EVEN by the grisly standards of the Middle East, the body count is fearsome in Lebanon. Approximately 400 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the fighting between the Israelis and the Hezbollah and about 800 wounded. Some 750,000 have been displaced. The infrastructure, painfully reconstructed after long years of strife, has once again been reduced to ruins in many parts of the country.

The agonising truth of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s words that his country was being torn to shreds is clearly visible on TV screens as Israeli bombardment and shelling continues. Meanwhile, in Israel, the combined death toll of civilians and soldiers is about 40 while the number wounded is 360 or thereabouts. All this in the short time that has elapsed since the Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

In Gaza, the tragedy is equally intense. By Sunday the death toll — since the June 25 incident in which an Israeli soldier was kidnapped — had risen to 121, and the number of wounded was approaching 600. Much of Gaza is without electricity and the misery of the people is evident on the limited TV coverage Gaza is receiving with the media attention having shifted to Lebanon. There are virtually no Israeli casualties on this front.

The Israeli retaliation for the kidnapping of its soldiers has been out of proportion to the damage it has suffered and is in violation of the principle of proportionality accepted as customary international law and now part of the Hague Conventions. The Geneva Conventions prohibit armed reprisals that intentionally inflict collective punishment against civilian populations as well as the targeting of non-military targets. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a carefully worded statement, said that while “Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned.”

The UN human rights commissioner, Louise Arbor, has said, “The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.” She added, “Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians... Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable.”

This clearly does not weigh heavily with the Israelis who, with America in their corner, can afford to ignore these calls for observing the norms of warfare — just as they have ignored the international community’s calls for an immediate ceasefire. The Israelis are sure they will not lose this war and therefore none of their commanders would ever be tried for criminal excesses.

The Americans have made it clear that they are fully behind Israel’s wanton attacks on Lebanese territory. They have provided it with the wherewithal. As one observer has pointed out, “While the United States provides about $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to Israel each year, US aid to Lebanon amounts to no more than $40 million. This despite the fact that the per capita GDP of Israel is among the highest in the world at $24,600, nearly four times as high as Lebanon’s GDP per capita of $6,200. Lebanon’s lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians — three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line.”

They have ignored impassioned pleas from their closest Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia, to pressure Israel into accepting an immediate ceasefire. They have said that a ceasefire was possible only if it was implemented simultaneously with the deployment of international troops, disarming of the Hezbollah militia, return of displaced Lebanese and plans for reconstruction to occur at the same time. This, according to Nabih Berri, the Shia speaker of the Lebanese parliament, was the unacceptable message that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conveyed during her visit to Lebanon on Monday.

Under-Secretary Burns in a public statement had said earlier that an immediate ceasefire would be handing Hezbollah a major victory because it would leave them in a position to launch attacks on northern Israel. So it is clear that the Americans will endorse a call for a ceasefire only after the military capabilities of the Hezbollah have been totally destroyed or at least substantially attenuated. The destruction of Lebanon that this will entail would probably be termed as acceptable “collateral damage”.

In pursuit of this goal the Bush administration has set aside the general principle of not supplying weapons or munitions to a war zone and has sent from its stocks the munitions that Israel needs to replenish the arsenal it is rapidly using up in its relentless assault on Lebanon and Gaza.

There are voices in Europe and around the world that seek to protest the disproportionate Israeli reaction and the raining down of destruction on a country whose government bears no responsibility for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The fact, however, is that while there is sympathy for the Lebanese people, the western countries do want the destruction of the Hezbollah and in this they are openly or covertly supported by many in the Arab governments who fear this renegade movement. Some may regard it as the vanguard for the creation of a Shia crescent in the Middle East.

The Saudi statement issued after the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers made clear not only the Saudi government’s position but also that of most of the conservative Arab governments. “Viewing with deep concern the bloody, painful events currently taking place in Palestine and Lebanon, the Kingdom would like to clearly announce that a difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures carried out by elements inside Lebanon and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority in their state...”

The Saudis are normally chary of articulating in public their position on regional developments, particularly a position that could suggest any diminution of their support for the Palestine cause. The fact that they felt compelled to speak out indicates the depth of their concern.

The Lebanese have been more bitter. The Hezbollah leader may claim that “Hezbollah is not waging the battle of Hezbollah or of Lebanon. We are waging the battle of the nation, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not.” The Lebanese, outside the Shia plurality, see it differently. As Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri put it, “These adventurers (i.e. Hezbollah) have placed us in a difficult situation because of their irresponsibility... We demand a reckoning with these adventurers who embroiled Lebanon in a crisis it does not need.”

Currently, there is no fear, to my mind, that the conflict will spread to other parts. With an effective naval blockade in place and with roads leading from Syria into Lebanon being under constant bombardment there is little chance that Hezbollah’s arsenal will be replenished. The destruction in Lebanon will continue at least for another week or 10 days and in that period whatever remains of the Lebanese infrastructure will be destroyed.

Hezbollah as a movement will survive but it will be left with precious little equipment to maintain its military capability. The governments in the Muslim, particularly the Arab, world will stand by helpless to influence the course of events. Many may even welcome it in the possibly false belief that this price was worth paying to have the writ of the Lebanese government enforced in all of Lebanon and to reduce, if not eliminate, the Iranian influence in Lebanon.

The question that arises is which of these end results was not known to the Hezbollah when it embarked on the raid into Israel and kidnapped the Israeli soldiers? Did they think, after the violent reaction of the Israelis to the June 25 incident in Gaza, that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would not take the same sort of action in Lebanon? Did they not realise that Olmert, largely perceived as untested, would take the path of war to establish his credentials? Did they not realise that in an election year, few American politicians would have opposed an unprovoked Israeli attack leave alone one for which justification had been provided on a silver platter? Could they not anticipate a US Congress vote which supported Israel by 410 to eight?

Did they not realise that in dealing with Bush they were dealing with a man who (as someone said) was “more committed to Israel” than any other and who would “not bow to international pressure to pressure Israel”? Did they not realise that even the small pro-Arab lobby in Europe would be silenced if there was provocation for Israeli action and such provocation came from a group like Hezbollah? Did they not realise that in the Arab world, rightly or wrongly, they would be seen as acting as the pawns of the Iranians in a game that has little to do with the Palestine cause or the release of Palestinian prisoners held by the Israelis?

I have a strong suspicion that all this was anticipated but both the Damascus-based leadership of the Hamas and Hezbollah proceeded nonetheless because they felt that they were in danger of losing their relevance and their support base. Khalid Mashal was strongly opposed to the agreement that his colleague but rival Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh had worked out with President Mahmoud Abbas to stave off the referendum that President Abbas had threatened to hold on the subject of a two-state solution to the Palestine problem.

Haniyeh had in effect recognised Israel — its reality if not its legitimacy — and this was anathema to Khalid Mashal as was the prospect that some progress could be made towards commencing negotiations on the roadmap. There is no doubt in my mind that the kidnapping was the handiwork of Hamas followers loyal to Mashal and opposed to Haniyeh.

Similarly, in south Lebanon, Hezbollah could feel that the international pressure for the implementation of Resolution 1559 calling for the disarming of all militias in Lebanon was beginning to gather force and as Lebanese prosperity increased more means would become available to the government, of which Hezbollah was a part, to persuade or coerce Hezbollah into becoming a purely political party with no military capability. Parochial rather than national or regional interests dictated this sad misadventure.

Western suspicions that Iran, as the main financier and military equipment supplier to Hezbollah, pressured Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to engage in this adventure seem to be misplaced. The temporary diversion of attention that this would achieve would be a small gain for Iran and would be far outweighed by the ill-will it would create in Lebanon, in the Arab world and in the small camp of Europeans and others who are sympathetic to Iran’s position on the nuclear issue.

__________________
This is the sign of 1 who loves GOD that his chief care z goodness n devotion n his words r mostly in praise n glorification of GOD.