BOMBS OVER LEBANON

A Lebanese child unseen in most American newspapers

I've spent a week trying to write about the new tragedies and travesties in Lebanon and Israel. Under any circumstance, I'd be depressed from the endless cycle of violence, angry with Hezbollah, and especially outraged at the complete over-reaction of the Israeli military, which continues to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets in Lebanon without any clear military objective.

But it's especially difficult for me to hear the news since much of my wife's family is in Lebanon; her grandmother is stuck in Syria, unable to get back home.

Regardless, the latest attacks are an unmitigated disaster of unconscionable proportions from any angle.

Let's be clear: Hezbollah's kidnapping Israeli soldiers and initial attack on one of Israel's military targets were reprehensible.

But Israel's response continues to be wildly disproportionate, violative of international law, and against the interests of its own people, assuming Israel's long-term goal is to ensure lasting peace and security in the region. I'd compare Israel's latest actions to someone with a bad temper seeking vindictive justice, if it weren't for the gravity of the mounting death toll and the fact that Israel has nukes in its holster, which makes the analogy just as incongruous as their counteroffensive.

Olmert is engaged in prolonged indiscriminate punishment, refusing to distinguish between innocent civilians and Hezbollah militants. Contrary to what American newsheads say, he is not engaged in tit-for-tat warfare, most obviously evidenced by the fact that 140 Lebanese civilians have died, compared to 24 Israelis, only 12 of whom are civilians. Update: at least 292 Lebanese people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- have died, compared to 25 in Israel. Many Israelis have taken shelter underground, but almost 100,000 Lebanese people have had to flee and take refuge elsewhere.

At this point, I doubt Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cares much about the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers that started this war.

I'd like to believe Israel doesn't have plans for a ground campaign and a new occupation, but I am especially skeptical after Israel just rejected Kofi Annan's call for a UN international monitoring force to be deployed in Lebanon.

I don't deny that the Lebanese government bears some responsibility for Hezbollah's actions. But attacking all of Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions is equivalent to attacking all United States citizens for crimes committed by gangs or Mafia located within our border. Or, if you prefer, it's equivalent to attacking all Iraqi citizens for the crimes of Iraqi insurgents.

The bottom line is that when the Israeli military is engaging in a complete aerial, land, and sea blockade of Lebanon -- by bombing the airport, burning bridges (literally and figuratively), and cutting the Lebanese off from food and water -- I can't imagine any other result than further radicalization and growing numbers of extremists on both sides.

This escalating war is especially tragic since Lebanon has been steadily rebuilding its country since the last Israeli occupation and has become the hot poster child for democracy in the Middle East. This 2005 Economist Magazine cover speaks volumes. This progress has practically vanished in a matter of seven days.

Even from the vantage point of the United States, George Bush is clearly worsening this country's security by defending Israel's assaults. His position -- which is that one country has the right to do whatever the hell it wants in order to protect itself from the abstract idea of "terrorism" -- only further confirms our arrogance in the eyes of those who hate us. His focus on 'who started it' is not only sophomoric and embarrassing, it's wrong and an invitation for others to "bring it on."

Just in case I've lost you, I ask you consider the following:

Imagine if the Zapatista Army in Chiapas kidnapped two American border patrol guards and fired rockets into Del Rio, Texas. Would the United States have the right to defend itself against the rebels? Absolutely. Would the US be justified in bombing the Mexico City airport, preventing all Mexicans from traveling, cutting off food distribution to Mexico, and engaging in a bombing campaign that targeted civilian areas not known to be occupied by the Chiapas rebels? Hell to the no. In fact, we'd be in clear violation of international law.

There are obviously other complicated cans of worms I could open that involve Palestine, Iran, Syria, and the United States' war on Iraq, but I'll stop here for now.

--Junichi