Levitt Letter Extra News

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there’s one problem: It never happened.

* * *

Of all the exposés and scandals surrounding the media’s coverage of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, The Red Cross Ambulance Incident stands out as the most serious. The other exposés were spectacular in their simplicity (photographers staging scenes, clumsy attempts at Photoshopping images), but often concerned fairly trivial details. What does it matter whether there was a big cloud of smoke over Beirut, or a really big cloud of smoke, as one notorious doctored photograph showed? The fact that the media was lying was indeed extremely important, and justified the publicity surrounding the exposés — but what they were lying about was often minor, a slight fudging of the visuals to exaggerate the damage.

The ambulance incident, however, was anything but trivial. The media accused Israel of the most heinous type of war crime: intentionally targeting neutral ambulances which were attempting to rescue innocent victims. If true — and it is almost universally accepted as true — then Israel would lose any claim to moral superiority in the conflict. The commanders who ordered the strike should be brought up on war-crimes charges. As it is, the worldwide outcry over Israel’s purported malfeasances grew so strident that the country was pressured into a ceasefire. The media’s depictions of Israel’s actions so influenced public opinion that Israel felt compelled to end the fighting right at the moment it was starting to gain the upper hand. And as a result, Hezbollah has now claimed victory.

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident was perhaps the most damning of all the evidence against Israel, and the most morally indefensible. Other incidents were open to debate: in those cases where Israel bombed buildings that turned out to have civilians inside, Israel claimed either that it didn’t know the building was occupied, or that it was trying to hit a Hezbollah stronghold elsewhere in the same building; or that the strike was a mistake, an errant missile. But targeting clearly marked ambulances, and hitting them directly — there’s no possible excuse for that. So this specific incident contributed to the outrage over the war, eventually causing Israel to stand down.

Which makes it all the more shocking to learn that the attack on the ambulances most likely never occurred, and that the “evidence” supporting the claim is in fact a hoax.

If you can, follow the link at the end of this sentence (or “copy and paste” this address into your Internet address line: http://zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/) for a review of exactly what is supposed to have happened and a look at the media’s coverage of the incident. On this website you can examine how the evidence does not hold up under close examination.

By Max Boot
www.JewishWorldReview.com

“We are walking with open eyes into our next war.”

The pessimism of a senior Israeli official who made that comment on Aug. 13 was striking because he had just finished telling a group of security analysts brought to Israel by the American Jewish Committee that the United Nations-brokered cease-fire had achieved many of Israel’s goals. But he had no illusions that this would represent anything more than a temporary halt in the fight between Israel and the Quartet of Evil seeking to dominate the Middle East — Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

The war wasn’t a total loss for Israel. But it was far from a victory. Hezbollah lost more than 500 fighters as well as most of its medium- and long-range missiles and its bunker network in southern Lebanon, while inflicting scant damage on Israel. Israeli intelligence analysts are convinced that Tehran isn’t happy about this turn of events because it was holding Hezbollah’s rockets in reserve for a possible retaliatory strike if Israel or the U.S. hit Iran’s nuclear weapons complex.

But rockets are easily replaced, and Iran and Syria will now undertake a massive effort to make good Hezbollah’s losses, and then some.

From the perspective of the Quartet of Evil, this conflict demonstrated the power of their rockets to blunt Israel’s military superiority. Antitank missiles inflicted substantial losses on Israeli armor and infantry. A cruise missile badly damaged an Israeli warship that didn’t have its defensive systems turned on. And Hezbollah was able to keep firing hundreds of Katyusha rockets a day into northern Israeli right up until the cease-fire.

Israel had managed to defeat the terrorists’ previous wonder-weapon, the suicide bomber, by walling off the Gaza Strip and West Bank. But a fence won’t stop missiles. Israel will now be loath to retreat any further from the West Bank. Hamas, for its part, will have strong incentive to stockpile rockets in its Gaza redoubt and launch a “third intifada,” as suggested by a columnist in the Hamas newspaper Al Risala.

Israel had hoped that this conflict would reestablish its deterrence, but, if anything, the unsatisfactory outcome will only embolden its enemies. The problem is that wars of attrition against fanatical jihadists who do not fear death and who hide among civilians negate to some extent the Israeli Defense Forces’ superior firepower. Additionally, Iran, the ultimate source of terrorist money and arms, is too far away for effective Israeli retaliation.

Syria, however, is a weak link in the quartet.

Syria’s importance as an advance base for Iran — the two countries concluded a formal alliance on June 16 — cannot be exaggerated. It is the go-between for most of the munitions flowing to Hezbollah. It is the sanctuary of Hamas honcho Khaled Meshaal. It is also, according to Israeli intelligence sources, the home of a new Iranian-Syrian intelligence center that tracks Israeli military movements and relays that information to terrorist proxies.

State Department optimists dream that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad can be weaned from Iran through concessions from the United States and Israel, such as the return of the Golan Heights. But since the early 1990s, the United States has tried repeatedly to strike a deal with Syria and never gotten anywhere. More economic pressure, especially from Europe, would be helpful, but it could probably be offset by increased subsidies from Iran.

History suggests that only force, or the threat of force, can win substantial concessions from Syria. In 1998, Turkey threatened military action unless Syria stopped supporting Kurdish terrorists. Damascus promptly complied. Israel may have no choice but to follow the Turkish example.

Indeed, Shlomo Avineri, a former director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, argues that his country fought the wrong war: Instead of targeting Lebanon, it should have gone after Syria. The Syrian armed forces are less motivated than Hezbollah, and they offer many more targets for Israeli airpower.

It is, of course, hard for a liberal democracy such as Israel to contemplate war if it hasn’t been attacked directly — and Syria has been careful to avoid direct attacks on Israel. (It prefers to fight to the last Lebanese.) Israelis naturally prefer peace. But the choice they face isn’t between war and peace. It is between war sooner and on their own terms, or war later and on the enemy’s terms. Ignoring the threat and hoping that it goes away isn’t a serious option. That’s the mistake Israel made with Hezbollah over the last six years.

By Victor Davis Hanson

www.JewishWorldReview.com
From the recent Israel-Hezbollah war in southern Lebanon to the jihadists in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle to the repeated efforts by Islamists across the globe to trump Sept. 11, what old lessons about terrorism are we in the West finding ourselves having to relearn?

First, death is the mantra of terrorists. In urban landscapes, they hide among apartment buildings, use human shields and welcome all fatalities — friendly or hostile, combatant or civilian. Death of any kind, they think, makes the liberal West recoil, but allows them to pose as oppressed victims.

Their nihilistic hatred intimidates, rather than repels, third parties — whether “moderate” Arabs, Europeans who back off from peacekeeping in Lebanon, or the Western public at large. Our enemies call Jews “pigs” and “apes” and employ racist caricatures of the U.S.’s African-American secretary of state. Meanwhile, we worry about incurring charges of “Islamophobia,” when we should be stressing our liberal values and unabashedly contrasting Western civilization with the 7th-century barbarism of the jihadists.

Second, windfall petrol-dollar profits (now around $500 billion annually) financially fuel radical Islam. Iranian cash allowed Hezbollah to acquire the sophisticated weaponry needed to achieve parity in ambushes with the Israeli Defense Forces. Unless the U.S. can find a way to force oil prices back down below $40 a barrel, Islamists may eventually be better equipped with weapons they buy than we are with munitions we make.

Third, as Israel’s experience in Lebanon demonstrated, air power alone can never defeat terrorists. Precision bombing is a tempting option for Westerners since it ensures few if any of our own casualties. But jihadists, through the use of human shields and biased photographers, are able to portray guided weapons as being as indiscriminate as carpet-bombing.

Fourth, the use of old shoot-and-scoot missiles — Katyushas, Qassams and worse to come — is altering the strategic calculus, as they now number in the many thousands. The fear of Hezbollah’s near limitless mobile launchers enabled terrorists to put whole Israeli cities in bomb shelters and almost shut down the country’s economy.

In the Middle East, neither the new Israeli border wall nor the Golan Heights guarantees security from a sky full of rockets. Israel needs a breakthrough in missile defense and may have to target the conventional assets of terrorist sponsors — the power grid, for example, of Syria — to restore deterrence.

Fifth, intelligence remains lousy. The lapses are not just an American problem but stymie the Israeli Mossad as well. The latter had little idea of the anti-tank weapons and impenetrable bunkers of Hezbollah, located a few miles from the border. Western reliance on drones and satellites yields little on-the-ground information. Meanwhile, free societies broadcast on television much of their own debates and plans.

Under the jihadists’ code of vigilante justice, local informants suspected of supplying tips to Westerners are almost instantly and publicly executed. We, on the other hand, flay ourselves over targeted wiretaps.

Sixth, there is little evidence of either the efficacy or morality of the vaunted “multilateral” diplomacy. The French have steadily downsized their proposed contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. Cash-hungry Russia sold its best weapons to terrorists. And oil-hungry China supplies Iran with missiles.

And seventh, the reputation of the international media in the Middle East for both accuracy and fairness has been lost. In the recent war in Lebanon, news agencies were accused by bloggers of publishing staged photos, and one agency, Reuters, was embarrassed when it found out — thanks again to the work of bloggers — that one of its freelancers had doctored war-zone photos.

Journalists rarely interviewed or filmed Hezbollah soldiers; we still have no idea how many so-called “civilians” reported killed were, in fact, Hezbollah terrorists. In the Middle East, reporters are scared stiff of Islamic fundamentalists, but not the Israeli or American military.

Despite the enormous advantages of Western militaries, there is no guarantee we can keep ahead of terrorists — especially since they are becoming more adept while we seem tired and unsure about whom, why and how we should fight.

So far, the U.S. has been able to dodge the latest terrorist bullets. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq are clinging to their newfound democracies. So far, Israel has been able to survive Hamas and Hezbollah, and these groups’ state sponsors in Iran and Syria.

But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we’ve learned about our enemies — there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.

By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
August 23, 2006

A report by the human rights organization Amnesty International accuses Israel of possible war crimes for deliberately targeting civilian homes and infrastructure in Lebanon. The report, which hardly mentions Hizballah, borders on anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League said.

The report “Deliberate Destruction or Collateral Damage?” charges that Israel engaged in a deliberate policy of destroying Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including thousands of homes, numerous bridges, roads, and water and fuel storage plants.

The 20-page report focuses on what AI considers to be Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and only briefly mentions the more than ,4000 Hizballah rocket attacks on northern Israel that killed dozens of civilians, and forced more than a million Israelis to either flee their homes or live in bomb shelters or security rooms for more than a month. It says those concerns are addressed “elsewhere.”

The Israeli army openly stated that it was bombing Lebanese highways and bridges to prevent Syria and Iran from bringing more rockets and weapons to Hizballah – and to make it harder for Hizballah to move its mobile rocket launchers.

Israel also accused Hizballah of using the Lebanese civilians as human shields, hiding rockets in the homes of the local population, launching missiles from between the houses and then hiding among civilians.

The Israeli army dropped leaflets many times, warning of impending military actions and urging the civilian population of southern Lebanon to flee the area and to avoid contact with Hizballah.

“Israel’s actions in Lebanon were in accordance with recognized norms of behavior [during war] and in according with international law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said in response to the report.

“Unlike Hizballah, Israel did not target the Lebanese civilian population…[and] tried to be as surgical as humanly possible in targeting the terror organization.

“The Lebanon infrastructure was only targeted when that infrastructure was exploited by the Hizballah war machine for its actions against Israel; therefore Israel’s [targeting] was in accordance with the rules of war,” Regev said by telephone.

“Israel’s assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong,” said Kate Gilmore, executive deputy secretary general of Amnesty International in a statement. “Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.”

The report is based on what AI called “first-hand information” gathered by AI research missions to Lebanon and Israel, including interviews with victims, United Nations officials, the Israeli army and Lebanese government and official statements and press reports.

AI called for the United Nations to launch a “comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry” into alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both sides.

Dr. Aeyal Gross, an expert in international law from Tel Aviv University, said that while the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage in Lebanon may raise questions about Israel’s military operation, the fact that AI didn’t release a report about Hizballah at the same time lessens its credibility.

There are two rules of war that apply: the rule of distinguishing between civilian and military targets; and the rule of proportionality, which says that the collateral damage to civilians when striking a military target must be proportional to the threat, said Gross.

If the civilians chose to be a part of the fighting then it is not really any longer a civilian target; but beyond that, there are definitely “gray areas,” he said.

“Given Hizballah’s violation of the rules” — they openly fired at Israeli civilians -”it is unfortunate that Amnesty did not issue a Hizballah report at the same time,” Gross said.

Dr. Ephraim Zuroff from the Simon Wiesenthal Center cautioned against applying the term “war crimes” to Israel’s behavior.

“Israel never purposely targets the civilian population,” said Zuroff. “If they’re in a situation where [civilians] facilitated the attacks, then the civilians stop being civilians.”

But Abraham Foxman, National Director of the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League, called the report bigoted, biased and borderline anti-Semitic.

“I see deliberate destruction of Israeli places and Israeli institutions,” said Foxman, who is currently touring devastated areas in northern Israel. While Israel did not deliberately strike civilian centers, said Foxman, Hizballah directly attacked civilians whether they were Israeli Jews or Israeli Arabs.

“They [AI] always rush to judgment in a biased manner,” said Foxman in a radio interview. “One would have hoped…they would start with the victim. They would come to Israel and do their study here first to see what violations of international law, what criminal activities, were taken on by the Hizballah, by the Arab side. That’s never happened,” he said.

“It is very sinister and it is also dangerous because a lot of good people believe in the goodwill, in the fairness of Amnesty International,” said Foxman.

Crediting AI with “some very good things” in the past, Foxman said that the group nevertheless, has an anti-Israel bias. “When it comes to Israel, it is bigoted, it is biased, it is prejudiced, and if it doesn’t border on anti-Semitism, it is anti-Semitism.”

The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
Jack Kinsella

I had a most interesting discussion the other day about Israel and the role she occupies in the Plan of God. Actually, we weren’t discussing Israel as a nation, but rather ‘the Jews.’ It seemed quite important to my conversation partner that I knew he wasn’t an anti-Semite. I lost count of how many times he said so after the fourteenth time in a single conversation.

Things like, “I’ve got nothing against the Jews, but…” and “I love the Jewish people, but…” and of course, “Some of my best friends are Jews, but…”

My ‘friend’ also told me at least ten times that he was a devout Catholic who ‘had the Sacred Heart of Jesus’, each time pulling a crucifix from around his neck to kiss the image of the broken Body of Jesus depicted as still hanging dead on a Cross.

Although my friend demonstrated virtually no knowledge of the Scriptures themselves, he was extremely well-versed in the reasons why the Jews were responsible for the Crucifixion, telling me at least four times that Pilate had absolved himself (and all Gentiles) of His murder by ‘washing his hands’ of the crime.

It seemed very important to him that I understood that Pilate was a Roman, most probably due to the fact that my friend was of Italian descent and therefore Pilate’s self-absolution was equally extended to Italians in particular.

His arguments were classic; the first was, of course, that the Jews were ‘Christ-killers’ (although he had nothing personal against the Jews, he assured me.) Since the Jews rejected their Messiah, they were cursed by God, and that is why Israel has no right to exist. God has abandoned the Jews for their crime, and now the blessings of Israel are the property of the Church.

Each of us at that table attempted to disabuse him of this notion to no avail, but the points raised are worthy of repeating here.

First, had the Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah, He would not have gone to the Cross. As he (accurately) noted it wasn’t the Romans who sought His execution, it was the Jews. Indeed, had the Jews accepted the Messiah at His First Advent, God’s Plan for the redemption of all mankind would have been thwarted.

It is worthy of noting that Satan’s penchant for overplaying his hand is most perfectly demonstrated at the Cross.

Had he not withstood Jesus, had he not actively worked to blind the Jews to His identity, had he not indwelt Judas to betray Him, had he not inspired the Sanhedrin to condemn Him, had he not whipped the crowds into a frenzy against Him, God’s promise of a Redeemer would not have been kept.

As the Apostle Paul noted, “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” (1st Corinthians 2:7-8)

My friend DID know one Bible verse well enough to quote — Matthew 27:25: “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

However, he assured us all, “he had nothing against Jews personally.” They pronounced their own curse, he argued. That self-pronounced curse was binding on the Jews, he argued.

When Jesus looked over the crowd gathered to watch His death, Luke says He granted them absolution, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

My friend never missed a beat, claiming that absolution was given to the Romans, not the Jews. After all, he argued, Pilate ‘washed his hands’ of the murder of Jesus, whereas the Jews pronounced their own curse upon themselves.

This view only makes sense from the perspective that man is capable of his own absolution or condemnation, but my friend was unmovable.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Corinthians 2:14)

We tried to explain what Paul meant when he said ‘the wages of sin is death’ and that it was the practice of the Jews, as commanded by God, to sacrifice an innocent lamb as payment for the sins of the family that offered it.

“That’s disgusting!” he snorted. “How could anybody do such a thing? What kind of God would demand such a thing!”

“I would NEVER do that!” he exclaimed between bites of his bratwurst. I pointed out that he had no apparent philosophical disagreement with sacrificing an innocent animal to provide life for his body by eating it.

“That’s different,” he said, as he helped himself to another brat. The Jews, (which he had nothing against, personally, he reassured us all) practiced a barbaric custom of animal sacrifice that Jesus put an end to on the Cross.

(Great. Jesus died so animals wouldn’t be sacrificed for sins. Much better that they should be sacrificed to make bratwurst. That’s different.)

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1st Corinthians 1:18)

If the Jews really loved God, he argued, then why aren’t there any Israeli Christians? By this time, I had pretty much lost my normally sweet gentle spirit and was resisting the temptation to stuff his bratwurst up his, umm, nose, so I left the table to let my friend Messianic Rabbi Ric Worshill field this question.

Ric explained that Jews don’t reject Jesus because they hate God — they reject Him because they love God and fear that becoming Christians means they’ve abandoned God.

As a Christian, suppose, just for a second, that Islam made some sense to you. Maybe, you suppose, those Muslims have something there. Maybe the Koran really is the final testament of God. Maybe… but maybe not.

And all your Christian friends, your pastor, all your Christian books, and the Koran itself tell you that by accepting Islam, you must first reject Jesus. (Which is true enough).

To a Jew, accepting Christ means rejecting the faith of their fathers, from Abraham forward, every sage, every teacher, every rabbi, their own parents, brothers, sisters and friends. All that they’ve ever known or been taught.

To a Jew contemplating Jesus, it means rejecting the Abrahamic covenant, abandoning their place among God’s Chosen People, and worst of all, accepting that when the Messiah DID come, they MURDERED Him! (That’s not how it really is, but it is how they see it.) Plus, Jewish history is filled with examples of Jews being themselves murdered as ‘Christ-killers’ under the shadow of a Cross.

To a Jew, the Cross is only slightly less repugnant than a swastika. The swastika itself is simply a bent cross.

Moreover, God’s plan for the redemption of mankind is in two parts. The Abrahamic covenant promises the eventual redemption of the Jewish people. The New Covenant of Christ promises the redemption of the Gentiles who accept Christ. The redemption of Gentile believers is the centerpiece of the Church Age.

After the conclusion of the Church Age, God’s plan for Israel’s national redemption is accomplished during the Tribulation Period, explains the Apostle Paul:

“What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded… I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches… And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but THE ROOT THEE. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.” (Romans 11:7,11, 15-19)

“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” (Romans 11:25-27)

Therefore, concludes the Apostle Paul, himself a Jew and formerly a Jewish lawyer (Pharisee),

“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the Father’s sakes. For the GIFTS AND CALLING OF GOD ARE WITHOUT REPENTANCE.” (Romans 11:28-29)

Paul continues, “For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” (Romans 11:30-32)

Sadly, after some three hours of discussion, my friend was unmoved. At the last, he turned his attention to flying saucers and I turned my attention to getting another soda.

I pray that the seeds we planted might one day bear fruit. Nonetheless, the discussion was not wasted. At some point, I feel confident that some of you may find yourselves in a similar discussion.

1st Peter 3:15 reminds us of our obligation to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

But Ephesians tells us that the purpose of evangelism is not limited to leading the lost to Christ.

“And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers…”

Evangelism means to preach Christ and Him crucified, but it is more than just that. It is also given the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:10-11)

The Jews may be the enemies of the Gospel now, but that is part of God’s plan to accomplish our own redemption. As such we who are saved owe the Jews an incalculable debt.

It is our obligation to understand WHY we stand with Israel. And to be able to explain why when called upon to do so.

“That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1st Corinthians 2:5)

Maranatha!

By Victor Davis Hanson

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

The reactions and media coverage coming out of the West regarding this latest war in the Middle East are as bewildering as they are instructive.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., for example, recently said, “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.”

Meanwhile, the Western news agency Reuters, responding to scrutiny by bloggers, withdrew wire photos taken by a freelance photographer of a smoky and burning Beirut. Reuters had failed to catch the freelancer’s doctoring of the photos to emphasize unduly the damage from Israeli bombs.

And the Associated Press notes that initially reported Lebanese claims of 40 “civilians” killed by Israeli air strikes at Houla, Lebanon, in fact, were mistaken — and that the latest reports have lowered the death toll to one.

In Qana, where the Israeli military had hit an apartment building (and were quickly censured by European statesmen), the number of civilian fatalities reported also kept decreasing as reports were scrutinized. Plus, we have learned that several hours lapsed between the dropping of the bombs and the fatal collapse of the building, raising further questions about the relationship between the bombing and the fatalities that followed. Finally, based on photographs from the scene, the onsite rescue appeared staged for reporters.

These discrepancies suggest we have little idea what actually happened on the ground there — other than that Qana has been a favored missile-launching site against Israel, as a recent deadly aerial assault from there on Haifa attests.

There is a depressing pattern here. The sources for Western erroneous reports and faked pictures always seem to exaggerate the damage to Lebanon — but never to Israel.

Likewise, Western news agencies rarely list a precise number of Hezbollah losses, instead lumping them in with civilian fatalities. Does that mean that someone who launches a missile in Levis and sneakers is not a combatant?

In addition, the history and nature of Hezbollah do not matter to many in the West. Knowingly or not, news outlets continue to spread Hezbollah’s propaganda. One wonders if Westerners remember or know that, until Sept. 11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than had any other terrorist organization.

Most ignore as well that Hezbollah precipitated the present crisis by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers, and launching missiles against Israel’s cities.

In retaliation, the Israeli Defense Forces use precision bombs to target combatants and try to avoid civilian casualties (though the latter is nearly impossible against an enemy who doesn’t wear uniforms and uses non-combatants as “human shields”). In contrast, every random missile launched by Hezbollah is intended to hit a civilian target.

On one side of this conflict is a true democracy that was attacked. On the other are terrorists who hijacked the sovereign government of Lebanon, instituted theocratic rule over a third of the country — and started a war.

Hezbollah, of course, has been enabled in large part thanks to Iranian petro-dollars and intimidation. But the nature of Hezbollah’s patrons doesn’t seem to matter to many Westerners, either.

Those now calling for “dialogue” with the “major players” ignore that Iran promises to wipe out Israel. The French foreign minister was quick to praise the regional role of theocratic Iran as “stabilizing.”

Then there’s Hezbollah’s other patron, Syria, a country that brutally occupied Lebanon, harbors terrorists and is suspected of being behind the assassination of Lebanese reformist Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So, what then does matter to so many Westerners about this war?

Our fear, of course. We want to avoid messy complications like stirring up another 9/11 or Madrid bombing, spiking oil prices to over $80 a barrel, or treading on politically incorrect ground by criticizing the “other” of the former Third World.

The Western press — usually so careful to condemn hate speech — is utterly silent about Arab racism. But a European paper recently published a cartoon portraying Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a Nazi, secure that no rabbi would issue threats that could cost the editors their heads.

Still, when this is all over, we should not worry about the survival of Israel. For weeks, pundits have been lecturing how canny and adept Hezbollah has proved — and how a clumsy Israel could only respond by destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure. Yet, when the dust settles, the world will learn that Lebanon outside Hezbollah’s domain is not destroyed. And, one hopes, those who have suffered in the Hezbollah-controlled south will reexamine their support for a terrorist organization that has brought them — and itself — to near ruin.

Instead far more worrisome is the moral crisis in the West itself. If so many of its politicians, intellectuals and media will not or cannot fathom moral differences in this war, they will hardly be able to see them anywhere else.

By Jack Kinsella
www.omegaletter.com

I understand that the movie ‘Old Yeller’ is available for sale on DVD. I saw ‘Old Yeller’ as a kid and it made me cry when Tim Considine’s character shot Old Yeller at the end. I think I’ll buy it and watch it again. Maybe THIS time, it will have a happy ending. If not, I’ll go buy another copy from a different story and try watching that one. Maybe he won’t shoot the dog. If not, there are other stores…

I know it sounds silly, but if I do it often enough, and talk about how often I do it, I may be offered a job as a UN diplomat. It sounds like a fun job. Lots of travel, a big expense account, and I understand that the more meaningless your efforts are, the further you can advance up the ladder. Who knows? If my work is irrelevant enough, I might even get elected Secretary-General where I can help the down-trodden and victimized of this world by rewarding the victimizers and blaming the victims and be the recipient of global accolades for my far-reaching irrelevance. If not, there’s always Disneyland. I hear they have a whole section called Fantasy Land that is evidently dedicated to training UN Secretary-General wannabes.

Or maybe I can enroll in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad School of Genocidal Cultural Sensitivity. Or the Yasser Arafat Memorial School For Jewish Advancement. I just want to make the world a better place, and the most expedient method is evidently by helping the Jews make the transition from this Jerusalem to the Big Jerusalem In the Sky. At the very least, I might get a job offer from Hezbollah or Hamas. Or a nice ‘thank you’ card from the Big Kahuna himself, Osama bin Laden.

I just want to help. I’m here to serve. Call me.

Assessment: In 1948, the combined forces of the Arab world converged on Israel following her declaration of statehood, vowing to annihilate the infant state while still in its crib. The UN remained silent, fully expecting the Arab war machine to overrun the unarmed and unorganized Jewish state and put an end to the Jewish Question without having to endure another Adolf Hitler or another world war in order to accomplish it, while keeping a clear conscience in the meantime.

After all, the Germans were Europeans and Europe was much too cultured to countenance another Holocaust on its soil. On the other hand, the attacking forces in this case were all Arab Muslims. And killing Jews is what Arab Muslims do. Nobody can blame them for that, anymore than one can blame a cat for killing mice. So the UN accepted Israel’s declaration, granted it admission to the UN, and sat back to enjoy the fireworks. To the UN’s surprise, the ragtag Israeli Defense Forces beat back the combined armies of Transjordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia and acquired an extra 2000 square miles of territory beyond that granted by the 1947 Partition Plan.

This forced the United Nations to impose a cease-fire on Israel, before the Israelis took over the whole durned Islamic Middle East. In 1956, a new war between Israel and Egypt’s Gamal Abdul Nasser broke out after the armies of Jordan, Egypt and Syria were consolidated under Egyptian leadership in a second effort to eradicate the Jewish State. Israel’s Operation Kadesh, commanded by Moshe Dayan, lasted less than a week; its forces reached the eastern bank of the Suez Canal in about 100 hours, seizing the Gaza Strip and nearly all the Sinai Peninsula.

Panicked, the UN General Assembly imposed a cease fire against Israel, forcing the Jewish State to give back all the territory it had gained during the second war of annihilation against the Jews in the space of eight years. The hard-headed Israelis refused to surrender to the UN at first. It took several more resolutions and pressure from the United States before Israel withdrew in 1957 to its original, indefensible borders to wait for the next invasion. Even then, the Jews wouldn’t withdraw without security guarantees, so the UN established a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to stand between Israel and the Arab world. It took ten years before the Arab world sufficiently recovered to mount a third attempt to annihilate the Jews.

In June, 1967, when the Arab forces were fully prepared and Cairo has massed sufficient troops along Israel’s border, UNEF pulled out and let Jordan, Syria and Egypt have another go at them. Six days later, Israel had destroyed the Arab Legion’s air force, kicked Syria off the Golan Heights, took back all of Jerusalem, threw Jordan out of the West Bank and took the Gaza Strip away from Egypt. Israel’s annexation of Sinai, Gaza, Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights, shortened its land frontiers with Egypt and Jordan, removed the most heavily populated Jewish areas from direct Arab artillery range, and temporarily increased its strategic advantages.

Aghast, the United Nations imposed another ceasefire on Israel [Resolution 242] before the Islamic world’s war-making abilities were completely destroyed. In 1973, Egypt tried again, supported by Syria and financed by Saudi Arabia. The sneak attack was scheduled for October 6, as Israeli forces were at home with their families celebrating Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement.

The UN’s major powers, including the US, Russians, French and the UK all knew of the attack several days in advance, but, in the spirit of fair play, let Israel discover it when Egyptian and Syrian tanks began rolling over Israel’s border cities. When it became clear that, instead of being finally destroyed, the Israelis had started to win [again] the UN forced another ceasefire and stationed another UN force between Israel and the Arabs to oversee Israeli compliance. [Resolution 338] The Arab governments finally realized that they couldn’t defeat Israel by conventional means, so they went underground, offering material support and training to Islamic terror groups, including Yasser Arafat’s al Fatah and later, to Hezbollah.

In the thirty years since, the UN has passed more resolutions ‘condemning’ Israel, ‘deploring’ Israel, ’strongly condemning’ Israel, imposing conditions on Israel and subsequently ‘deeply regretting’ Israel for ignoring them than it has against the rest of the world combined. Twenty-six percent of all UN resolutions passed by the General Assembly since 1948 expressly condemn Israel. Of the 175 resolutions passed between 1948 and 1991, 97 — more than half — were aimed at Israel. Four were against an Arab state.

A month ago, Hamas infiltrated Israeli territory, killing several Israeli soldiers and kidnapping one young Israeli corporal to hold hostage, demanding the release of 1200 Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails as ransom. The following week, Hezbollah invaded from the north, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more, announcing its intention to ransom its hostages for terrorist prisoners held by Israel.

The United Nations approved a document entitled “International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages” in December, 1979. Article 1 of this document defines the crime: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention.” Article 3 expressly gives the state whose citizen was taken hostage carte blanche to do what is necessary to recover such hostages.

“The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure.” Since the UN has not invoked [or even alluded to] its own conventions on hostage taking, one can only conclude that, under UN rules, 1) an Israeli hostage is not a ‘person’ and, 2) Israel is not a ’state’. Therefore, Israeli military efforts aimed at recovering its hostages cannot be permitted. Consequently, UN Resolution 1701 imposing an Israeli ceasefire and withdrawal from Lebanon [without its hostages] passed the UN Security Council unanimously. Secretary Kofi Annan expressed his deep disappointment in the Security Council [read: the United States] for letting Israel run roughshod over the ‘innocent’ Lebanese (who supplied Hezbollah with both a base of operations and helped them spirit Israeli hostages out of reach.)

Resolution 1701 ‘tabled’ the fate of the hostages until a later time. [No doubt an endless source of comfort and hope for the Israeli hostages and their families] To ensure a ‘lasting peace’ Israel must stop killing Hezbollah fighters. [While there are still some left to rearm and regroup]. UNIFIL’s mandate to ensure Lebanon’s border security was renewed. UNIFIL has been on Lebanon’s border for 28 years.

It is worth remembering that UNIFIL witnessed the Hezbollah abductions on July 12, but neither prevented NOR REPORTED it. In its entire 28 year history, UNIFIL has yet to be cited as having prevented a SINGLE cross border incursion into Israeli territory by Hezbollah terrorists. However, UNIFIL’s value as a neutral deterrent force WAS highlighted in 2000. That was when the UN was forced to release photographic evidence of ‘dozens’ of UNIFIL troops and official UNIFIL vehicles that were PRESENT when Hezbollah kidnapped three other Israeli soldiers.

In that incident, it turned out that Hezbollah fighters were able to get close enough because they were wearing UNIFIL uniforms supplied by Indian elements of the UNIFIL force [in exchange for bribes amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars). An Indian soldier attached to that UNIFIL unit later testified, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." He testified that they all knew that the men wearing their uniforms were really Hezbollah in disguise. He also testified that at least four UN soldiers collaborated with Hezbollah, helping them to reach the ambush site and assisted them in locating their IDF targets.

When the story broke, Kofi Annan indignantly denied it and refused to investigate or take any action against the UNIFIL soldiers involved. When Israel discovered the attack had been videotaped by UNIFIL soldiers, it demanded access to it. Kofi Annan and his Special Envoy denied that any videotape existed. Nine months after the kidnapping, July 6, 2001, the UN admitted that it had the videotape but refused to turn it over to Israel.

Kofi Annan demanded a UN 'investigation', which unsurprisingly concluded that there was no evidence that the UNIFIL forces had been bribed, or that the UN had deliberately misled anyone. Annan nevertheless continued to refuse to let Israel see the tape until after he was forced to by a US Congressional vote [411-4] that tied compliance with Israeli’s request to continued US financial support. In the end, Kofi relented, kinda, but not before doctoring the tape so the perpetrators could not be identified. He also agreed to give the Israelis some, but not all, of the items which the UN had seized from the getaway cars. On January 29, 2004, the bodies of the murdered Israelis were returned to Israel by Hezbollah, as part of a prisoner exchange.

So clearly, UNIFIL is the PERFECT choice to continue to protect Israel from Islamic terror. Which is why Kofi praised them so profusely in his UN rant following Resolution 1701’s unanimous passage on Friday. Resolution 1701 forbids further deployment of ‘foreign forces’ [like Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Syrian intelligence, etc.] from Lebanon without the consent of Lebanon’s government. It forbids the sales or supply of arms and weapons into Lebanon without authorization from Lebanon’s government. Kofi Annan says that should address Israel’s concerns about Hezbollah using the ceasefire to rearm itself. And it requires Lebanon’s government to obey previous UN resolutions to disarm Hezbollah.

Has anybody ELSE noticed that Hezbollah is an elected PART of Lebanon’s government? As a parting shot, Resolution 1701 “Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.” Strangely, Resolution 1559 calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah and Hamas wasn’t mentioned as relevant to “a just and lasting peace.”

I could go on, but its too depressing. So I just put Old Yeller in my DVD player. I could use a happy ending.

www.newsmax.com

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a hero of 9/11, says he’s convinced that the United States will again be the victim of a terrorist attack.

Speaking with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on August 10, Giuliani said Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah terrorists “underlined” why the American effort in Iraq is so important.

“Engaging the terrorists by being on the offensive against them has kept us safe. And we’re not going to be safe forever, and we are going to be attacked again.”

Asked if the United States is “significantly safer” today than on 9/11, Giuliani said: “We are safer, but we’re not safe.”

He also maintained that terrorist attacks on the West began long before 9/11.

“We’ve been at war for a lot longer than we ever realized. I mean, this goes back to the 70s with the attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. The killing of Leon Klinghoffer. Wherever there’s hijackings and bombings.

“In ’94, ’95… because of American intelligence and Philippine intelligence, they were able to arrest and stop people who were going to bomb 10, 12 airplanes.

“We kind of think like it started with Sept. 11. It goes way back.”

Giuliani brushed aside the suggestion that the West may ultimately be able to negotiate with terrorists.

“You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people — they have demonstrated to us that they despise us. They hate us. They want to kill us.

“And they want to kill us because we’re a modern society. They want to kill us because we give women rights. They want to kill us because we have freedom of religion. They want to kill us because we have elected officials. They want to kill us because we’re modern and we can’t give that up.”

Giuliani called the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary “a perfect example of how you can be victimized over one issue.”

Hannity asked if the Democratic Party had been taken over by the left, and Giuliani responded: “I think the Democratic Party is the party of the left.”

Not surprisingly, Hannity brought up the subject of Giuliani’s possible run for the White House in 2008.

Hannity: “You’re spending a lot of time in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Can one assume that you are very seriously now contemplating announcing running for president?”

Giuliani: “You can assume that I’m seriously talking to people and getting their advice. But I’m not contemplating announcing for president.”

Hannity: “If you were to, when would you do it?”

Giuliani: “It wouldn’t be until after the 2006 elections.”

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20060803.aspx

August 3, 2006: In the last 24 hours, Hizbollah fired a record 231 rockets at five Israeli towns, killing one Israeli (a civilian) and wounding 49. The Hizbollah rocket campaign against Israel has been a colossal failure, and this is being noticed in the Arab world. So far, it appears that Hizbollah has to fire over a hundred rockets, to kill one Israeli civilian. This is not impressive, especially when you consider that Hizbollah is trying to kill Israeli civilians. Many of the rocket warheads have been modified (with the addition of hundreds of small metal balls) to enhance their anti-personnel effect.

The Hizbollah problem is that they are firing unguided rockets at a handful of targets (residential areas) within 20 kilometers (the range of their 122mm rocket) of the border. These rockets will only hit something if you fire a lot of them (several dozen is best) and aim them properly. But the Hizbollah rocket teams, operating at night, and under constant threat of discovery by Israeli aircraft and UAVs above, must move quickly. This apparently means that careful placement of the launchers is not a high priority. That can be seen by the increasing number of rockets landing in unoccupied areas. On some days, the Hizbollah rockets don’t kill or wound anyone inside Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israelis, using guided weapons (missiles and smart bombs), are trying to avoid civilian casualties. They have a more difficult time of it, because nearly all their bombs and missiles hit what they are aimed at. Still, that has resulted in one dead civilian for every two or three bombs and missiles used. That’s an unprecedented reduction in “collateral damage.” But it isn’t getting reported that way. And when one Israeli bomb apparently killed over fifty civilians, the Arab world cried “war crime.” However, when Arabs were asked how they would respond to a similar hit on Israeli civilians, they believed that would be a “great victory.” Same attitude was seen back in World War II, when, early in the war, German and British bombers were hitting each others civilians.

For many Arabs, and their Western supporters, objectivity has been tossed aside, and reality twisted to conform to more popular views. Israel was attacked by a terrorist group, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and establishment of a worldwide religious dictatorship. Yet many see Israel as the aggressor, for defending itself too vigorously. As a democracy, Israel is responding to its public opinion, which is solidly behind the response to Hizbollah aggression.

This is very much an Information War, where keeping facts to yourself is a matter of life and death. Hizbollah can only make vague assertions that it has not been hurt. To provide any accurate information would only aid the Israelis. Same thing on the other side. Although, as a democracy, with a free press, the Israelis can’t manage the news as well as Hizbollah, the Israeli military does keep details of what they are doing secret. This prevents Hizbollah from knowing any more about what tactics and techniques the Israelis are using.

That said, the Israelis appear to be approaching the destruction of Hizbollah in a methodical fashion. The first two weeks were spent hitting Hizbollah targets that were obvious, and some non-obvious ones obtained from agents on the ground or within Hizbollah. While these air attacks appeared to hit things that all Lebanese used, like highway overpasses and bridges, on closer examination, the bombs were placed where they would do temporary damage (just taking down some of the roadbed), rather than much longer term, and expensive to repair, damage (to main supports). This detail was noticed by many Lebanese.

The campaign against the Hizbollah rockets proceeds on several levels at once. When rocket storage facilities are found, they are attacked quickly, before the rockets can be launched. Many of the rockets were stored under residences, schools and mosques. The Hizbollah plan was to have launch teams that could quickly take out the rockets, set them up in launchers, and fire them. Since firing the rockets would give away the position to the Israelis, Hizbollah learned not to try and use the same position twice. If all the rockets in a storage area could not be fired, then the unfired ones had to be moved.

Israel has hundreds of aircraft, UAVs and helicopters equipped with night vision sensors, and capable to patrolling the roads and hills along the border. The Israelis tried to take advantage of the size and range characteristics of the Hizbollah rockets. The most common rocket, the 122mm one, weighs 150 pounds and is nine feet long. But it’s range is only twenty kilometers. Since most of northern Israel is sparsely populated, you have to launch the 122mm rockets within a few kilometers of the border to have any chance of hitting anything. But any vehicle moving on the road, that looked like it could carry these rockets, was subject to attack. The Israeli night stalking tactics appear to have put the Hizbollah launch teams under a lot of pressure. Once rockets were out in the open and being set up, they were vulnerable to attack. Some of these launch sites were hit before the rockets could be sent on their way. This was obvious, because, first, there was an explosion, then secondary explosions and some rockets flying off in various directions. The Israelis learned that hitting the launch sites would catch rockets that had not launched, or others that could not be moved away yet.

Death from above was a bigger problem for the larger rockets, that could reach deeper into Israel. These rockets had the range, but they were still unguided. You needed a special launcher, and some time to get the rockets lined up just so, in order to hit a large town or city 50-70 kilometers inside Israel. Few of these have been launched, especially after the first two weeks. Even larger rockets, that can reach Tev Aviv, make an even more distinctive sight at night, to Israeli sensors. Several of these very large rockets have already been caught in the open, and destroyed. Neither side is saying how many of these very large missiles there are left. But Hizbollah will continue trying to move them into position, and Israeli troops will continue trying to prevent that.

To that end, more and more Israeli ground troops have been going into southern Lebanon over the last two weeks. At first, the Israelis sent in small patrols of very highly trained troops. These were there, in part, to confirm intelligence (from air recon and agents) of exactly what Hizbollah had on the ground. This phase has apparently been completed, for there are now at least half a dozen Israeli infantry battalions roaming around southern Lebanon. There was also a raid, some 70 kilometers north of the border, where Hizbollah big shots, or one of the Israeli captives, was believed to be.

With more Israeli troops on the ground in Lebanon, expect more of these raids. That’s because many of the Lebanese down south are Christians and Druze, who cooperated with the Israelis during the 18 year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon (to prevent the rocket launches going on right now), and these people were not treated well by Hizbollah, when Hizbollah pushed aside Lebanese police and border guards, after the Israelis left. There’s a lot of information to be obtained from these Lebanese, and a willingness to give it up.

Hizbollah has over a hundred bunkers throughout southern Lebanon. These will be taken out, one by one, using smart bombs or explosive charges. These bunkers are death traps for Hizbollah, although many of them have escape tunnels that may, or may not, work. Many of the Hizbollah fighters gunmen in the south are essentially on suicide missions. There are a limited number of these suicide fighters. While Hizbollah can get more volunteers, because of the war fever, you can’t train the volunteers to be useful in a short time.

It’s a war of attrition, where neither side is willing to reveal what their score is. Hizbollah believes time is on its side, but this appears to be more imaginary than real. The fact of the matter is that Hizbollah cannot win. Israel is fighting for its very existence, while Hizbollah is fighting to preserve a warlord army in a democracy that, so far, has avoided taking control of southern Lebanon for fear of starting another civil war. Hizbollah is a militant religious group subsidized by foreigners (Iran and Syria), that both Israelis and Lebanese want gone. By Hizbollah’s twisted logic, they will have “won” if they still have any presence in Lebanon after this is all over. One outcome that is certain is that Hizbollah will have once more demonstrated that terrorism cannot destroy democracy, no matter how fashionable the terrorists have become among people who should know better.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are cheering on Hizbollah, but otherwise left in the shadows because of a lack of media attention. Egypt is hosting negotiations to obtain the release of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas. The Palestinians are inclined to give up the Israeli soldier, in return for some kind of economic relief. Since Hamas took over in March, most foreign aid has stopped and the Palestinian economy is hurting.

By Brigitte Gabriel
FrontPageMagazine.com

While the world’s attention is focused on westerners fleeing to Cyprus and the many Hezbollah civilians fleeing to Syria, another group of Lebanese people worldwide are counting the days until they will be going back to their homes in Lebanon and reunite with their families. These are the thousands of Lebanese Christian refugees who fled Lebanon before, during and after the civil war.

The most recent wave of refugees fearing slaughter by Hezbollah came in 2000 with the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon. With Israel’s help, many moved on throughout the world while over one thousand remained in Israel. Most are ready to go back to their homes, which many left with only the shirts on their backs.

These Lebanese originally came under attack from radical Islamic and PLO elements in Lebanon in 1975 and asked Israel for help. Living in what became “the Israeli security zone” in 1978, they and Israel held off the Palestinians, radical Islamists, and later Hezbollah for 18 years from attacking Christians and shelling northern Israel.

In June 2000, under daily causalities and mounting popular pressure, the IDF set a withdrawal date. As the date drew near, the security of IDF forces began to be compromised as the loyalty of allied Lebanese began to waver as they wondered about their fate after the Israelis left. The IDF departed suddenly with its closest Christian allies right behind them.

For the Christians in Israel who tell me of their hearts’ desire, I can only use fictitious names for fear of their relatives living in Lebanon being killed by Hezbollah. Everyone knows everyone in South Lebanon. George, a Christian Lebanese refugee in Haifa, says, “I can’t wait for Israel to go in. I want to go back to my home.” Alexander and Mouna in Nahariya say, “We can’t wait to be reunited with our family. The kids miss seeing their aunts and uncles.” Butros and Georgette, an older couple in Kiriat Shemona, say, “We want to go back home and die in Lebanon.” Sam in Florida says: “Finally I am going to be able to raise my two children. I have seen them once in six years.”

These Christians who fled to Israel joined thousands worldwide who already fled from the destabilization and destruction of the only Christian country in the Middle East. From being a majority to becoming a minority, Christians who could leave left for less intimidating and secure countries. After the 2000 Israeli withdrawal, Christians remaining in south Lebanon live under the subjugation of Hezbollah’s domination and a poor economy.

Those who remained in the Christian Beirut found themselves politically isolated by their Syrian/Islamic dominated government. As they helped rebuild Lebanon, they kept to themselves, letting Hezbollah propagate and domineer over south Lebanon and increase its influence in the national government. The terror group’s unrestricted growth has given us the problem erupting today.

Now there are two groups of Christian Lebanese. The refugees wanting to go back and those in Lebanon who don’t know if they should stay or leave. For the refugee Lebanese, the war looks painful from a distance but their desire to overcome the evil that forced them to leave makes them agree that something ever so violent must be endured to rid the influence of Hezbollah.

Through the anonymity of the Internet, Christians are speaking up. Response to my media appearances as a Lebanese voicing support for Israel’s war with Hezbollah is running strong.

“Thank you for finally bringing to light the facts of this war that most people refuse to speak about.” Barbara

“I was so glad to hear you on CNN. You said what so many of us Lebanese Christians want to say. We need a strong voice like yours to represent us.” Lina

“People in our beloved Lebanon are too afraid to state this painful truth from fear of retaliation and us, “Westerners”, are too afraid to be labeled as politically incorrect.” Nayla

“I watched your interview on CNN today. Thank you for your honesty and courage.” Hanna

“Most Christians like us in Lebanon feel the same but are unable to air their opinion. I still have family in Lebanon, therefore I won’t disclose my identity by fear of reprisal.” Johnny

I see the result of this latest conflict greatly determining the future of the Christian make-up of Lebanon. To what extent the influence of Hezbollah may be diminished will determine if Christians refugees return, or Christians in Lebanon leave for more secure pastures as Christian minorities in the Middle East have done since the creation of Islam.