"So Just Where Does The Madness End?" By Robert Fisk,

Another excellent column from Robert Fisk, Britain's and The Independent's award winning journalist.
Ed Corrigan

All the monsters buried in the mass graves of the civil war have been dug up

By Robert Fisk

18/05/08 "The Independent" - -- I am not sure what was the worse part of this week. Living in Lebanon? Or reading the outrageous words of George Bush? Several times, I have asked myself this question: have words lost their meaning?

So let's start with lunch at the Cocteau restaurant in Beirut. Yes, it's named after Jean Cocteau, and it is one of the chicest places in town. Magnificent flowers on the table, impeccable service, wonderful food. Yes, there was shooting at Sodeco – 20 yards away – the day before; yes, we were already worried about the virtual collapse of the Lebanese government, the humiliation of Sunni Muslims (and the Saudis) in the face of what we must acknowledge as a Hizbollah victory (don't expect George Bush to understand this) and the danger of more street shooting. But I brought up the tiny matter of the little massacre in northern Lebanon in which 10 or 12 militiamen were captured and then murdered before being handed over to the Lebanese army. Their bodies were – I fear this is correct – mutilated after death.

"They deserved it," the elegant woman on my left said. I was appalled, overwhelmed, disgusted, deeply saddened. How could she say such a thing? But this is Lebanon and a huge number of people – 62 by my count – have been killed in the past few days and all the monsters buried in the mass graves of the civil war have been dug up.

I chose escalope du veau at the Cocteau – I am sickened by how quickly I decided on it – and tried to explain to my dear Lebanese friends (and they are all dear to me) how much fury I have witnessed in Lebanon.

When Abed drove me up to the north of the country three days ago, bullets were spitting off the walls of Tripoli and one of the customs officials at the Syrian border asked me to stay with him and his friends because they were frightened. I did. They are OK.

But being from the wrong religion is suddenly crucial again. Who your driver is, what is the religion of your landlord, is suddenly a matter of immense importance.

Yesterday morning (and here I will spoil the story by telling the end of it), the schools reopened round my seafront apartment and I saw a woman in a hijab riding a bicycle down the Corniche and I took a call from my travel agent about my next trip to Europe – Beirut airport reopened – and I realised that Lebanon had "returned to normal".

The roads were open again; the hooded gunmen had disappeared; the government had abandoned its confrontation with Hizbollah – the suspension of the Shia Muslim security chief at the airport (who bought me a bottle of champagne a year ago, I seem to remember – some Hizbollah "agent" he!) and the abandonment of the government's demand to dismantle Hizbollah's secret telecommunication system was a final seal of its failure – and I opened my newspaper and what did I read?

That George Bush declared in Jerusalem that "al-Qa'ida, Hizbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognise the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause".

Where does the madness end? Where do words lose their meaning? Al-Qa'ida is not being defeated. Hizbollah has just won a domestic war in Lebanon, as total as Hamas's war in Gaza. Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and Gaza are hell disasters – I need no apology to quote Churchill's description of 1948 Palestine yet again – and this foolish, stupid, vicious man is lying to the world yet again.

He holds a "closed door" meeting with Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara – a man stupendously unfit to run any Middle East "peace", which is presumably why the meeting had to be "closed door" – but tells the world of the blessings of Israeli democracy. As if the Palestinians benefit from a democracy which is continuing to take from them the land which they have owned for generations.

Do we really have to accept this? Bush tells us that "we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world".

The truth is that it is a source of shame that the United States continues to give unfettered permission to Israel to steal Palestinian land – which is why it should be a source of shame (to Washington) that the UN passes human rights resolutions against America's only real ally in the region.

And what is Washington doing in the country where I live? It has sent one of its top generals to see the Lebanese army commander, signalling – a growing Fisk suspicion, this – that it has abandoned its support for the Lebanese government. The Americans promise more equipment for the Lebanese army.

Yes, always more equipment, more guns, more bullets to the Middle Eastern armies though – I have to say yet again (and I repeat that I do not like armies) – the Lebanese army saved us all this week. Its commander-in-chief, General Michel Sleiman, will become the next president and the Americans will support him and feel safe, as they always do, with a general in charge. "Chehabism", as the Lebanese would say, has returned.

But I am not so sure. Sleiman gets on well with Damascus. He is not going to lead his soldiers into a pro-American war against Hizbollah. And the Lebanese are not going to join Bush's insane "jihad" against the "world terror".

There was a lovely moment in northern Lebanon this week – and here a big cheer for my brave friend Abed – when a Lebanese soldier at a checkpoint spotted me in our car and ran into the road.

"You are Mr Robert!" he shouted. "I have seen you on television! I read your book!" And he gave the thumbs-up sign. And I had to like this man. And I think he will fight for Lebanon. But I do not think he will fight for the Americans.

Robert Fisk's new book, 'The Age of the Warrior: Selected Writings', a selection of his Saturday columns in 'The Independent', is published by Fourth Estate.

Read More

Canada, Hizballah and terrorism: An interview with Tariq Ali

Stefan Christoff, Electronic Lebanon, 14 November 2007

In 2002 Canada unveiled an official list of "terrorist" organizations, strikingly similar to that of the the US government. Today the Lebanese political movement Hizballah -- both the military and political wing -- is officially considered a "terrorist" organization by the government of Canada, a policy endorsed by only two additional countries internationally -- the US and Israel.

In the Middle East, from Lebanon to Palestine, Hizballah is commonly viewed as a national liberation movement, which in 2006 successfully halted Israel's major military assault on Lebanon. As a political and social force in Lebanon, Hizballah remains a major player at the highest levels of government and in the most impoverished sectors of society.

In Canada a public debate on the listing of Hizballah as a "terrorist" organization was ignited in 2006 as Israeli military forces attacked Lebanon, killing more than 1,100 civilians. Debate on Hizballah's categorization as a "terrorist" organization draws attention to Canada's post-9/11 "national security" laws and regulations that included the formalization of a Canadian list of "terrorist" organizations in 2002.

In an interview conducted in Montreal, novelist, historian and political campaigner Tariq Ali discusses the history of Hizballah as a political force in Lebanon and the Middle East, as well as Canada's designation of the movement as "terrorist" in the post-9/11 political environment.

STEFAN CHRISTOFF: Canada is one of three countries in the world which categorizes Hizballah as a "terrorist" entity: Canada, the US and Israel. I wanted to hear your reflections on Hizballah. What is your perception of Hizballah -- the movement's role in Lebanese society and in Lebanese history past and present? What do you think about the categorization of Hizballah as a "terrorist" organization by the Canadian government?

TARIQ ALI: Hizballah has developed and evolved over the years within Lebanese society. When it first emerged as a political force it was essentially an organization that spent a great deal of time wiping out its rivals. One has to mention this, but as the situation in Lebanon deteriorated Hizballah was the only organization in the country which succeeded in resisting the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

Hizballah fought, as the Israeli military acknowledges, a very persistent and sustained campaign of guerilla warfare against the Israeli presence [in southern Lebanon] and it was their resistance to the occupation of southern Lebanon that finally compelled Israel to cut [its] losses and quit, winning Hizballah a great deal of respect within the country and throughout the Arab world.

This history altered the common perception of Hizballah in the Middle East, from being viewed as a factional organization to becoming a national liberation organization. Hizballah today is seen not simply as the people who drove the Israel out [of southern Lebanon] but as the only [military] force capable of defending Lebanon when the Israeli's mounted the 2006 invasion.

Lebanese military forces were incapable, while Hizballah defended the nation, winning it support from Sunnis, from Shiites, from Christians, from all those Lebanese who did not want their country reoccupied. Israeli's actions in 2006 were deeply shocking because throughout the war Israel attempted to destroy the infrastructure of Lebanese society and their aim was to wipe out Hizballah which they couldn't do. They were given another week to do it and they still failed to do it.

In fact, Israeli forces had to withdraw and we now know that the entire pretext that was used to invade Lebanon was a [false] pretext -- the capturing of two Israeli soldiers -- the war had been planned for months by Israel with the backing of the United States and Britain as a plan to try and wipe out Hizballah as a player in Lebanese society.

Now the categorization [of Hizballah as a "terrorist" organization] doesn't cut much ice in that part of the world; every single liberation organization has been categorized as terrorist. The British used to claim that Archbishop Makarios was a terrorist, the British used to say that the Mau Mau movement in Kenya was terrorist, the US used to say the Vietcong were terrorist, the French used to say the FLN in Algeria were terrorist. It's an old imperial game, categorizing your enemies as such.

The problem is that no one in the Western world challenges their governments [about] these categorizations. Hamas is categorized as a terrorist organization and now Israeli writers are publicly calling for negotiations with Hamas. So it doesn't help [the political process] by giving this title "terrorist" to an organization that is trying to keep their country free of foreign troops.

CHRISTOFF: Hizballah is often presented as being removed from Lebanese society. The argument that Hizballah exploits Lebanese civilians by hiding in civilian areas was constantly put forward by Israeli authorities throughout the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon, each time an apartment complex was pummeled with a missile in Beirut. So can you comment on this attempt to publicly separate national liberation organizations from the population, focusing especially on the case of Hizballah in Lebanon?

ALI: The goals [of] this categorization are to totally isolate the resistance organization and try to show the population that it's not acting in their interests. However, Israel failed miserably to do this in the case of Lebanon. Hizballah won enormous respect from all layers of Lebanese society as a result of what it did to resist Israel.

The problem is that if there was a proper census in Lebanon, as there hasn't been a real census since the 1930s because [the Lebanese government] is scared. If there was a census in Lebanon you would find that Christians represent a minority, the Muslims are probably 70 percent of the population, and that the Shiite population, which forms the basis of Hizballah's political support, are probably the largest single group in the religious country.

So it's not going to be easy to separate Hizballah from the Lebanese population, although attempts are still made to do this obviously, but it very rarely works, this type of operation. The sooner that they give up [the ongoing effort to present Hizballah as separate from Lebanese society] to attempt political talks and negotiations the better.

CHRISTOFF: In Canada, Hizballah is still considered a terrorist organization, along with only Israel and the US. Can you comment further on Canada's position regarding Hizballah?

ALI: Basically the Canadian government has decided to drop any pretense or show of independence from the United States at all. If the Canadian government carries on like this a question of Canadian independence is bound to come up sooner or later. What is the point of Canada being an independent country? Why not join the United States and then they can possibly participate more effectively in its missions and global work.

In my opinion, what the Canadian government has done in relation to Lebanon and in relation to Israel is disgusting. I mean the Canadian government has completely caved in, losing all of its so-called declarations of independence, especially under this government and the consequences are not going to be good because this is a multi- cultural society and has been for some time.

If Canada's intelligence services are given free reign to go and victimize sections of society what does this offer to a future for Canada?

Stefan Christoff is an independent journalist based in Montreal and a regular contributor to The Electronic Intifada and Electronic Lebanon.

Read More