as "popular liberation fronts" too, and by comparison, I suspect the Taliban comes out head and shoulders ahead of Fatah/Hamas and Hezbollah in achieving "social order" ... making trains run on time, taking care of "the people", etc.

Hezbollah seems to be acquiring a legitimacy that appears unearned to me ... yes, they are effective at providing humanitarian aid (having both funds and supply channels that others lack -- in part because of Hebollah's gang-like territorial grip -- and Iran's largesse).

All "guerilla" movements blend in with local populations (hell, that's part of why they're considered guerilla movements), and they could not survive long if they did not ... they would make themselves easy targets. As Fatah ceeded any sort of responsibility for the actions in Gaza, so Lebanon apparently ceeded any responsibility for the actions of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon ... both instances may ultimately prove to have been the undoing of the "legitimate authority" and gives weight to Israel's claim that there is no "partner" to negotiate with in either place.

From the jungles of Colombia (and other South American countries) to the Baltics and the various 'Stans, to numerous African regions, there are guerilla movements, each of whom claim moral highground and "history" on their side ... and there's no celestial clockmaker to tell us who is "really" the avatar ... who the savior, who the self-interested despot hiding in sheep's clothing ...

just don't take everybody to be your friend ... and the enemy of your enemy is not always a "good guy" ... I'm old enough to remember enthusiasm for the Khmer Rouge and the impending (very exciting) liberation of Cambodia, a country historically more backward and oppressed than Vietnam ... I remember excitement about the Cultural Revolution and re-education programs ...

Time will tell, but I've seen little to suggest Hezbollah's mission extends beyond the elimination of Israel and the expulsion of the Jews ... the fate of the average palestinian is cloudy ... but you can bet they'll get pie in the sky when they die.

IMHO, this "debunking" is pathetic ...

and every one told me that he was innocent. I suspect that the whole idea of being guilty is in fact a myth, because they told me so. Can I get a column on Salon now?

You might want to read one of the earlier letters here.

"Canadian UN e-mail

A quick note... the (never publically released) e-mail sent from the Canadian UN observer killed in southern Lebanon didn't in fact say that there were Hezbollah fighters around the post that was destroyed. That was the _interpretation_ put on the e-mail by Lewis Mackenzie, who besides being a retired general was also a failed Conservative candidate for Parliament - and who is vurulently anti-Arab. That interpretation is now being trumpeted as if it were fact.

One might note as well that, if Mackenzie's interpretation is correct, it indicates that Israel destroyed that post deliberately: that it was not, after all, a 'mistake'.

-- SMac"

Or not. It's going to be fascinating to see how many times the interpretation of the unplublished e-mail by a dubious soucre is repeated as fact and how many times the UN spokeperson's counterpoint to the interpretation is ignored. So far we have one....

This is the best article I've seen on Salon in quite a while. Thank you for posting it.

From a historical perspective, America had a Civill War. At first the Federalists tried to convince the South to return to the Union on a humane basis. Major General Geroge McClellan, repeatedly as a Civil War general and later as a Democratic presidential candidate tried to justify a more humane way of prosecuting the Civil War. He was relieved of command and failed as the 1864 Democratic presidential candidate.

However, the Civil War came to an end, when civilian economic centers and the military army was destroyed in Georgia and South Carolina in 1864. Sherman's march through Georgia was effective as a military campaign to end the Civil War by convinging the heartland of the South that they were no longer safe or immune from the destructive aspects of the war, that had devastated Virginia and the border states. The "March" devastated property and business, but civilan lives were generally spared.

Georgia citizens quite right in asserting that their civil and property rights were not respected, and remained outraged for years beyond the Civil war on Sherman's actions. However, wasn't peace with resentment better than continuing year to year, a war that by 1864 had left over 350,000 dead.

The military priciples of the IDF are sound, to attack the property of the civilians, destroy the ablity to carry out normal business, defeat the enemy forces so that it becomes the logical thing to do, make peace.

Sadly "War is hell" is what's needed in the current situation, since all previous attempts at more limited actions have failed. Do we now currently repudiate our own history, as fundamentally flawed or so morally reprehensible, that we would be willing for the our Civil War to have ended as a failure with a negotiated peace agreement with a separate South and North.

VSS

And that's all I have to say about that.

So the Hez were hiding near the UN post and that's why Israel destroyed it? So it was deliberate.

But the Israeli's have DENIED that it was deliberate.

Why is the pro-Israel crowd suddenly claiming that Israel is lying?

In case any of you were wondering, here's what the email says:

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Why would it be a "tactical necessity" to bomb/shell near the area, unless Hezbollah had set up shop there? Hmmm?

What other interpretation is there for this?

The UN spokesman neither denies the contents, nor offers an explanation of his own.

I quote:

A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

Notice that he doesn't explain the email at all. He seems to prefer to ignore it. It is a very straightforward interpretation of the email that Hezbollah activity near the site created the "tactical necessity" for Israeli counter-activity.

Or perhaps he was saying there was a "tactical necessity" to bomb the UN observers so the evil Jews could have the run of the place.

The idiocy of the letter writers here continues to amaze.