In mid August, the UN Security Council offered a vague cease fire plan. Israel would withdraw forces from southern Lebanon. A UN peacekeeping and Lebanese army force would replace them. Hezbollah would disarm; vague terms, not easily realized! Bombing and shooting continued sporadically. Israel began to withdraw some units. Hezbollah hinted it might move weapons north of the Litani River so as not to provoke the peacekeeping force.

Few expected the truce as written to endure. The UN document omits basic issues: Israel refuses to comply with the UN and the World Court, which ruled illegal its occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory; Hezbollah and Hamas refuse to declare clearly and repeatedly that they accept Israel’s existence -- permanently.

The war disappointed Israeli leaders. Their triumphalism based on its military turned into defensiveness. On August 15, five weeks after the war began, AP reported almost 800 Lebanese dead — “mostly civilians, and nearly 160 Israelis, including 114 soldiers.” Lebanon smoked and burned. A million refugees had fled. Some began to return.

This war started decades ago and has gone on intermittently. Hezbollah conducted raids and occasionally fired rockets into Israel. “Retaliation” meant Israel bombing Lebanon.

On July 12, Hezbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers. That incident supposedly led Israel -- “we must defend ourselves” -- to respond with a war they had intended to wage planned for years. Israeli jets hit “Hezbollah positions” all over Lebanon. On July 16, Bush offered his insight. “It’s now become clear why we don't have peace in the Middle East.”

He blamed Iran and Syria as “root causes” of instability; thus, those countries had a “responsibility” to stop Hezbollah. In fact, Hezbollah, a Shi’ite militia group, has ample representation in the Lebanese Parliament and Cabinet. In the 1980s, it formed to wage guerrilla war to push Israel out of Lebanon, which it did. It claimed that its July capture of two soldiers was meant for an exchange for Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Such deals have occurred in the past.

Hezbollah also declared, however, that its assault signified support of the Palestinians under attack in Gaza. This distinguished the July raid from previous border “provocations. Indeed, the media routinely reported raids by both sides since the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

For five weeks, TV transmitted images of carnage in Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, in Israel. Oddly, these pictures did not stimulate memory. In the past Israeli wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, heated debates arose over what and who started the conflicts, as though the current fighting in Gaza and Lebanon signified something new. Lebanese civilians bore the brunt of Israeli wrath between 1982 and 2000. In each conflict, the powerful nations worried about containing violence because of the strategic (oil) nature of the region.

This time, Washington prevented an early cease fire. Bush wanted to allow Israel time to wipe out Hezbollah. That delay tactic failed. More casualties resulted.

Israel repeatedly gained propaganda advantages over its enemies. Its well-oiled machine churned out stories about Israeli virtues and Arab vices. Israel meant “western” -- civilized; Arab signified treacherous and brutal. Pro Israeli media offered seemingly objective reports on the battles. Official Arab media during the various wars chanted victory slogans just as its military forces suffered ignominious defeat.

In 1967, for example, as Israel defeated its Arab foes, Egypt’s “Voice of the Arabs” reported that its forces “have repelled the Zionist army…the Jordanian Army advanced…” (Jamail Dajani, SF Chronicle Opinion Aug 15, 2006)

The Israeli information campaigns also succeeded in large part because of the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and its right wing fundamentalist allies, like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Hagee. AIPAC’s $60 million annual budget and its staff of 200 helped make it Washington’s most powerful foreign policy lobby.

“Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,” said Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister. The lobby coordinates pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations. It produces voting statistics on Congressmen “that are carefully scrutinized by political donors. It also organizes regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs.” Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four. (The Economist Aug 3, 2006)

The lobby rewards good behavior and relentlessly pursues the disobedient. “To go against AIPAC,” said one former Congressman, “is like inviting a pit bull bite your leg before lunch, hang on for the rest of the day and still have its teeth next to your bone as you tried to fall asleep -- and be there the next morning when you wake up.”

A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th showed that this propaganda had succeeded in convincing eight in ten Americans that Israel's action was justified, albeit a majority worried about the scale of the action. A July 26 USA Today poll had 53% putting "a great deal" of blame for the current crisis on Hezbollah, 39% put the blame on Iran and only 15% blamed Israel.”

Like all effective propaganda, Israeli explanations contained seeds of truth inside its stereotyping. To justify “regrettable civilian casualties,” Israeli spokespeople accused Hezbollah of hiding behind civilians.

Some Israelis even found parallel behavior by their own government. Marjam Hadar Meerschwam, an Israeli, wrote that Israel also keeps military installations “in or near our populated areas” (http://www.newprofile.org/). There is "a military plant at the foot of my road, and Gelilot army base a short walk away," she stated.

Rela Mazali, who also writes for New Profile, described her own "house, in quiet suburbia just north of Tel Aviv, is a 15 minutes walk from a major intelligence base in one direction and a major munitions plant in the other." Indeed, New Profile points out that “Israel's Ministry of Defense (our Pentagon) is in the heart of crowded, downtown Tel Aviv.” Thus far, the media has not asked Israeli to explain why it locates military installations near civilian population centers.

The mainstream media has also not examined carefully Israel’s two policy foundations: maintaining overwhelming military (including nuclear) strength in the region and counting on eternal US financial and military aid. Both depend on U.S. opinion remaining solidly behind Israel. The month long encounter with Hezbollah has shaken one of these policy blocks.

Israeli power and its well trained military no longer proved sufficient. Hezbollah guerrillas successfully challenged the myth of the “invincible IDF.” More disappointing for some Israelis, their vaunted intelligence had ill informed the military to face well-trained and courageous solders – not, as Israeli generals and politicians called them, a "gang" or "terrorist organization."

Israeli commentator Uri Avery wrote that “military sources in Israel announced that 400 of the 1,200 Hezbollah ‘terrorists’ have been killed. That's to say, a mere 1,200 fighters have been standing against the tens of thousands of our soldiers, who are equipped with the most advanced weapons on earth, and hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are still under rocket fire while our soldiers continue to be killed.” (Ha’aretz Aug 8)

The U.S. public has grown uneasy about U.S. policy in the region as the Iraq war bleeds its youth and treasury. Despite the political establishment’s thoughtless support for Israel -- the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed bipartisan resolutions condemning Hezbollah and affirming Congress's support for Israel – an open ended commitment portends serious problems. Congress refuses to recognize that as long as it supports Israel uncritically with $3-plus billion a year, Israel can continue to refuse to negotiate seriously on the Palestinian issue. Flash conflicts in the Middle East will erupt, each with the potential of spreading into wider war.

After the first Intifada in the late 80s and early 90s, Israel felt compelled to negotiate with the Palestinians and recognize the PLO. The1993 and 1995 Oslo agreements to secure a Palestinian state, however, did not get implemented. Israel has relied instead on its military prowess. The neo-cons in Washington took a page from this arrogant notebook and sold it to George W. Bush as U.S. strategy. He invaded Iraq to reinforce the neo-con axiom: overpowering technology and “awe and wonder” barrages would intimidate all potential enemies. But it clearly did not deter those who did not fear death. The Iraqi resistance proved formidable.

Israel’s inability to learn from the U.S. experience now leaves the region in a moment of extraordinary tension. The Israeli military has finally discovered that it could not eternally prevail and that its technology and blasting power alone cannot achieve quick victory.

Alternatives stare the world in the face. Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian elected government, Hamas, and with Hezbollah about its northern border. Then, it could also begin to talk to Syria about the occupied Golan Heights

Seymour Hersh reported that Washington cooperated with Israel’s attack on Lebanon. (New Yorker, August 14) Bush learned little from the Iraq experience about military force democratizing the Middle East. The Israeli lobby will continue to push military “solutions” no matter how dangerous. Perhaps, the beginnings of serious negotiations might offer brighter prospects than the road to Armageddon!