, two complete dilettantes, have turned this inside out: "War is nothing more than the continuation of the lack of policy by other means."

MILITARY EXPERTS say that in order to succeed in war, there must be (a) a clear aim, (b) an aim that is achievable, and (c) the means necessary for achieving this aim.

All these three conditions are lacking in this war. That is clearly the fault of the political leadership.

Therefore, the main blame will be laid at the feet of the twins, Olmert-Peretz. They have succumbed to the temptation of the moment and dragged the state into a war, in a decision that was hasty, unconsidered and reckless.

As Nehemia Strassler wrote in Haaretz: They could have stopped after two or three days, when all the world agreed that Hizbullah's provocation justified an Israeli response, when nobody was yet doubting the capabilities of the Israeli army. The operation would have looked sensible, sober and proportional.

But Olmert and Peretz could not stop. As greenhorns in matters of war, they did not know that the boasts of the generals cannot be relied on, that even the best military plans are not worth the paper on which they are written, that in war the unexpected must be expected, that nothing is more temporary then the glory of war. They were intoxicated by the war's popularity, egged on by a herd of fawning journalists, driven out of their minds by their own glory as War Leaders.

Olmert was roused by his own incredibly kitschy speeches, which he rehearsed with his hangers-on. Peretz, so it seems, stood in front of the mirror and already saw himself as the next Prime Minister, Mister Security, a Second Ben-Gurion.

And so, like two village idiots, to the sound of drums and bugles, they set off at the head of their March of Folly straight towards political and military failure.

It is reasonable to assume that they will pay the price after the war.

WHAT WILL come out of this whole mess?

No one talks anymore about eliminating Hizbullah or disarming it and destroying all the rockets. That has been forgotten long ago.

At the start of the war, the government furiously rejected the idea of deploying an international force of any kind along the border. The army believed that such a force would not protect Israel, but only restrict its freedom of action. Now, suddenly, the deployment of this force has become the main aim of the campaign. The army is continuing the operation solely in order to "prepare the ground for the international force", and Olmert declares that he will go on fighting until it appears on the ground.

That is, of course, a sorry alibi, a ladder for getting down from the high tree. The international force can be deployed only in agreement with Hizbullah. No country will send its soldiers to a place where they would have to fight the locals. And everywhere in the area, the local Shiite inhabitants will return to their villages - including the Hizbullah underground fighters.

Further on, the force will also be totally dependent on the agreement of Hizbullah. If a bomb explodes under a bus full of French soldiers, a cry will go up in Paris: bring our sons home. That is what happened when the US Marines were bombed in Beirut.

The Germans, who shocked the world this week by opposing the call for a cease-fire, certainly will not send soldiers to the Israeli border. That's just what they need, to be obliged to shoot at Israeli soldiers.

And, most importantly, nothing will prevent Hizbullah from launching their rockets over the heads of the international force, any time they want to. What will the international force do then? Conquer all the area up to Beirut? And how will Israel respond?

Olmert wants the force to control the Lebanese-Syrian border. That, too, is illusory. That border goes around the entire West and North of Lebanon. Anybody who wants to smuggle weapons will stay away from the main roads, which will be controlled by the international soldiers. He will find hundreds of places along the border to do this. With the proper bribe, one can do anything in Lebanon.

Therefore, after the war, we will stand more or less in the same place we were before we started this sorry adventure, before the killing of almost a thousand Lebanese and Israelis, before the eviction from their homes of more than a million human beings, Israelis and Lebanese, before the destruction of more than a thousand homes both in Lebanon and Israel.

AFTER THE war, the enthusiasm will simmer down, the inhabitants of the North will lick their wounds and the army will start to investigate its failures. Everybody will claim that he or she was against the war from the first day on. Then the Day of Judgment will come.

The conclusion that presents itself is: kick out Olmert, send Peretz packing and sack Halutz.

In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.

WASHINGTON - After a long day of policy meetings with senior officials in the US government, the Israeli ambassador to the US, Danny Ayalon, said in an interview with Ynet, "The American government is not planning on pressuring Israel . In the US there is no intention of stopping Israel's military operations in Lebanon before the desire results are achieved."

Despite the Qana incident, in which tens of Lebanese civilians were killed, the American government stuck to its basic position that there should be no returning to a situation similar to the one before Hizbullah attacked Israel's northern border, kidnapping two IDF soldiers.

My friend began his stint in the Pentagon in the middle Sixties, as one of Robert McNamara's "whiz kids". He'd spent long years listening to Air Force generals expounding the virtues of air power, and how their bombers would wipe out the Viet Cong, without the need for any ground forces.

Those bombers never did wipe out the Viet Cong, though they destroyed vast forests while other USAF planes drenched the ground cover with poisons that plague Vietnamese and Americans to this day.

A generation later the next cohort of US Air Force Generals said that air power was all that was needed to subdue any resistance in Iraq. They claimed that the attack in the spring of 2003 would begin with Operation Shock and Awe, and victory would be swift and total.

Air force generals are like that. The bloodiest battles of their lives are fought against navy admirals, army generals and marine generals over money. To persuade the politicians to give them the money requires incessant boasting about the glories of air power.

The trouble is that history shows air power doesn't win wars, or even battles. The best known example is the bombing of Germany by the Americans and the British in World War Two. The plan, as advanced by Britain's Arthur "Bomber" Harris, was to kill a million Germans and paralyze industrial production. Harris began his career with the British bombing campaigns in Mesopotamia in the 1920s, then Palestine, against the Great Rising, in the 1930s.

The Allies' bombs killed many Germans, though not a million. But as postwar investigators headed by the late J.K. Galbraith found, war production actually increased. The bombs stiffened German morale and loathing of the enemy.

Galbraith's investigations failed to dent the myth of air power. America's most famous Air force general in the postwar period was Curt LeMay, headed of America's nuclear air fleet, the Strategic Air Command. In World War Two he had overseen the firebombing of Tokyo. It was LeMay who boasted to President John Kennedy that his planes could "reduce the Soviet Union to a smoldering, irradiated ruin in three hours."

Dan Halutz is in the LeMay tradition, a brutish lout. He raised a storm when he was asked what feelings, what moral tremors he might have had about the dropping of a one-ton bomb in a house in Gaza. Halutz's jaunty reply was to the effect that all he felt was "a slight tremor in the wing of the airplane."

Writing about Halutz, and that particular remark, the Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote in Ha'aretz on February 28, "Halutz faithfully represents the policy in recent years of the air force and the Israel Defense Forces, which no longer has a place for moral statements in our war on terror. According to this policy, dropping heavy bombs on a house is a legitimate and just means, and killing innocent civilians, including children, does not at all resemble Palestinian terror."

That one-ton bomb killed many civilians. Levy continued, "Anyone who saw the ruined apartment houses also knew that the IDF and the air force lied brazenly when they initially tried to publicize the claim that there were only "huts" on the site of the bombing; that it was impossible to know that people were living in them. The real moral image of the air force is reflected from among the ruins in the Daraj neighborhood more than all the statements of its commander."

So the brazen thug Halutz got the big job, just at the moment the Israeli high command was firming up plans for its long planned onslaught on Lebanon. It was Halutz who sold Olmert and Peretz on the fantasy of swift and devastating air force raids finishing off Hezbollah.

Since then Halutz has efficiently united all Lebanese in loathing of Israel, while being an effective propagandist for Hezbollah. What better recruiter of sympathy for Lebanon than Halutz screaming "we're going to turn Lebanon back into what it was 20 years ago," and threatening to blow up a 10-floor building for every missile.

By the second day in August Halutz's bombardment had achieved the extraordinary feat of prompting the Maronite Catholic patriarch - the spiritual leader of the most pro-Western populace - to assemble Lebanon's religious leaders -- Shiite and Sunni Muslims and various Christian confessions. The group issued a joint statement of solidarity, condemning the Israeli "aggression" and hailing "the resistance, mainly led by Hezbollah, which represents one of the sections of society."

All Halutz knows how to do is to bomb defenseless targets. This ability does not require brain power or skill in political analysis.

Napoleon said he wanted lucky generals under his command. Hezbollah is lucky in the Israeli military commander it faces, even though Lebanon bleeds.

* 1955-1992:
* * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".

* * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

* * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

* * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

* * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

* * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".

* * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

* * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

* * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

* * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

* * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

* * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

* * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

* * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".

* * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".

* * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

* *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

* * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

* * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".

* * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

* * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

* * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

* * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

* * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

* * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

* * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

* * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

* * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

* * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

* * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".

* * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

* * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

* * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

* * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

* * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

* * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".

* * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

* * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".

* * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

* * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".

* * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".

* * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

* * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

* * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

* * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".

* * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

* * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

* * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

* * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

* * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

* * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

* * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

* * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

* * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

* * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

* * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

* * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

* * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
* Palestinians.
* * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

* * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

* * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

1993 to 1995

UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) l

UNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995)

UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995)

UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995)

UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994)

UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993)

UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993)

UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armanent (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993)

Click for MORE data

Al-Sadr summoned followers from throughout the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq to converge on Baghdad for the rally but he did not attend.

Demonstrators, wearing white burial shrouds symbolizing their willingness to die for Hezbollah, waved the group's yellow banner and chanted slogans in support of its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who has attained a cult status in the Arab world for his defiance of Israel.

"Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah," the crowd chanted.

"Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare," the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.

Many walked with umbrellas in the searing afternoon sun. Volunteers sprayed them with water.

"I am wearing the shroud and I am ready to meet martyrdom," said Mohammed Khalaf, 35, owner of a clothes shop in the southern city of Amarah.

Al-Sadr followers painted U.S. and Israeli flags on the main road leading to the rally site, and demonstrators stepped on them - a gesture of contempt in Iraq. Alongside the painted flags was written: "These are the terrorists."

Protesters set fire to American and Israeli flags, as well as effigies of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, showing the men with Dracula teeth. "Saddam and Bush, Two Faces of One Coin" was scrawled on Bush's effigy.

Iraqi government television said the Defense Ministry had approved the demonstration, a sign of public anger over Israel's offensive and of al-Sadr's stature as a major player in Iraqi politics.

"I consider my participation in this rally a religious duty. I am proud to join this crowd and I am ready to die for the sake of Lebanon," said Khazim al-Ibadi, 40, a government employee from Hillah.

Although the rally was about Hezbollah, it was also a show of strength by al-Sadr. Many people worried the presence of so many Shiite demonstrators - most of them from the Mahdi Army - would add to sectarian tensions in the city, which has seen almost daily clashes between Shiite and Sunni extremists.

The sectarian violence escalated after the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra unleashed a wave of reprisal attacks on Sunnis nationwide.

On Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told a Senate committee in Washington that sectarian violence in Iraq "is probably as bad as I have seen it" and that if the spiral continued the country "could move toward civil war."

In the latest violence, at least 12 people were killed Friday when Iraqi security forces fought gunbattles with suspected insurgents in Mosul after a suicide car bomber attacked a police patrol, said the provincial police commander, Maj. Gen. Withiq al-Hamdani. He said that the bombing killed four policemen and that eight insurgents died in the subsequent gunbattle.

On Thursday evening, a suicide bomber drove into a soccer field in the town of Hatra near Mosul, setting off a blast that killed seven spectators and three policemen police Col. Abdul Karim Ahmed Khalaf said. Six civilians and nine policemen were injured, he said.

On Friday, three mortar shells hit a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, killing two people, wounding four and damaging some stores, police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid, said.

An engineer was shot dead and an unidentified body, showing signs of torture, was found in western Baghdad.

Separately, gunmen shot and killed four people and wounded eight from a Shiite family late Thursday in Dujail, 50 miles north of Baghdad, police Lt. Hussam al-Dujeili said.

The U.S. military said in a statement that coalition forces killed at least three "terrorists" during an air strike and multiple raids southeast of Baghdad on Thursday.

The fact that such villages haven't been attacked showcases the complexity of south Lebanon's political map and the contrasting sentiments about Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

"So far, the Israelis only shelled the edges of the village," said Qleia Mayor Shafiq Wanna. "We asked people who live on the outskirts to move in with relatives in the center. If they shell there too, we will flee."

Israel on Friday targeted bridges for the first time in the Christian heartland north of the capital. Four civilians were killed and 10 wounded in the airstrikes in Jounieh, the Lebanese Red Cross said.

As a rule, Christians in southern Lebanon have little sympathy for Hezbollah, a Shiite group whose capture of two Israeli soldiers last month provoked the fighting. The region's Druse and Sunni Muslims are split into pro- and anti-Hezbollah factions, while support for the guerrillas is nearly universal among Shiites.

These views are coming into sharp focus as Israel prepares to expand its ground offensive to take control of an area 20 miles deep inside Lebanon to reduce the threat from Hezbollah's rockets, hundreds of which have fallen on Israel in the past three weeks.

Israel's control of Lebanese territory could last for weeks, maybe months, until a cease-fire takes hold and a proposed international force is put together and deployed.

That prospect is stirring feelings thought to have been buried with the end of Israel's 18-year occupation of a south Lebanon border strip in 2000. Israel withdrew from the area in the face of mounting casualties caused by Hezbollah attacks.

During the years of occupation, thousands of southern Lebanese - Christians, Druse and Shiites alike - joined a local militia that fought along the Israelis against Hezbollah. Many more took jobs in Israel, earning wages twice or more what they made at home.

Israel is also thought to have used its time in southern Lebanon to build a large network of agents that, according to Hezbollah, are active to this day.

Six years after Israel left, the legacy of its occupation lives on. Those who were caught up in its institutions or practices, like members of the South Lebanon Army militia, are still on a government wanted list. The stigma of being an "Israeli agent" can still hurt, and thousands of Lebanese who worked in Israel have been convicted of dealing with an "enemy state," fined and jailed.

Hezbollah made a museum out of a notorious prison used by Israel and its Lebanese allies to house captured guerrilla fighters and their sympathizers. The museum had the names and hometowns of every Lebanese employed in the Khiam prison under the categories of guards, doctors, nurses and torturers. Many of them were Christians and Druse.

An Israeli airstrike reduced the museum to rubble late last month.

Southern Lebanon has traditionally been one of the country's poorest regions, with unemployment thought to be in double digits. Residents have long complained that not enough attention has been given to the farming region's development, and that Beirut, the capital, takes more than its fair share of state funds.

Israel is at once enemy and key to economic opportunities.

"We are still walking and driving on roads built by Israel here," said Hamoudi Zeineldine, a 29-year-old hotel worker from the village of Ein Qana. "Our government should have embraced us. I fear that even after this war, the reconstruction will be in Beirut, not here in the south."

With an Israeli military sweep seemingly imminent, some are entertaining dreams of finding employment in Israel again.

"I am fed up with all this fighting," said Majed Hamza, a Druse from the village of Hasbaya who served a two-year sentence for his membership of the South Lebanon Army. "If they come again, I am moving to Israel and will stay there."

This time around, many of Lebanon's Christians and Druse are reluctant to take sides, with memories of Israel hurriedly abandoning them in 2000 still fresh, and the duration of any new Israeli occupation uncertain.