It's now been 24 days since the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched "Operation Change of Direction." A week ago Israeli Air Force (IAF) jets bombed a refugee facility in Qana, killing several dozen civilians. This was the second time an Israeli attack on a UN-protected facility in Qana killed scores of civilians (CSM-30 July '06; CSM-26 April '96). Within a few hours Israeli government officials insisted the attack was an error caused by Hizbullah launching attacks from nearby; as in 1996, the claims of error were decisively refuted (BBC, Amnesty). Initially, US Secretary of State seemed optimistic about the prospects for a ceasefire (BBC); the IDF announced a 48-hour partial ceasefire that, of course, did not survive 36 hours. As US diplomatic relations continued to disintegrate, UN Security Council members negotiatiated a veto-proof resolution on Lebanon that, as of this writing, appears to have little prospect of ending the fighting (BBC, Reuters). That's because the draft resolution merely calls on both sides to cease fighting by a particular time; Hizbullah can point out that the draft resolution will not address any of its motives its conflict with Israel, and it has not been defeated.

The two rival perceptions of this conflict are immense. One the one side is the vast majority of Israeli public opinion (Haaretz), which not only supports the operations against Lebanon, but finds it well-nigh incomprehensible that any impartial observer would object. Antiwar marches have occurred in Israel, but, as with the antiwar movement in the United States, there is little notion of a political alternative. If elections were called in the near future, and the Labor Party were to win a huge majority (two immensely improbable events), they would have no idea how to proceed with a revived peace plan. US media reports on the war have largely mimicked Israeli perceptions and framing of the story.

Outside of the USA and Israel, however, a different perception prevails. From ASEAN (Reuters) to India, Russia (RIA), the UK (Guardian), Scandinavia (Aften), to Brazil (Reuters) have denounced the operation also. Abroad, this is seen as a mere act of terror or retribution, by a powerful state against a defenseless one. It will be noted by some that European nations are especially eager to distance themselves from Israel and the United States, as a textbook case of "prisoners' dilemma." This doesn't explain why, say, Vietnam or Chile have publically denounced the Lebanon campaign; and note that ASEAN has almost never before taken a position on political matters outside of its own region. The reason is that the invasion is seen as a shockingly egregious act of unjustifiable aggression.

The fact is that Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza have not been convincingly directed at the elusive Hizbullah; instead, the object appears to be to invert a traditional strategy employed by al-Fatah in 1976 (al-Mashriq). Then, Arafat hoped—according to Robert Fisk—that the atrocity he provoked would arouse global condemnation of his adversary, whom he could not defeat militarily. The Israeli government and its supporters abroad insist that groups like Hizbullah are intentionally provoking slaughters by hiding among civilians, in order to bring down IAF bombings. But in reality, since the bombings are confirmed to not be accidents, and not be tactically useful (since everyone knows Hizbullah is gone by the time the IAF bombing or shelling occurs), it would appear the real strategy is to kill civilians until Hizbullah loses its resolve. In fact, this is a fairly old counterinsurgency strategy, one embraced by many occupying powers through history. As a method of warfare, it leads inevitably to radicalization of the enemy and a brutalization of tactics. Ehud Olmert's successor as prime minister of Israel, or perhaps his successor's successor, will have to deal with that. So will the Israeli citizens whose trust in their leadership is being traduced so cruelly.

THE NEOCONSERVATIVE BID IN LEBANON & GAZA

Some of my readers may wonder what goes in the neoconservative mind when the evidence arrives. The fact is that the neoconservative program has been an unmitigated disaster; every single endeavor has, by all publicly declared standards of the neoconservatives, been an abject failure. Israel, by virtue of its location and the way in which it came into existence, has shared with the US and the UK the neoconservative junta. Some have gone so far as to insist that the USA has been captured by its satellite. Others have notived the relationship operates in the opposite direction. Ostensibly pro-Israel, neoconservatives actually regard the Israelis as mere material for its procrustean vision (Finkel). But how do neoconservatives respond to the clear and compelling evidence that they have, in fact, made open war on the human race on our behalf?

In the movie Rollover, a rogue investment banker works out a secret scheme to gradually redirect oil assets from US dollars to gold; the object is to prevent the Saudis and other OPEC members from doing so all at once. His plan backfires, however, and the US dollar suddenly loses most of its value, etc. The rogue investment banker commits suicide because his hubris has caused total disaster. In Oedipus Rex, when Oedipus realizes what he has done, he gouges out his own eyes. A cursory glance at the calamity unfolding in Lebanon strikes me as analogous to the carnage Creon faces at the end of Antigone, or King Lear faces at the end of King Lear. Let's see how their real-life analogue responds:

RUSH LIMBAUGH PROGRAM:
CALLER: Rush, I’ve listened to you since 1995. I’m a Republican. I graduated from the navel academy, Vietnam vet, but I've lived overseas for nine years amongst the Arabs in the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and we have just committed [such] grave errors by this administration that I can't wait until it ends for them and hopefully another good Republican will begin. Our decisions to go into Iraq and the mismanagement, any corporate CEO would have been fired if it was mismanaged as much as it is now. The lack of knowledge of the Shias and the Sunnis and all those issues is the reason we’re spilling over into Lebanon and Israel now. We just mismanaged everything. All of our good will overseas is zero. I’ve been back six months and I’ve listened to you and I've listened to the other radio stations, the conservatives Sean Hannity and all those guys and gals, and we’re polarizing everything. Everything is just so polarized. After ten years and coming back and visiting the U.S. on vacations just a couple times, we need to take care of ourselves first and not be so concerned about the democracy in Iraq and the new Middle East. Why? What for? We’ve got the oil contracts and establishment. That’s all it’s all about anyway at the end of the day. We know that. It’s just atrocious where we’re headed.

RUSH: You know what? I have to agree with the last thing you said, and it's because of people like you that don’t understand where we’re headed and what we face and what’s in our way and what we have to do to survive. If you want to continue to blame your own country for these problems you’re more than entitled to do it. You have total freedom to do it. But I want you to listen to something here. I want you to turn on your radio and I want you to listen to this. Because I have a piece here by Victor David Hanson on National Review Online today describing people like you.

I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

[...]

We had this happen in this country on 9/11, Edward. You seem to forget this. You seem to forget we have enemies. You’re from this crowd that thinks we’re responsible for creating our own enemies by virtue of our own existence as we are, and your goal seems to be to have everybody around the world like us. Let’s deal with that after we save ourselves, shall we, Edward?

Here's the bottom line folks. There are people around the world who hate us. True. And there are people in this country that hate their own country. And I’m tired of trying to figure out why. Because it doesn’t matter. They are irrelevant. There are more important things to deal with than a psycho analysis of these sick puppies who want to blame everything on their own country and blame the United States and blame freedom and western democracy for all these problems. I’ve given up trying to figure out who they are. Well, I know who they are. I’ve given up trying to figure out why they are like they are because it doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of time.

[...]

...As I have told you, any call is a great call that makes the host look good, and that call, I mean, I couldn't help but look good on that. That was easy as swatting a fly. Don’t get caught up in why these people hate because you're going to be distracted. It's not the point anymore. It allows them to become the story and it gives them credence, it validates them. Just ignore them.

ADDITIONAL READING: "Fatal Strikes Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," Human Rights Watch (plus article on Hizbullah violations of int'l law); "Israel/Lebanon: Israel and Hizbullah Must Spare Civilians," Amnesty International (26 Jul);

Salon: "The neocons' next war" (3 Aug 2006; free access with commercial); UN Warns of Environmental Disaster (Der Spiegel); Counterterrorism Blog post with situation map, etc. (via Salon)

IRIN News (selections):

• "Red Cross braces for further attacks" (13 Jul 2006)
• "Patience and food running low in Palestinian camps" (23 Jul 2006)
• "Number of civilian deaths likely to be higher - Red Cross" (26 Jul 2006)
• "Factories come under fire" (4 Aug 2006)