Summary: Forty Seven Israeli Troops, including officers, were transferred to HAIFA and NAHARIYA hospitals from injured they sustained in battles with Lebanese Resistance fighters, the Israeli HAARTEZ Newspaper reported.

According to the Israeli Paper, nine of the troops were in critical condition, as they have been seriously injured.
No more details were immediately available.

Source:QNA.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 20:09

Summary: Chinese Special Envoy to the Middle East Sun Bigan stressed on Tuesday the necessity for a cease-fire in Lebanon, saying " the most important thing for China now is an immediate cease –fire in Lebanon and to set  a limit to the deteriorated  human situation there.

In a meeting with Syrian Minister of Information Mohsen Bilal ,the Chinese Envoy expressed sorrow regarding scores of dead including children and civilians in  the Israeli aggressions on the Lebanese cities and towns .
"China is always standing by the just Arab issues particularly the Palestinian cause " Bigan said , adding that " we must exert more effort in this regard ."
He pointed out to the importance of Syria as pivotal country in the region, asserting that there are mutual ideas and the Syrian –Chinese stances that are identical regarding the presented issues on the table .
For his part ,Dr . Bilal underlined that China can play basic role in developments of the events according to its international significance in the UN Security Council or in the non-aligned movement .
He stressed that this matter is China's duty due to its bilateral relations and mutual destiny with lot of peoples in the world targeted by globalization and imperialism .
Dr. Bilal pointed out to full and unlimited support that Israel receives from US particularly regarding the ignorance of implementing the international legitimacy resolutions .

Source:SANA.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 20:07

Summary: The Islamic Resistance Movement in Lebanon, the military wing of Hezbollah, announced it destroyed two Israeli tanks Tuesday afternoon, killing and injuring their passengers.

Hezbollah said in a release that the tanks were targeted by missiles in Ainata town.
A previous release from Hezbollah said that militants attacked the site of Jal Al-Alam, an important site for the Israelis.
Clashes are still going on between Hezbollah militants and Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon, synchronizing with the Israeli missile bombardment of a number of southern Lebanese towns.

Source:KUNA.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 18:59

Summary: Russia's ambassador to the UN said early Tuesday morning that his country favored a Security Council resolution that would satisfy Lebanon.
The conflict between Lebanon-based radical Islamic movement Hizbollah and Israel has been continuing for three weeks in southern Lebanon and has claimed almost 1,000 lives.
 

"It is obvious to us that a draft resolution that fails to satisfy the Lebanese side should not be adopted because it will only further escalate the violence," Vitaly Churkin said after consultations in the UN Security Council on Monday.
The Security Council decided to convene an open session Tuesday to discuss a draft resolution on Lebanon with all interested parties, including a delegation from the Arab League and, in particular, diplomats from Qatar, the only Muslim country on the UN Security Council.
The session will focus on a resolution drafted by the United States and France earlier this week. The document stipulates no immediate ceasefire or Israel's pullout from Lebanon. Islamic countries, including Lebanon, have slammed the document for what they called legitimizing Israel's aggression.
"At the moment, intensive efforts, including contacts and consultations, are being made... to try to make the resolution more acceptable for Lebanon," Churkin said, though he declined to make any forecasts when this could happen.
He said Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon to beyond the Blue Line, a provisional border between the two countries, remained the stumbling bloc on the way to a resolution.
"The draft resolution envisions a political process that is supposed to lead out Israeli troops but this is something that you can only discover after thorough analysis of the text," Churkin said, adding that the document stipulated no 100% guarantees that this would happen soon.
"The Lebanese government is demanding a clear resolution that Israel will withdraw from southern Lebanon shortly after the hostilities are over," he said.
Churkin continued that an alternative plan proposed by the Lebanese government to introduce a 15,000-strong Lebanese contingent into the area after Israel's departure could bring a resolution to the conflict closer.
"I think that this new element must be seriously studied by the UN Security Council," he said.
Churkin's French counterpart in the UN, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said the Security Council would try to improve the text of the resolution Tuesday but added that the Franco-American draft was a good piece of work.

Source:RIA Novosti.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 18:23

Summary: Opinion Column, By Hassan Hanizadeh 
Israel has not been able to eradicate Hezbollah or occupy south Lebanon after 27 days of ground, air, and sea strikes.
The Israeli military, which has bombed Lebanon’s residential areas and infrastructure over 6000 times, has lost all its military and political trump cards, and, according to military experts, Hezbollah is the winner of the war so far.

The Israeli military has lost two of its high-tech warships, a Saar 4 and a Saar 5, and Israel’s navy was not able to continue its sea siege of Lebanon and was forced to leave following heavy losses.
The Israeli military’s commando Golani Brigade and brigades 27 and 33 were defeated in Bint Jbeil and Maroun al-Ras. According to initial reports, 37 advanced Merkava tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed and many Israeli commandos were killed.
Hundreds of Hezbollah’s long-range and medium-range missiles targeted Israel’s economic and military installations in the cities of Haifa, Safad, Nahariya, Tabaria, and Kiryat Shimona. Over 1.7 million Israelis have been forced to move to cities in the middle of the occupied territories.
This situation and the war, which is becoming a war of attrition, have inflicted so many casualties and economic losses on the Zionist regime that if a ceasefire is declared now, Israel will definitely be the loser.
Why is Israel the loser? Israel had intended to achieve all its objectives within one week and implement the new Middle East plan with U.S. support, but it has had to face a war of attrition for the first time in the past sixty years.
The Israeli military has proven that it has the capability to fight for at most fourteen days. A protracted conflict would be detrimental for the regime’s ground forces.
In addition, Israeli society cannot tolerate the casualties that the Zionist regime has suffered so far. Thus, the pace of emigration from the occupied territories to Europe and North America has significantly accelerated.
This is going to be a bitter pill for Israeli leaders to swallow, since they have been encouraging Jews to immigrate to the occupied territories for years by promising them milk and honey.
So, the old saying that Israel is the land of milk and honey, which was preached by Israeli rabbis for decades, is now relegated to the dust bin of history.
In addition, the myth of the invincibility of the Zionist regime’s military has been shattered by the resistance movement, and Muslim nations will humiliate this defeated army in the future.
Furthermore, Israel is becoming more politically isolated with every passing day as global animosity over the attack on Qana grows.
If a ceasefire is declared, Israel and the United States will no longer be able to impose conditions on the Lebanese government and nation. Therefore, the U.S. Greater Middle East Initiative, which was supposed to start in Lebanon politically and strategically, has failed.
The destiny of the Middle East will be determined in the next few days, and the political and military victory of Hezbollah will alter all regional equations and open a new chapter for the Middle East.

Source:Tehran Times.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 14:20

BOMBAY - Shahid Raza Burney

In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.

Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.
A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.
Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.
Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.
According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.
Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.
“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.
Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.
The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.
Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”
“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.

Source:Arab News.  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 07:16

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

If there were any remaining illusions about the purpose of Israel’s war against Lebanon, the draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a “cessation of major hostilities” published at the weekend should finally dispel them. This entirely one-sided document was drafted, noted the Hebrew-language media, with close Israeli involvement.

The top adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked through the resolution with the US and French teams, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry had its man alongside John Bolton at the UN building in New York.
The only thing preventing Israeli officials from jumping up and down with glee, according Aluf Benn of the daily Haaretz newspaper, was the fear that “demonstrated Israeli enthusiasm for the draft could influence support among Security Council members, who could demand a change in wording that may adversely affect Israel.” So no celebration parties till the resolution is passed.
Instead, in a cynical ploy familiar from previous negotiating processes, Israel submitted to the US a list of requests for amendments to the resolution. When Israel agrees to forgo these amendments, it will, of course, be able to take credit for its flexibility and desire to compromise; Lebanon and Hizbullah, on the other hand, will be cast as villains, rejecting international peace-making efforts.
The reason for Israel’s barely concealed pleasure is that Hizbullah now faces an international diplomatic and public relations assault in place of the unsuccessful Israeli military one. Israel, and the United States, are trying to set a series of traps for Hizbullah -- and Lebanon too -- that will justify Israel’s reoccupation of south Lebanon, the further ethnic cleansing of the country, and a widening of the war to include Iran, and possibly Syria.
The clues were not hard to decode. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, characterised the aim of the resolution as clarifying who is acting in good faith. “We're going to know who really did want to stop the violence and who didn't,” she said. Or, in other words, we are going to be able to blame Hizbullah for the hostilities because we have offered them terms of surrender we know they will never agree to.
The main sticking point for Hizbullah is to be found in the resolution’s requirement that it must stop fighting and begin a process of disarmament at a time when Israeli forces are still occupying Lebanese territory and when there may be a lengthy, if not interminable, wait for their replacement by international peacekeepers. Not only that, but the resolution allows Israel to continue its military operations for defensive purposes: Hizbullah only has to look to Gaza or the West Bank to see what Israel is likely to consider falling under the rubric of “defensive”.
Hizbullah has been stockpiling weapons since Israel’s withdrawal in May 2000 precisely to create a “balance of deterrence”, to make Israel more cautious about sating its demonstrated appetite for occupying its neighbours’ lands, particularly when the neighbour is a small country like Lebanon without a proper army and divided into many sectarian groups, some of which, for a price, may be willing to collaborate with Israel.
This time, however, as Israeli troops struggle back towards the Litani River and their initial goal of creating a “buffer zone” similar to the one they held on to for nearly two decades, the Lebanese are rallying behind Hizbullah, convinced that the Shiite militia is their only protection against Western machinations for a “new Middle East”.
Israel and Washington, however, may hope that, given time, they can break that national solidarity by provoking a civil war in Lebanon to deplete local energies, similar to Israel’s attempts at engineering feuds between Hamas and Fatah in the occupied Palestinian territories. Certainly, it is difficult to make sense otherwise of Israel’s bombing for the first time of Christian neighbourhoods in Beirut and what looks like the intended ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims from Sidon, which was leafletted by Israeli war planes at the weekend.
On the US-Israeli view, a nation of refugees living in an open-air prison cut off from the outside world and deprived of food and aid -- a more ambitious version of the Gaza model -- may eventually be persuaded to take their wrath out on their Shiite defenders.
Hizbullah understands that the proposal to bring in a force of international peacekeepers is another trap. Either the foreign troops will never arrive, because on these Israeli-imposed terms there can be no ceasefire, or, if they do arrive, they will quickly become a proxy occupation army. Israel will have its new South Lebanon Army, supplied direct this time from the UN and subsidised by the West. If Hizbullah fights, it will be killing foreign peacekeepers not Israeli soldiers.
But Israel knows the international force is almost certainly a non-starter, which seems to be the main reason it has now, belatedly, become so enthusiastic for it. Senior Israeli government officials were saying as much in the Hebrew-language media on Sunday.
Israel’s Justice Minister, the increasingly hawkish Haim Ramon, summed up the view from Tel Aviv: “Even if it is passed, it is doubtful that Hezbollah will honor the resolution and halt its fire. Therefore we have to continue fighting, continue hitting anyone we can hit in Hezbollah, and I assume that as long as that goes on, Israel's standing, diplomatically and militarily, will improve.”
Israel hopes it will be able to keep hitting Hizbullah harder -- at less cost to its troops and civilians, and with improved diplomatic standing -- because in the next phase, after the resolution is passed, the Shiite militia will find that one arm has been tied, figuratively speaking, behind its back.
Not only will Washington and Israel blame Hizbullah for refusing to agree to the ceasefire but they will seek to use any retaliation against Israeli “defensive” aggression -- including, presumably, further invasion -- as a pretext for widening the war and dragging in the real target of their belligerence: Iran.
This subterfuge was voiced at the weekend by Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, who told the BBC that if Hizbullah fired at Tel Aviv -- which it has threatened to do if Israel continues attacking Beirut -- this would be tantamount to an “act of war” that could only have been ordered by Iran. In other words, at some point soon Israel may stop blaming Hizbullah and turn its fire -- defensively, of course -- on Iran.
This linkage is being carefully prepared by Olmert. On Monday, according to the Hebrew-language press, he told some 50 government spokespeople what message to deliver to the foreign media: “Our enemy is not Hezbollah, but Iran, which employs Hezbollah as its agent.” According to Haaretz, he urged the spokespeople “not to be ashamed to express emotion and appeal to feelings”.
So in the coming days, in the wake of this US-Israeli concoction of an impossible peace, we are going to be hearing a lot more nonsense from Israel and the White House about Iran’s role in supposedly initiating and expanding this war, its desire to “wipe Israel off the map” and the nuclear weapons it is developing so that it can achieve its aim.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers on 12 July will be decoupled from Hizbullah’s domestic objectives. No one will talk of those soldiers as bargaining chips in the prisoner swap Hizbullah has been demanding; or as an attempt by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to deflect US-inspired political pressure on him to disarm his militia and leave Lebanon defenceless to Israel’s long-planned invasion; or as a populist show of solidarity by Hizbullah with the oppressed Palestinians of Gaza.
Those real causes of hostilities will be ignored as more, mostly Lebanese, civilians die, and Israel and the US expand the theatre of war. Instead we will hear much of the rockets that are still landing in northern Israel and how they have been supplied by Iran. The fact that Hizbullah attacks followed rather precipitated Israel’s massive bombardment of Lebanon will be forgotten. Rockets fired by Hizbullah to stop Israeli aggression against Lebanon will be retold as an Iranian-inspired war to destroy the Jewish state. The nuclear-armed Goliath of Israel will, once again, be transformed into a plucky little David. Or at least such is the Israeli and US scenario.
 
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State”, is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Source: "Information Clearing House".  Date: 08/08/2006  Time 07:14

By George Galloway MP

“Expanding and strengthening” the onslaught against the people of Lebanon. That was Israel’s response to the international outcry over the slaughter of 56 civilians, most of them children, in Qana.
And with the world’s eyes turned to the increasingly savage offensive in southern Lebanon, Israel has tightened the noose of collective punishment around the Palestinians in Gaza.

Accompanying all this are the barely concealed calls in Washington for an assault on Iran and Syria.
No one should be in any doubt which way the chain of cause and effect runs. George Bush, with Tony Blair at his heel, is backing Israel to the hilt because the US wants Hizbollah’s resistance in Lebanon smashed as a prelude to an attack on Iran. In Washington, Blair alluded to such a war.
Catastrophe
It is their perverse reaction to the catastrophe engulfing the occupation in Iraq, where the number of US forces is now increasing rather than being “drawn down” as was promised to military families earlier this year.
To the Iraq disaster we can add Afghanistan, where Britain lost three more soldiers on Monday.
Where two wars have failed, perhaps a wider one might succeed. Such is the logic that is tearing hundreds of Lebanese civilians to shreds and is bringing us to the brink of a gigantic conflagration.
That is also the reasoning behind US, British and Israeli talk of imposing a foreign force in southern Lebanon. This is not a plan for peace - it is a step to further war.
The belligerent forces - Israel, armed by the US, with Blair using British airports to act as quartermaster - are talking of sending troops as an alternative to a ceasefire.
They want the war to continue until Israel wins, and they want to deploy forces in southern Lebanon to help Israel win. They are becoming more anxious to get other countries to send those troops precisely because Israel is not winning.
Its generals have been shocked by the effectiveness of Hizbollah’s military resistance. Politically, the invasion of Lebanon - for that is what it is - is already a disaster for Israel and the US.
It has strengthened the national resistance in Lebanon, with Hizbollah at its centre. Lebanon’s pro-Western Government speaks of Hizbollah as resistance fighters.
Far from reopening sectarian and confessional divisions, which the US and Israel hoped would embroil Hizbollah in civil war, the assault on Lebanon has rallied huge numbers of Christians, Druze and Sunni Muslims behind the banner of Hizbollah.
Across the Middle East anger is boiling at Israel and the US certainly, but also at the corrupt kings and puppet presidents who are allowing the
massacre of Lebanon to take place. Millions are taking inspiration from the Lebanese resistance. It is that resistance that could halt the wider war drive and bring some relief to the besieged Palestinians.
Make no mistake, if that resistance is broken, the result will be no kind of peace, but an even wider war.
If Israel, the US and Britain win in southern Lebanon, I warn you not to be Iranian; I warn you not to be Syrian; I warn you not to be an infant in Gaza; I warn you not to be old in Bint Jbeil; I warn you not to thirst for freedom in Egypt; I warn you not to cry out for justice in Jordan; I warn you not to demand democracy in Saudi Arabia - for if the imperialist forces win in Lebanon, more Middle Eastern countries will be dragged into the maw of war, and the hand of reaction will be strengthened everywhere.
But if they are defeated, if the resistance led by Hizbollah halts the invasion of Lebanon, if it refuses to kneel before imperial might, then a fire will be lit under every throne and in every corrupt chancellery from the Atlantic coast of North Africa to the banks of the Euphrates.
It will speed the day when the impoverished masses across the region take control of their destiny. It will give new hope to the Palestinians.
It will inspire those Israelis, currently few in number, who know the next six decades cannot be like the last and that there must be justice for Palestine. It will bring us closer to a durable peace.
And, in humbling the masters of global military and economic power, it will embolden everyone who is fighting for a better world.
Stop Israel’s attacks
Saturday 5 August l 12 noon l Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London (near Marble Arch tube) - Called by Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, CND, the British Muslim Initiative and Lebanese community organisations

Source: "Information Clearing House".  Date: 05/08/2006  Time 09:30

By Leonard Doyle, Foreign Editor 

Israel's defence forces were yesterday condemned for systematically and deliberately targeting civilians in Lebanon, acts which the respected New York organisation Human Rights Watch described as "serious violations of international law" or war crimes.
 

The number of Lebanese killed in the 23-day conflict is now close to 900, the vast majority of them civilians, and a quarter of Lebanon's population is in flight. Although the Israeli government claims it is taking all possible measures to minimise civilian harm, Human Rights Watch said their detailed investigations revealed "a systematic failure by the Israeli Defence Forces to distinguish between combatants and civilians". The 50-page report flatly accuses Israeli forces of launching artillery and air attacks "with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost".
"In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparently military target," the report states.
In a particularly damning section it concludes that "in some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes against rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians".
Israel's defence is that it targets Hizbollah and that the militia uses civilians as human shields, thereby putting them at risk. The report could find no evidence to back this up. When investigators went to Qana, Srifa and Tyre, where numerous civilians had been killed, they could see "no evidence" of Hizbollah military activity in the area, no spent ammunition, abandoned weapons or military equipment or dead or wounded fighters.
In its central allegation, Human Rights Watch accuses Israel of violating one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks only on military targets
Human Rights Watch also accuses Hizbollah of war crimes in firing rockets packed with ball bearings and without guidance systems towards civilian areas. But the focus of the report is on Israel. Over 50 pages and with forensic detail, it lists attack after attack on civilian homes, often by rockets fired from Apache helicopters. In addition to strikes from aeroplanes, helicopters and traditional artillery, it reveals that Israel has fired cluster munitions against populated areas. On 19 July, for example, survivors of an attack described hundreds of cluster shells dropping on a village.
There is no specific international ban on cluster bombs, but their use in or near civilians is considered an indiscriminate attack, and therefore a war crime, because they cannot be directed in a way that distinguishes between military and civilian targets.
The report examines the air strike on Qana last Saturday, which sparked international outrage and intensified calls for a ceasefire. Human Rights Watch reveals that 28 people died in the attack rather than the 54 originally reported by Lebanese rescue workers. The report details how Israeli warplanes attacked a three-storey building in which 63 members of two extended families were sheltering. At least 22 people are now known to have escaped and 13 remain unaccounted for, presumably buried under the rubble.
Yesterday Israel's own inquiry into the bombing of Qana exonerated the army and found that it would not have bombed a building if it had known civilians were inside. Instead it accused Hizbollah of using human shields.

Source:"The Independent".  Date: 05/08/2006  Time 09:26

By John Kampfner

Blair knew the attack on Lebanon was coming but he didn't try to stop it, because he didn't want to. He has made this country an accomplice, destroying what remained of our influence abroad while putting us all at greater risk of attack.

 

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.

Source:"New Statesman".  Date: 05/08/2006  Time 09:10

Summary: Dalia Khalil - Lebanon
In the wake of the horrendous September 11, 2001 attacks claiming thousands of innocent lives in the United States, the War on Terror was formally announced. Over the span of 5 years, the concept of terror was systematically woven into the world’s consciousness through hundreds of televised addresses and carnage images attributed to terrorist groups around the world.
 

Prior to 9/11, Condoleezza Rice addressed the US nation in March 2000 with: "We need a common enemy to unite us". Indeed, the oldest maneuver in the book of war is to create the enemies you need. It is intriguing to observe how acts of terrorism have time and again been synchronized to support the rationale needed for launching premeditated wars.
The case of the global “boogeyman” Osama Bin Laden leads the pack. Perhaps not many of us remember how the US had openly informed the nations of the world as early as March 2001 (six months prior to September 11) of a plan to invade Afghanistan in October 2001, and how India and Russia had actually declared their intention of joining an anti-Taliban US-led coalition. When the time came, the World Trade Center was reduced to ashes, and it took a few minutes to implicate a warlord inhabiting the hills of Afghanistan. American and British warships seeking control of the Caspian Sea oil thus set smoothly to sail, as the world was being educated about the new “war on terror”.
Iraq fell next in line, with an alleged menace of nuclear capacity that was never proven. The world has not yet forgotten (or has it?) how UN offices in Baghdad were bombed only one day after UN officials declared that US forces should leave Iraq for lack of any evidence on weapons of mass destruction. Or how the Bali nightclub was bombed the week 250,000 Australians took to the streets to protest the war on Iraq. Or how the Riyadh compound inhabited by Arab expatriates was bombed just when Saudi Arabian citizens were beginning to become increasingly vociferous in their condemnation of the US-led occupation in Iraq. Or how on Nov 20th, 2003, the day 150,000 protesters in Britain had been gearing up for a vehement march against Georges W. Bush’s visit to the UK, the British consulate and HSBC headquarters in Istanbul were bombed, relegating those London marches to second class news.
This is not only about the designed wars on Iraq or Afghanistan. It is about the scenarios that are woven to interlace with our insecurities and tamper with our logic while plans for warfare are being drawn.
Terrorism, the buzzword preceding every US-led war since September 2001, is defined in dictionary terminology as having one of three denotations: an act of terrorizing; a system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation; violent and unlawful acts of violence committed in an organized attempt to overthrow a government.
By dictionary terms, Israeli justice minister Haim Ramon’s announcement on Israeli army radio last Thursday falls into the definition of terror. According to the announcement, "all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah." This declaration of collective punishment is in and by itself, an act of terror, let alone its horrific aftermath – another Qana massacre, an earsplitting cry of terror.
By encouraging and providing the political cover for Israel to move forward in its aggression on Lebanese civilians, US policy on the Middle East represents an attempt at intimidating the Lebanese government in an effort to rule out Hizbollah. The US and Israel therefore “seek to rule by intimidation”, fulfilling the second above definition of terror.
Amidst Israel’s shower of death pounding the homes and stealing the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians, Georges W. Bush’s calm authorization of further killing in Lebanon is, to say the very least, unnerving. As Mr. Bush has accustomed us to in the wake of every new war, the smiles and confidence are prelude to an impending apocalypse. While we run for our lives, attempting to feed and shelter 900,000 victims of Israeli aggression and to deal with the tightening cordon of the Israeli blockade, the smiles and endorsement by Georges W. Bush are but a calm foreboding of the terror that is to come.
Lebanon is the only constitutional democracy in the Middle East, and has been as such throughout its history of being an independent republic. To date, the debate on how to improve democratic representation in Lebanon continues, with Hizbollah’s proposal for pluralistic elections being part thereof. Hizbollah is represented in the Lebanese government through 14 parliamentary seats and 2 cabinet Ministers.
Today, the very democracy preached by Georges W. Bush is being pounded by US-donated warplanes and US-led authorizations. Israel’s wrath on Lebanon is not only aimed at physical destruction and the collective massacre of civilians; it is also an attempt to break the very pillars of a democratic nation which has chosen its constitutional government to have representatives from every political or social faction in the country, inclusive of Hizbollah. Coming under attack today are not only our roads, bridges and children, but the very representation of Hizbollah in a democratically elected Lebanese government.
Not so long ago, Hamas was democratically elected to represent the Palestinians in government. Ever since, Israel has obtained every necessary US approval to pound this representation to ashes. The recent bombing of the Palestinian Ministry of the Economy and Trade is a vivid example, so is the US veto on a ceasefire in Gaza.
On both counts, the United States has sanctioned “violent and unlawful acts of violence committed in an organized attempt to overthrow a government”, and Israel has executed them.
Such is terror redefined; So much for preaching democracy in the Middle East.  The burden of proof that Hizbollah is a terrorist organization now lies with the United States and Israel. This author invites you to an open debate.

Source:Intiqad.  Date: 02/08/2006  Time 12:54

Summary: The "Islamic resistance" issued a new statement on the confrontations in Ayta El-Shaab, it said:
"O ye who believe! If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly" Quran [47:7]
Ayta El-Shaab is still writing the lines of heroism, standing as an insurmountable barrier in the face of the enemy army.

After an Israeli military force advanced to retrieve their casualties scattered in the battlefield, they were confronted by the Mujahidin combatants of the Islamic Resistance, who inflicting them with more verified casualties.
Victory comes from God alone the exalted and almighty".
The Islamic Resistance

Source:Islamic Resistance Website (www.moqawama.net).  Date: 01/08/2006  Time 23:31

Summary: By Michel Chossudovsky
Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the World's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?  
Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.
 

One day before the Israeli air strikes, the main partners and shareholders of the BTC pipeline project, including several heads of State and oil company executives were in attendance at the port of Ceyhan. They were then rushed off for an inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted  by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the plush surroundings of the Ç‎raðan Palace.
Also in attendance was British Petroleum's (BP) CEO, Lord Browne together with senior government officials from Britain, the US and Israel. BP leads the BTC pipeline consortium. Other major Western shareholders include Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, France's Total and Italy's ENI. (see Annex) 
Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.
The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel. In 2005, Georgian companies received some $24 million in military contracts funded out of U.S. military assistance to Israel under the so-called "Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program".
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/states/GA.html
Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some twenty percent of its oil. The opening of the pipeline will substantially enhance Israeli oil imports from the Caspian sea basin.
But there is another dimension which directly relates to the war on Lebanon. Whereas Russia has been weakened, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan.
Militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin:
  "[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)
Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.
While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel. In this regard, an underwater Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.
The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are farreaching.
In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.
 "Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East, 
 The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]" 
"Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to the city in tankers or via specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea; and from there it can be transported to India and other Asian countries in tankers. (REGNUM )
Water for Israel
Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.
The Re-routing of Central Asian Oil
Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re-export to Asia, serves to undermine the inter-Asian energy market, which is based on  the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.  
Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market.
War and Oil Pipelines
Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes did not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.
On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.
The implementation of this project requires the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, sea ways and land routes, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.
Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.
"The Long War"
Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel. 
There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines. 
The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. (Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2006)
At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs  points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.

Source:Energy Bulletin.  Date: 01/08/2006  Time 23:30

Summary: The "Islamic resistance" issued a new statement on the confrontations in Ayta El-Shaab, it said:
"O ye who believe! If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly" Quran [47:7]
Ayta El-Shaab is still writing the lines of heroism, standing as an insurmountable barrier in the face of the enemy army.

After an Israeli military force advanced to retrieve their casualties scattered in the battlefield, they were confronted by the Mujahidin combatants of the Islamic Resistance, who inflicting them with more verified casualties.
Victory comes from God alone the exalted and almighty".
The Islamic Resistance

Source:Islamic Resistance Website (www.moqawama.net).  Date: 01/08/2006  Time 23:31

Summary: Thousands of people in Greece main cities protested and condemned on Tuesday Israeli continous aggression on Lebanon.and Palestine

The Greece capital witnessed, late on Tuesday, Hundreds protesters  . Today's protests included women and children who were carrying signs calling for peace, and urging Israel to stop its aggression on Lebanon and Palestine.

Source:http://barborana.com.  Date: 02/08/2006  Time 16:31

Summary: The "Islamic resistance" issued a new statement on the confrontations in Ayta El-Shaab, it said:
"O ye who believe! If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly" Quran [47:7]
Ayta El-Shaab is still writing the lines of heroism, standing as an insurmountable barrier in the face of the enemy army.

After an Israeli military force advanced to retrieve their casualties scattered in the battlefield, they were confronted by the Mujahidin combatants of the Islamic Resistance, who inflicting them with more verified casualties.
Victory comes from God alone the exalted and almighty".
The Islamic Resistance

Summary: By Michel Chossudovsky
Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the World's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?  
Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.
 

One day before the Israeli air strikes, the main partners and shareholders of the BTC pipeline project, including several heads of State and oil company executives were in attendance at the port of Ceyhan. They were then rushed off for an inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted  by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the plush surroundings of the Ç‎raðan Palace.
Also in attendance was British Petroleum's (BP) CEO, Lord Browne together with senior government officials from Britain, the US and Israel. BP leads the BTC pipeline consortium. Other major Western shareholders include Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, France's Total and Italy's ENI. (see Annex) 
Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.
The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel. In 2005, Georgian companies received some $24 million in military contracts funded out of U.S. military assistance to Israel under the so-called "Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program".
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/states/GA.html
Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some twenty percent of its oil. The opening of the pipeline will substantially enhance Israeli oil imports from the Caspian sea basin.
But there is another dimension which directly relates to the war on Lebanon. Whereas Russia has been weakened, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan.
Militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin:
  "[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)
Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.
While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel. In this regard, an underwater Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.
The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are farreaching.
In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.
 "Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East, 
 The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]" 
"Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to the city in tankers or via specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea; and from there it can be transported to India and other Asian countries in tankers. (REGNUM )
Water for Israel
Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.
The Re-routing of Central Asian Oil
Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re-export to Asia, serves to undermine the inter-Asian energy market, which is based on  the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.  
Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market.
War and Oil Pipelines
Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes did not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.
On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.
The implementation of this project requires the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, sea ways and land routes, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.
Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.
"The Long War"
Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel. 
There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines. 
The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. (Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2006)
At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs  points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.

Source:Energy Bulletin.  Date: 01/08/2006  Time 23:30

They destroy our homes, mosques and churches ..
We destroy their warships and tanks ..
They bombard us with American missiles, unintelligent as Bush is!
We bombard them with missiles directed by God Almighty the all powerful ..
This is the start of vengeance for Qana children ..
At 4:30 in the afternoon, the men of God, the combatant mujahidin of the Islamic Resistance attacked and destroyed with their blessed missiles an Israeli warship type-"Saar 4.5".
They were able to hit and destroy the warship with the crew still on board, composed of 53 officers and soldiers.
A number of enemy navy pieces and helicopters rushed to the aid and rescue of the targeted warship.
This is only some of our revenge against the enemy who commits massacres against our people in Qana area, Tyre region and all of Lebanon, now baptized with blood and victorious by it.
And victory is from God alone the exalted and almighty
The Islamic Resistance

Source:Islamic Resistance Website (www.moqawama.net).  Date: 31/07/2006  Time 23:35

Summary: Turkish Member of Parliament from the Turkish Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) Serpil Yildiz resigned Monday from a society friendship committee with Israel in protest against the cruel Israeli aggression on Palestine and Lebanon.
 

In a statement written to the Turkish Parliament Yildiz said Israel's practices of aggression in front of the whole world against the Palestinian and Lebanese amid policies which increases, and becoming more cruel and bloodier on a daily basis against all international laws and humanitarian standards.
Yildiz also condemned the international community and the super power countries headed by the United Nations which stood silent to Israeli aggression and the evacuation of hundreds of innocent people.
"Israel is destroying Lebanese infrastructures of hospitals, civilian buildings, and tourism facilities so that everyone is disabled and becomes a target to Israel," Yildiz added.
The Turkish MP asserted that what is happening in Lebanon has passed the conventional war and became a human slaughter of children and that this why she quitted the committee.

Source:Agencies.  Date: 31/07/2006  Time 23:27

Summary: Hezbollah said it fired at and destroyed an Israeli warship off the coasts of Tyre in retaliation of the Israeli massacre against scores of civilians in Qana.
Hezbollah said in a statement the warship carried 53 "zionist officers and soldiers"

Meanwhile, a Lebanese security sources said Israeli warplanes launched two raids on the Beirut-Damascus highway, one of them hit a civilian truck.
ALSO, Hezbollah said groups of the Islamic resistance were Monday confronting Israeli army forces who were trying to advance into more Lebanese lands.
A statement by Hezbollah said the Islamic resistance was "confronting Israeli attempts at border juncture of Eita Al-Shaab-Sawwajeh-Quzeh." It added that heavy clashes were taking place between the Hezbollah fighters and the Israeli army forces.

Source:KUNA.  Date: 31/07/2006  Time 21:27

Summary: When the United States and Israel lost hope about disarming Hezbollah, they focused all their efforts on military actions based on the pretext of the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, the Hezbollah representative in Tehran said here on Sunday

At a political forum held in Tehran to discuss the latest developments in Lebanon, Abdullah Safieddin added that this is the first time the United Nations has ever failed to call for an immediate ceasefire in hostilities between Lebanon and the Zionist regime.
Ever since Israeli forces were defeated and forced to withdraw from Lebanese territory in the year 2000, the Zionist regime has been seeking a way to save face for that episode, he observed.
“In the same year, the United States and Europe increased the pressure on Hezbollah. The pressure was intensified after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. Of course, a few days before the assassination, the United Nations had ratified the peculiar Resolution 1559, which included a call to disarm Hezbollah. Consequently, Syrian forces were told to withdraw from Lebanese territory, and then the disarmament of Hezbollah was put on their agenda,” he added.
However, Hezbollah was able to convince most Lebanese groups that it needs to be armed and equipped to defend Lebanon because Israel can not be trusted, he noted.
Commenting on the atrocities committed by the Zionist regime in Lebanon, he said that the Israeli forces intended to destroy all residential neighborhoods and military bases of Hezbollah forces and to disarm it in one week, but they failed to achieve these objectives.

Source:MEHER NEWS.  Date: 30/07/2006  Time 02:51

Jets fired three missiles at the Masnaa crossing, which lies about 300 metres beyond a Lebanese customs post.
The area is considered to be part of Lebanese territory.
Security officials said there were no casualties from the strike, which damaged two cars.
Police sealed off the area and prevented journalists from coming close.
They said the road between Syrian and Lebanese checkpoints was closed in both directions.
The passage has been an escape route for tens of thousands of Lebanese, who fled by land to Syria after Israel bombed Beirut airport in the first days of fighting.
It was also a gateway for humanitarian aid entering the country.

Source:Agencies.  Date: 29/07/2006  Time 01:33

In a report, the UN said there is a steep shortage in vital products and services, adding that 23,000 persons have taken refuge in the schools of the city of Sidon and 35,000 others were hosted in private residences.
The UN added that over 500,000 individuals have taken refuge in mountain areas and, according to the UN World Food Program (WFP), aid could only be delivered to Lebanon from Syria through only one border crossing called Al-Aridha.
The UN said the WFP has already sent 10 trucks loaded with aid to Lebanon through Syria, noting that security is a crucial problem facing truck drivers, but no incidents have taken place so far.
After waiting for a few days to receive approval, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) managed to deliver its first shipment that consisted of 140 tons of aid.
The UN anticipated the delivery of two aid shipments on Sunday and Monday.
 

Source:KUNA.  Date: 29/07/2006  Time 01:26