[lit-ideas] Re: US Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:04 -0700 (PDT)

Technically it's Israel that is the attacker. As to
the moral and legal justification of the attacks, see
the rest of the article. In any case, Israel's current
vexing self-righteous about "provocations" is
laughable in the light of its long history of
provocations and invasions against both the
Palestinians and the Lebanese.

As to being glad that you are not part of my personal
life, Stan, at least there is something we can agree
about.

O.K.



--- Stan Spiegel <writeforu2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Omar:
> 
> "On July 20, the U.S. House of Representatives, by
> an
> overwhelming 410-8 margin, voted to unconditionally
> endorse Israel's ongoing attacks on Lebanon and the
> Gaza Strip. The Senate passed a similar resolution
> defending the Israeli attack earlier in the week by
> a
> voice vote, but included a clause that "urges all
> sides to protect innocent civilian life and
> infrastructure." By contrast, the House version
> omits
> this section and even praises Israel for "minimizing
> civilian loss," despite overwhelming evidence to the
> contrary. The resolution also praises President
> George
> W. Bush for "fully supporting Israel," even though
> Bush has blocked diplomatic efforts for a cease-fire
> and has isolated the United States in the
> international community by supporting the Israeli
> attacks."
> 
> Interesting, Omar. In this little paragraph you
> refer over and over again to 
> Israeli "attacks," as if Israel is the aggressor.
> Cause and effect doesn't 
> seem to be part of your vocabulary. Anytime Israel
> is involved in a problem, 
> it's always Israel at fault. You seem very able to
> block out important parts 
> of the conflict.
> 
> I'm not sure that's such a virtue.
> 
> In your relationships, Omar, are you just as capable
> of blocking out your 
> own contribution to any conflict? Is every problem
> always the "other 
> person's fault" in your life too?
> 
> I'm glad I'm not part of your personal life!
> 
> Stan Spiegel
> Portland, Maine
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Omar Kusturica" <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <politics@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:14 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] US Congress and the Israeli
> Attack on Lebanon
> 
> 
> > Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon: A
> Critical
> > Reading
> > Stephen Zunes | July 22, 2006
> >
> > Editor: John Feffer, IRC
> >
> >
> >
> > Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org
> >
> >
> > On July 20, the U.S. House of Representatives, by
> an
> > overwhelming 410-8 margin, voted to
> unconditionally
> > endorse Israel's ongoing attacks on Lebanon and
> the
> > Gaza Strip. The Senate passed a similar resolution
> > defending the Israeli attack earlier in the week
> by a
> > voice vote, but included a clause that "urges all
> > sides to protect innocent civilian life and
> > infrastructure." By contrast, the House version
> omits
> > this section and even praises Israel for
> "minimizing
> > civilian loss," despite overwhelming evidence to
> the
> > contrary. The resolution also praises President
> George
> > W. Bush for "fully supporting Israel," even though
> > Bush has blocked diplomatic efforts for a
> cease-fire
> > and has isolated the United States in the
> > international community by supporting the Israeli
> > attacks.
> >
> > The resolution reveals a bipartisan consensus on
> the
> > legitimacy of U.S. allies to run roughshod over
> > international legal norms. The resolution even
> goes so
> > far as to radically reinterpret the United Nations
> > Charter by claiming that Israel's attacks on
> Lebanon's
> > civilian infrastructure is an act of legitimate
> > self-defense under Article 51 despite a broad
> > consensus of international legal scholars to the
> > contrary.
> >
> > In short, both Democrats and Republicans are now
> on
> > record that, in the name of "fighting terrorism,"
> U.S.
> > allies-and, by extension, the United States as
> > well-can essentially ignore international law and
> > inflict unlimited damage on the civilian
> > infrastructure of a small and largely defenseless
> > country, even a pro-Western democracy like
> Lebanon.
> >
> > Below are the key provisions of the resolution
> > followed by a critical annotation:
> >
> > Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that
> > occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on July
> 12,
> > 2006, operatives of the terrorist group Hezbollah
> > operating out of southern Lebanon killed three
> Israeli
> > soldiers and took two others hostage;
> >
> > Though clearly an illegal and provocative act,
> > Hezbollah's action was not "completely
> unprovoked."
> > Israel holds scores of Lebanese citizens seized by
> > Israeli forces from within Lebanon and Hezbollah
> had
> > apparently hoped to work out some kind of swap, as
> > both sides have successfully negotiated previously
> on
> > several occasions. The seizure of the Israeli
> soldiers
> > on the Lebanese border was also apparently done in
> > retaliation for the ongoing Israeli assaults on
> > civilian population centers in the Gaza Strip.
> >
> > Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations
> > Security Council Resolution 425 (1978) by
> completely
> > withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified
> by
> > the United Nations Security Council and affirmed
> by
> > United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on
> June
> > 16, 2000, when he said, 'Israel has withdrawn from
> > [Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council
> > Resolution 425;'
> >
> > Israel's current re-conquest of Lebanese territory
> > along its northern border places Israel once again
> in
> > violation of UN Security Council resolution 425
> and
> > nine subsequent resolutions demanding the
> withdrawal
> > of their forces from Lebanon. Furthermore, Israel
> > never fully complied with UNSC 425: While UN
> Secretary
> > General Annan indeed recognized in his June 2000
> > statement that Israel had fully removed its ground
> > forces from Lebanese territory, he has also
> criticized
> > the repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese air
> space
> > well prior to the recent outbreak of fighting as
> > "provocative" and "at variance" with Israel's
> > fulfillment of the resolution's demands for a
> > withdrawal of ground troops from Lebanon.
> >
> > Whereas despite the adoption of United Nations
> > Security Council Resolution 1559, the Government
> of
> > Lebanon has failed to disband and disarm
> Hezbollah,
> > allowing Hezbollah instead to amass 13,000 rockets
> .
> > and has integrated Hezbollah into the Lebanese
> > Government;
> >
> > First of all, UN Security Council resolution 1559
> does
> > not call for Hezbollah or any other Lebanese
> political
> > party to be disbanded, only for their armed
> militias
> > to be disbanded.
> >
> > Second, the only extent to which Hezbollah has
> been
> > "integrated . into the Lebanese government" is in
> > naming Hezbollah member Mohammed Fneish to the
> power
> > and hydraulic resources ministry, one of 24
> cabinet
> > posts. Representatives of all Lebanese parties
> that
> > receive more than a handful of seats in
> parliamentary
> > elections traditionally get at least one seat in
> the
> > cabinet.
> >
> > Third, in a UN Security Council meeting this past
> > January that considered a report on the
> implementation
> > of resolution 1559, the United States and the
> other
> > members approved a statement that "notes with
> concern
> > the report's suggestion that there have been
> movements
> > of arms . into Lebanese territory and, in this
> > context, commends the Government of Lebanon for
> > undertaking measures against such movements." In
> other
> > words, the Lebanese government has not "allowed"
> > Hezbollah to amass new weaponry; the problem is
> that
> > their small and weak security forces-now weakened
> > further by Israeli attacks-have simply been unable
> to
> > prevent it.
> >
> > This clause in the Congressional resolution
> therefore
> > appears to be designed to try to justify Israel's
> > decision to attack not just the Hezbollah militia,
> but
> > Lebanon as a whole.
> >
> > Whereas Hezbollah's strength derives significantly
> > from the direct financial, military, and political
> > support it receives from Syria and Iran .
> >
> > Both Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah has
> > declined significantly over the past dozen years,
> > particularly since the withdrawal of Israeli
> > occupation forces from southern Lebanon.
> >
> > In reality, Hezbollah's strength derives primarily
> > from popular support within the Shiite Muslim
> minority
> > in Lebanon which has suffered from heightened
> poverty
> > and displacement as a result of the U.S.-backed
> > Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between
> 1978
> > and 2000, the U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment of
> the
> > Shiite-populated areas of the country from the
> 1970s
> > through the 1990s, and the U.S.-backed neoliberal
> > economic policies of the Lebanese government that
> have
> > decimated the traditional economy. As a result of
> the
> > violence and misguided economic policies, hundreds
> of
> > thousands of Shiites were forced to leave their
> rural
> > villages in the south to the vast shantytowns on
> the
> > southern outskirts of Beirut where many found
> support
> > through a broad network of Hezbollah-sponsored
> social
> > services. As a result of gratitude for such
> assistance
> > and anger at Israel and the United States for
> their
> > situation, many became backers of Hezbollah's
> > populist, albeit extremist, political
> organization. In
> > the wake of the forced departure of the Palestine
> > Liberation Organization and the destruction of the
> > secular leftist Lebanese National Movement by
> > successive interventions from Syria, Israel, and
> the
> > United States during the 1980s, the radical
> Islamist
> > Hezbollah rose to fill the vacuum. In other words,
> > "Hezbollah's strength" was very much an outgrowth
> of
> > U.S. and Israeli policy. Indeed, the group did not
> > even exist until a full four years after Israel
> began
> > its occupation of southern Lebanon.
> >
> > Whereas Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to
> > operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to
> > Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its
> operational
> > activities;
> >
> > The vast majority of Iranian Revolution Guards
> > returned to Iran years ago. While they played a
> > critical role in the initial setup of Hezbollah's
> > armed militia in the early to mid-1980s following
> > Israel's invasion and occupation of southern
> Lebanon,
> > their presence today is quite small and they are
> > certainly not "controlling Hezbollah's operational
> > activities." The number of active Hezbollah
> combatants
> > declined significantly since the Israeli
> withdrawal
> > from southern Lebanon in 2000 (until the call-up
> of
> > reserves following the initial Israeli attacks)
> and
> > the movement had long since shifted its primary
> focus
> > to electoral politics and providing social
> services
> > for the Shiite community. Furthermore, despite
> claims
> > by the Bush administration and its supporters that
> > Hezbollah is simply acting as a proxy for Iran, it
> > seems highly unlikely that a populist political
> party
> > would instruct its militia to provoke a
> devastating
> > war simply to please a foreign backer.
> >
> > Whereas the House of Representatives has
> repeatedly
> > called for full implementation of United Nations
> > Security Council Resolution 1559;
> >
> > The House of Representatives never called for the
> full
> > implementation of UN Security Council resolution
> 425
> > and nine subsequent resolutions calling for
> Israel's
> > withdrawal from Lebanon during Israel's 22-year
> > occupation of the southern part of that country.
> Nor
> > has the House ever called for the full
> implementation
> > of UN Security Council resolutions 446, 451, 465,
> and
> > 472 calling on Israel to withdraw its illegal
> > settlements from the occupied West Bank and Golan
> > Heights or dozens of other UN Security Council
> > resolutions currently being violated by Israel,
> > Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, or other U.S. allies.
> As in
> > the Bush administration, there appears to be a
> strong
> > bipartisan sense in Congress that UN Security
> Council
> > resolutions should only apply to governments and
> > movements the United States does not like.
> >
> > Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July
> 12,
> > 2006, 'Hezbollah's terrorist operations threaten
> > Lebanon's security and are an affront to the
> > sovereignty of the Lebanese Government.
> Hezbollah's
> > actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese
> > people, whose welfare should not be held hostage
> to
> > the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes,'
> and
> > has repeatedly affirmed that Syria and Iran must
> be
> > held to account for their shared responsibility in
> the
> > recent attacks;
> >
> > As the pro-Western government of Lebanese Prime
> > Minster Fuad Siniora has insisted and as recent
> events
> > have confirmed, the major threat to Lebanon's
> security
> > and the most serious affront to its sovereignty is
> > clearly the U.S.-backed Israeli government, not
> > Hezbollah. And Hezbollah's political and military
> > activities, like that of other Lebanese political
> > parties, are based primarily upon what the
> movement's
> > leadership-however wrongly and cynically-believe
> is in
> > the best interest of advancing their political
> agenda
> > and not that of the Syrian and Iranian governments
> > (whose interests in Lebanon are often at variance
> with
> > each other as well.) It is also disappointing that
> > such an overwhelming majority of Democrats would
> be
> > willing to cite President Bush as an authority on
> the
> > situation in Lebanon following a series of
> > demonstrably false claims he has made about that
> > country and the current conflict.
> >
> > Resolved, That the House of Representatives .
> condemns
> > Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and
> > reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on
> > undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages,
> for
> > killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to
> > indiscriminately target Israeli civilian
> populations
> > with their rockets and missiles;
> >
> > Though such condemnation is appropriate, it is
> > noteworthy that this resolution does not also
> condemn
> > Israeli attacks against sovereign Lebanese
> territory
> > and its targeting of civilian population centers,
> > essentially backing the racist notion that Israeli
> > territory and Israeli civilians are more important
> > than that of Lebanese territory and civilians. It
> is
> > also important to note that not a single Israeli
> > civilian had been killed from Hezbollah attacks
> since
> > well before Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon six
> years
> > ago until Israel started killing Lebanese
> civilians
> > when it launched its attacks on July 12.
> >
> > . further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for
> cynically
> > exploiting civilian populations as shields,
> locating
> > their equipment and bases of operation, including
> > their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian
> > populations, including in homes and mosques;
> >
> > This clause appears to be designed to blame the
> > Lebanese, not the Israeli armed forces, for the
> deaths
> > of innocent civilians. As Human Rights Watch has
> > noted, "Deploying military forces within populated
> > areas is a violation of international humanitarian
> > law, but that does not release Israel from its
> > obligations to take all feasible precautions to
> > minimize harm to civilians and civilian property
> > during military operations." While it is not
> unusual
> > for outgunned guerrilla movements with popular
> local
> > support to have equipment in close proximity to
> > civilian population, none of the offices of
> members of
> > Congress who supported the bill which I have
> contacted
> > has been able to cite any independently documented
> > cases in the current conflict where Hezbollah has
> > engaged in "exploiting civilian populations as
> > shields." (Two offices cited Israeli government
> claims
> > to this effect, but the Israeli government has
> > previously made similar claims that were later
> proved
> > false.)
> >
> > . recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to
> > minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's
> > continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;
> >
> > This runs directly counter to reports by
> international
> > journalists, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
> > International, and the United Nations that
> indicate
> > that Israel has not been committed to "minimizing
> > civilian loss" or preventing civilian casualties.
> As
> > of this writing, well over 300 Lebanese civilians
> have
> > been killed, the vast majority being nowhere near
> > Hezbollah military installations. UN High
> Commissioner
> > for Human Rights Louise Arbour, a former Canadian
> > Supreme Court Justice, declared that Israel's
> > "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a
> > foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of
> civilians.
> > Similarly, the bombardment of sites with innocent
> > civilians is unjustifiable." (She also correctly
> > criticized Hezbollah's attacks into civilian areas
> in
> > Israel.)
> >
> > None of the Congressional offices I contacted was
> able
> > to provide me with any data countering these
> reports.
> > In supporting this resolution, 410 House members
> have
> > gone on record challenging the credibility of
> these
> > reputable human rights organizations and UN
> agencies,
> > which have courageously defended the rights of
> victims
> > or war and repression for decades. Supporters of
> this
> > resolution have apparently demonstrated their
> > willingness to misrepresent the truth in order to
> > strengthen President Bush's efforts to undermine
> > international humanitarian law.
> >
> > . demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to
> direct
> > Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and
> unconditionally
> > release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;
> >
> > Regardless of whether Iran and Syria are willing
> to
> > work for the release of Israeli soldiers, neither
> > government has the power to "direct" Hamas and
> > Hezbollah to do anything. The decision by Congress
> to
> > overstate the leverage that Iran and Syria have
> over
> > these movements-like similar exaggerations of
> Soviet
> > and Cuban leverage over leftist revolutionaries in
> > Central America during the 1980s-appears to be
> based
> > less on reality and more on helping to promote the
> > right-wing global agenda of a Republican
> > administration.
> >
> > . affirms that all governments that have provided
> > continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share
> > responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks
> > against Israel and, as such, should be held
> > accountable for their actions [and] condemns the
> > Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued
> > support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed
> attacks
> > against Israelis and their other terrorist
> activities;
> >
> >
> > This appears to provide the legal justification
> for
> > future military action against Syria and Iran.
> >
> > Ironically, however, the biggest supporters of
> Hamas
> > have not been Syria or Iran but Saudi Arabia and
> other
> > U.S.-backed monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
> > Furthermore, the ruling parties of the U.S.-backed
> > Iraqi government and their militias have long
> > maintained close ties to Hezbollah. By only
> mentioning
> > Syria and Iran, however, Congress is clearly not
> > concerned about "all governments" that support
> these
> > groups but only governments that the United States
> > does not consider allies.
> >
> > Furthermore, given that Israeli attacks have taken
> far
> > more civilian lives than the Hezbollah and Hamas
> > attacks, why should not the Bush administration
> also
> > be condemned for its support of Israel's armed
> attacks
> > against Lebanese and Palestinians?
> >
> > . supports Israel's right to take appropriate
> action
> > to defend itself, including to conduct operations
> both
> > in Israel and in the territory of nations which
> pose a
> > threat to it, which is in accordance with
> > international law, including Article 51 of the
> United
> > Nations Charter;
> >
> > Article 33 requires all parties to " first of all,
> > seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
> mediation,
> > conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
> resort
> > to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
> > peaceful means of their own choice," which Israel
> has
> > refused to do. Article 51 does allow countries the
> > right to resist an armed attack but not to use a
> minor
> > border incident as an excuse to launch a
> full-scale
> > war against an entire country, particularly when
> the
> > armed group that violated the border was a private
> > militia and not the army of the country in
> question.
> >
> > Article 51 also states that self-defense against
> such
> > attacks is justified only " until the Security
> Council
> > has taken measures necessary to maintain
> international
> > peace and security," which may explain why the
> Bush
> > administration-with the near-unanimous support of
> > Congress-has blocked the UN Security Council from
> > imposing a cease fire or taking any other action.
> Such
> > a radical reinterpretation of Article 51 allows
> the
> > Bush administration and future U.S.
> administrations to
> > justify massive military strikes against foreign
> > countries in reaction to relatively minor
> incidents
> > provoked by irregular forces within that country.
> >
> > The International Red Cross, long recognized as
> the
> > guardian of the Geneva Conventions on the conduct
> of
> > war, has declared that Israel has been violating
> the
> > principle of proportionality in the conventions as
> > well as the prohibition against collective
> punishment.
> > Similarly, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
> > Louise Arbour-who served as chief prosecutor in
> the
> > international war crimes tribunals on Rwanda and
> the
> > former Yugoslavia-has gone on record declaring
> that
> > the armed forces of both Hezbollah and the Israeli
> > government have been engaging in war crimes. None
> of
> > the Congressional offices I contacted was willing
> to
> > provide documentation that challenged these
> > assessments.
> >
> > . commends the President of the United States for
> > fully supporting Israel as it responds to these
> armed
> > attacks by terrorist organizations and their state
> > sponsors;
> >
> > President Bush is virtually alone among the United
> > States' Western allies and the international
> community
> > as a whole in his unconditional support for
> Israel's
> > assault on Lebanon. Since President Bush's most
> > significant role since the outbreak of the
> fighting
> > has been to block diplomatic efforts by the United
> > Nations, the European community, and others to
> arrange
> > a cease-fire, this resolution is essentially an
> > endorsement of indefinite war. It is disappointing
> > that all but seven of the House's 201 Democrats
> would
> > once again give their unconditional support for
> > President Bush regarding a Middle East policy
> based
> > primarily on the use of force. In backing
> President
> > Bush in this resolution, Congress has gone on
> record
> > challenging the broad international consensus
> that,
> > however reprehensible the actions of Hezbollah and
> > Hamas may be, Israel's actions are excessive and
> in
> > violation of international legal norms.
> >
> > . urges the President of the United States to
> bring
> > the full force of political, diplomatic, and
> economic
> > sanctions available to the Government of the
> United
> > States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;
> >
> > Given that the Bush administration and Congress
> > already have implemented strict political,
> diplomatic,
> > and economic sanctions against Syria and Iran, it
> is
> > unclear what more could be done. Indeed, with such
> > strict sanctions already in place, it is difficult
> for
> > President Bush to exercise any additional leverage
> > short of military action.
> >
> > . demands the Government of Lebanon to do
> everything
> > in its power to find and free the kidnapped
> Israeli
> > soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;
> >
> > Israel has been bombing Lebanese army and other
> > government facilities and has destroyed virtually
> > every bridge connecting the central part of the
> > country (where most of the central government's
> police
> > and military apparatus is based) to Hezbollah
> > strongholds in the south (where the Israeli
> soldiers
> > are presumably being held). It is hard to
> understand,
> > therefore, how the Lebanese government could do
> much
> > at this point to find and free the Israeli
> soldiers.
> > It is also noteworthy that the resolution says
> nothing
> > about Lebanese citizens kidnapped by Israeli
> forces
> > who are currently being held in Israel.
> >
> > . calls on the United Nations Security Council to
> > condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action
> to
> > ensure full and immediate implementation of United
> > Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which
> requires
> > Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of
> all
> > Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards
> from
> > Lebanon;
> >
> > First of all, it is the United States that has
> > prevented the UN Security Council from passing a
> > resolution condemning the capture of the Israeli
> > soldiers and the rocket attacks on Israel because
> of
> > the threat to veto any resolution which is also
> > critical of the Israeli attacks.
> >
> > Second, UNSC resolution 1559 requires the
> "dismantling
> > and disarming of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese
> > militias," which would certainly include
> Hezbollah's
> > militia, but not Hezbollah's far more extensive
> > political apparatus and social service networks.
> With
> > the Lebanese government unable to force the
> > dismantling and disarming of Hezbollah as long as
> its
> > armed forces and its transportation infrastructure
> are
> > under U.S.-backed Israeli attacks, it is hard to
> > understand how the Security Council could "take
> action
> > to ensure full and immediate implementation" of
> the
> > resolution other than to authorize the use of
> force by
> > other countries under Chapter VII of the UN
> Charter.
> > But such use of force cannot legally be
> implemented in
> > an internal security issue without the consent of
> the
> > recognized government.
> >
> > Third, the report to the UN Security Council on
> the
> > implementation of UNSC 1559 in January of this
> year
> > noted that Syria had complied with provisions for
> the
> > withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon and did not
> note
> > the ongoing presence of Iranian Revolutionary
> Guard.
> > (There are reports of a small number of Iranian
> > advisers still in the country, though it is
> unclear
> > whether foreign military advisers constitute
> "foreign
> > forces" under the resolution, particularly since a
> > number of Western nations, including the United
> > States, have sent military advisers to Lebanon
> since
> > the Syrian withdrawal last year.)
> >
> > In any case, after its forces entered Lebanon last
> > week, Israel clearly violated UNSC resolution
> 1559.
> > The resolution calls for the withdrawal of foreign
> > forces from Lebanon. Congress, however apparently
> > believes Israel is somehow exempt from this
> > resolution.
> >
> >
> > Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the
> > University of San Francisco and Middle East editor
> for
> > Foreign Policy in Focus. He is the author of
> > Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots
> of
> > Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings
> (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit
> www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit
> www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: