Will Canada's Lebanese Community Please Stand Up?

Will Canada's Lebanese population protest this slaughter of civilians?

Let's all take a trip in time to last year.

On July 12, 2006 Israel dispatched combat forces into Lebanon to engage Hezbollah terrorists. Hezbollah had recently kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and had been spending weeks prior launching rocket attacks on Israeli civilian neighbourhoods.

During the early rounds of that conflict, Prime Minister Stephen Harper surmised that Israel's response was a "measured response".

Members of Canada's Lebanese community furiously protested Harper's comments, citing the deaths of civilians killed by Israeli attacks on Hezbollah positions, who were using Lebanese civilians as human shields.

Now, it's day two of a feirce battle surrounding the Nahr El-Bared Palestinian refugee camp. The Lebanese military has opened fire on Fatah-Islam, an Isamic militant group suspected to have links to Al Qaida, with M-48 battle tanks, with the camp caught in the crossfire. There have been civilian deaths, although the precise number of them is as yet undetermined.

The battle is apparently the result of a gun battle in a neighbourhood in Tripoli, which followed a Saturday bank robbery.

Reports indicate that hundreds of Lebanese cheered and applauded as the tanks opened fire.

One wonders: will the Canadian Lebanese community stand up as they did last year, and protest their homeland's slaughter of civilians, or will they remain largely quiescent because Israel is nowhere to be found in this conflict?

The lack of protest raises an interesting question: were last year's protests about civilian deaths? Or were they simply about Israel?

This conflict actually seems to be a legacy of Lebanon's civil war, in which Syrian-backed Islamic militants waged war against the country's Christian population. Fatah-Islam is also believed to be linked to the Lebanese government's pro-Syrian opposition.

Yet the fact remains: the Lebanese military has clearly done absolutely nothing to avoid civilian casualties. They have recklessly opened fire on a refugee camp with tanks, when they could have avoided civilian deaths by entering the camp with infantry units instead.

At least jet bombers allow for a measure of precision -- even if this has so rarely been the case, particularly if targets are mis-identified. If Israel was guilty of a degree of recklessness -- and certainly, they were -- then Lebanon seems at least equally so.

Will Canada's Lebanese community please stand up?

Michael Ignatieff & Stephen Harper: Their Feet & Their Mouths

Open mouth. Insert foot. Repeat as necessary.

Michael Ignatieff is not a happy man. This may have something to do with the fact that he’s had a very rough week.

On monday, Ignatieff was criticized for not attending a leadership debate. On Tuesday, Ignatieff accused Israel of war crimes. On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used Ignatieff’s comments to (perhaps unwisely) label the candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign as “Anti-Israel”. On Friday, Ignatieff responded to Harper, but also lashed out at the media.

“Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this (Mideast) conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the Liberal leadership of Canada,” Ignatieff complained. “Mr. Harper's comments were a disgrace, a disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians.”

“There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel.,” Ignatieff insisted. “The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."

"Being a friend means speaking honestly and this week I did that, I spoke honestly about this summer's terrible conflict," he said. "It was a conflict provoked by Hezbollah and its backers to lure Israel into a wide war, it was a conflict in which Israel exercised its right to respond and to send a terrorist militia a clear message that its actions cannot and would not be tolerated."

However, on October 10, in a Radio-Canada interview, Ignatieff said, "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."

So, to recap, on Tuesday, Israel is a war criminal. On Friday, Hezbollah are war criminals.

In any conventional sense of the term, this would be a huge flip-flop.

On Thursday, Stephen Harper described Ignatieff’s previous accusations as “consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.” However, on Friday he noted that Joe Volpe and Scott Brison were exceptions to his assertions.

Now, what Harper said was inflammatory, but was it accurate?

Ignatieff’s aforementioned comments on Israel, and subsequent flip-flop on the issue, demonstrate that he is merely doing what he can to exploit the Israeli issue for political gain.

Gerard Kennedy issued the standard promises to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, but his supporters have been more vocal, accusing Israel of conducting ‘state terrorism’.

"We don't want to see any more terrorism, whether the terrorism of suicide bombers or launching rockets or state terrorism. This is state terrorism," said Kennedy supporter Boris Wrzesnewskyj.

Even more interesting are the comments of Kennedy supporter Thomas Hubert, who advocated eliminating all “Zionists” from the Liberal party. "The Liberal Party is stronger without these violent Zionists in our party. I am glad for them to cease influencing our foreign policy so we are free to promote Canadian values of peace. It amazes me that this community is so absurdly selfish. The only issue that matters to them is the defence of a "state" that survives on the blood of innocent people. Shameful.”

Harper has already admitted that Stephan Dion is not anti-Israel.

But as it relates to Bob Rae, Harper may be a little bit off. In a 2002 opinion article entitled “Parting Company with the NDP”, Rae (who is of Jewish descent) criticized what he believed to be a strong anti-Israel bias in the NDP.

On his website, www.Bobrae.ca, Rae even issued the following statement, “The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."

"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."

That is not, by any means, an anti-Israel statement.

For Harper, the leader of the federal Conservative party, commenting on the statements of the leading candidate for the Liberal leadership is perfectly legitimate. However, Harper needs to keep one important fact in mind.

In Canada, conservatives do not win on rhetoric. They have to win on facts.

Labelling all the candidates for the Liberal leadership as “anti-Israel” takes an issue that should be discussed in terms of fact, and transforms it into a rhetorical issue.

He should, at the very least, avoid making comments he can’t defend. As it pertains to two of the four frontrunners for the Liberal leadership, Harper can’t defend these comments.

However, in the cases of Ignatieff and Kennedy, defending their own comments (and those of their supporters) is a matter they should be good deal more concerned with. As the frontrunner, Ignatieff needs to be doubly concerned.

Lebanon Conflict Presents Twin Conundrums for Canadian Leaders

There is no question that, for politicians, times of war and conflict tend to paint the most interesting portraits of them.

The current war in Lebanon has been no different for Canadian politicians. This conflict has proven to be a political conundrum in ways that few could ever expect. In fact, politicians representing both the governing Conservative party and the official opposition Liberal party have encountered twin conundrums in the form of the War in Lebanon.

Polls Present Harper With Another Lesson to Learn
For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this crisis has been a huge lesson in many respects. He's learned valuable lessons on the topics of crisis response, image management, and playing the role of a middle power. Now, Harper needs to learn the most important lesson of all: the lesson regarding how to properly determine the will of the people.

As the leader of a party with a strong populist element (courtesy of the influence of the Reform party, of which he himself was a charter member), this was a strength of Harper the party leader, and is going to continue to be a necessary skill for Harper the Prime Minister.

As previously reported, Harper quickly came out in support of Israel. Traditionally, Canada has been a reluctant ally of Israel. While Harper was criticized by his political opponents, Lebanese supporters, and critics of Israel, he was rewarded by praise from Canada's Jewish community (including a rally of more than 1,000 people at a Vancouver Synagogue).

But a recent poll conducted by the Strategic Council, CTV and The Globe and Mail found that 45% of Candians disagreed with Harper's stand on Israel. This would seem like a healthy number for a minority government -- perhaps even for a majority government -- Prime Minister, but the same poll found that only 32% explicitly agreed with him.

In Quebec, a whopping 61% of respondents disagreed with Harper's support of Israel's actions.

77% prescribed a neutral role for Canada. Only 12% believed the government is maintaining a neutral position.

While Canada traditionally supports Israel, during times of crisis, Canada has traditionally maintained the role of the third-party "honest broker".

During the 1956 Suez Canal crises, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lester Pearson made one of history's great political breakthroughs by advancing the idea of UN peacekeeping (this would net him the Nobel Peace Price in 1957). During the 1967 Six Day War, the Canadian government supported a UN resolution that called on Israel to remove its forces from the territories occupied during the course of the war. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Canada failed to condemn the surprise attack on Israel, but pledged peacekeeping forces. Finally, during the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, the Canadian government was first to criticize Israel's invasions of Lebanon.
53% of respondants favored the creation of a UN peacekeeping force to enter the region. 57% supported Canadian troops being a part of such a force. This is a strong contrast to the opinion expressed by Deputy Prime Minster Peter McKay, when he insisted, " a ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah."
While it is entirely questionable whether or not peace can ever occur so long as Hezbollah continues to exist, there is no question that Canadians favor peace in the Middle East. Abbortsford MP (representing the Conservative party) may have said it best recently. " There is no such thing as a dialogue for peace with people who are dedicated to violence and the destruction of a free and democratic nation," he said.

In the end, Harper's stand on Israel has done little to harm his party's popularity. While the Liberals made a three-point jump in the polls, the governing Conservatives also jumped a point. The Bloc Quebecois saw no change, while the NDP and the Green Party dropped three points, and a single point respectively.

But Harper's stance on Israel could prove to be costly down the road. Any minority government, by necessity, has to act on its populist urges. A minority government only becomes a majority government by serving the interests of the people.

Certainly, it is being shown that the Lebanon alone is not going to be the issue that denies the Conservative party the opportunity to form a majority government. But left untended, Harper's stance on Lebanon could cause serious problems for the party.

It seems they may have recognized this. Peter MacKay has lately begun advocating in favor of a conditional ceasefire. " There has to be a ceasefire," he said, " But certain conditions must be achieved to reach that stable, durable cessation of violence in the region."

MacKay has urged both sides to cease their attacks. He also called on Israel to show more restraint in their campaign, and upon Iran and Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah. " This has to be a lasting peace," he noted. " It cannot simply be a temporary solution to allow for the rearmament of a terrorist body, and simply begin the violence again."

This isn't so much a drastic shift in the stance Harper and MacKay have taken on the conflict, but it certainly does change the nature of the dialogue, from one that would allow Israel to confinue their conflict unabated by Canadian criticism to one that places the onus to pursue peace on both sides. It is not a neutral stance -- Canada is still supportive of Israel -- but it is a principled stand on the issue that condemns terrorism, but states respect for the value of peace.

That is certainly more in line with what polled Canadians have said they want. But there is still the matter of a percieved alignment with the foreign policy of the United States -- a move which would make a great many Canadians uncomfortable -- to be addressed.


Israel Acting on its Responsibility to Protect

Former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy wasted little time in voicing his criticisms over Harper's "measured response" comments.

" I am increasingly concerned about the view that the only role that Canada should play is to adhesively stick itself to Bush administration policies and at the very time when in fact those policies are increasingly showing that they are not working," Axworthy asserted. " [Harper is] almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right. We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Yet one of Lloyd Axworthy's chief accomplishments as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ICISS report The Responsibility to Protect (drafted on the topic of multilateral intervention during times of crisis) would actually disagree with him. The report states: "state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself."
So, according to his Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers posed by Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

Had Israel not lived up to its responsibility, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays out a very different prescription: " Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the internation responsibility to protect."
While the report is clearly dealing with issues of internal strife, one of the foundations of the doctrine is found in Article 24 of the UN chareter, which outlines the responsibility of the UN Security Council to maintain international peace and security. Thus, the applicability to international crises, and the current situation remains intact.

Hezbollah is a force internal to Lebanon (yet allegedly independent of the nation's government), which has willingly placed Lebanese civilians in peril by launching their attacks from Lebanese soil, then hiding amongst the civilian population -- essentially using them as human shields.

Because the Lebanese government has demostrated itself unwilling (or perhaps, unable) to deal with what by necessity becomes a threat to its people, the responsibility falls to external forces -- optimally the international community, but in this case, Israel.

Israel's failure to take into account its responsibility to avoid civilian casualties aside, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays the matter out very simply: Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Lebanon has the same responsibility. Should both, or either of these states fail to live up to their responsibility, the onus falls on the international community to saddle up and ride to the rescue.

The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has three base elements: the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild.

In this situation, the Lebanese government has clearly failed in its responsibility to prevent. There have been repeated calls by Israel, and by other members of the international community for Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government failed to do. Israel's hands were tied in this regard, because for Israel to deal with Hezbollah, they would have had to enter Lebanese territory with little or no provokation.

The Israeli government did not, however, fail to live up to its responsibilty to react. The reaction to attacks carried out on your territory is to respond -- even if this necessitates entering the territory of another sovereign state in order to do so.

What has yet to be seen is if either country will live up to its responsibilty to rebuild, which requires both states to provide full assistance with efforts to recover, rebuild, and reconcilliate -- indeed, if the last of these is even possible.
Israel can potentially find its justification under the "Just Cause" article of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This article states that, in order for military intervention (or response) to be warranted, there must be "serious and irreperable harm occuring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind: large scale loss of life -- actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act -- or large scale ethnic cleansing -- actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror, or rape.

When a terrorist organization starts launching rocket attacks on a country's territory, it can be expected that these attacks will result in deaths. But should the perpetrators of these attacks (in this case, Hezbollah) substitute a chemical weapon warhead for a less-effective explosive warhead (for example, mustard gas is remarkable easy to manufacture), "large scale loss of life" is a definite possibility. Under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel, in this situation, is required to act in order to prevent such an attack from occurring.
In situations where states fail to live up to these responsibilities, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine grants primary authority to authorize multilateral intervention to the UN Security Council -- which has forever been notoriously deadlocked on any issue related to Israel. So, in other words, unless Israel can deal with this problem itself, Israel is, frankly, screwed.

Axworthy likened the situation in Lebanon to that in Iraq, saying, "The morass in Iraq is such a talisman for everything that is going on."

Anyone familiar with the 1991 Gulf War will remember that the UN withdrew the mandate to use force against Saddam Hussein quickly following his surrender, even while he was commencing an oppressive military campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Had the Responsibility to Protect doctrine existed at the time, it certainly would have had to apply to the situation there.

On this note, it is said that hindsight is always 20/20. While this document obviously did no good at a time in which it did not exist, it cannot be used as support for preventative action that did not happen. But the Responsibility to Protect doctrine could be used to support actions long after the fact -- including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was done at least partially to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and at least partially for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people.

Even Axworthy himself called Iraq one of the most "chillingly oppressed" countries he had ever visited.

At the end of the day, the matter becomes very simple: Canada cannot advance itself as the world's foremost advocate of universal human rights if it would allow the citizens of Israel, a state at least officially considered an ally, to have their most base human rights -- the right to life -- threatened by an external force acting with impunity.

In a way, this was ultimately the point of The Responsibility to Protect.
Axworthy certainly may take a stand on the war in Lebanon if he likes. But criticizing Israel for exercising its right -- and fulfilling its responsibility -- to protect its citizens jeopardizes the value of some of his best work -- and it was very important work indeed.

Israel Declares War on the Internet

Electronic information war may be history's first

Remember the late 80s/early 90s? Good times.

Most people remember them well. The Internet was still in its infancy, and every other movie in theatres, or perhaps even on video (Betamax, even?) had some sort of computer genius who could do absolutely anything with a computer. They're magic, you see.

So then it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there was a time when people believed that future wars would be fought by computers, with computers, against computers. Computerishly.

But those days may be closer than we think. In a way.

In the midst of its current conflict in Lebanon, Israel's Foreign Ministry has made the future now. Concerned that the information superhighway (or cyberspace, if you will) is becoming plugged up with anti-Israel propaganda, Israeli diplomats have begun tracking message boards and websites featuring anti-Israel messages via a "megaphone" program, that has been distributed by download to supporters.

Just this past week, nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students have downloaded this program, and have taken Israel's war to some of the places where it's most unpopular.

Simply put, this megaphone software allows members of the WUJS to troll on unsympathetic websites, posting supportive opinions and participating in the debate.

This puts Israel at the head of the pack when it comes to using the internet to fight what may well be history's first organized "electronic information war". Certainly, other countries have used the internet to their advantage -- mostly to either disseminate outright propaganda, or have censored the internet to keep information out of their citizens' hands.

Perhaps Israel is the only state to fully recognize the Internet's potential as an organizing/mobilizing tool. " The Internet's become a leading tool for news, shaping the world view of millions," says Amir Gissin, the public relations officer of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. " Our problem is the foreign media shows Lebanese suffering, but not Israeli. We're bypassing that filter by distributing pictures showing how northern Israelis suffer from Katyusha rocket attacks."

Certainly, the topic of the rocket attacks is contentious on many internet message boards. Reports of them are often dismissed as "propaganda", or "false flag operations" concocted to justify what many see as an Israeli war of aggression.
This is part of the problem with much of the "debate" that is taking place on this issue. When confronted with information that does not support their opinions (perhaps if you're an Israeli supporter being told about the civilian casualties being caused by Israeli airstrikes, or a Lebanese supporter being told that Hezbollah are hiding amongst civilians), it is simply dismissed as "propaganda", and is ultimately discarded. What quickly develops is a debate that is rhetorically charged, and fuelled by disinformation (disinformation in the sense that new on either side consent to being fully informed).

Israel's internet campaign may change all that. Often, these debates are being waged between people who may be entirely too embroiled in a conflict that they are ultimately detached from. But Israel's megaphone software allows those who are in the middle of the conflict -- Israeli citizens under fire from rocket attacks, perhaps -- to share their experiences directly with some people who otherwise would not have had the benefit. That could make all the difference in the world.

Certainly, some will object to the presence of Israeli supporters on their sites. Some will object simply because they cannot stand to defend their opinions against people who do not agree with them. Some will object because of the online etiquette considerations of Israel's actions (and this is actually quite fair).

But in the end, Israel is only doing what smart nations do: they are adapting to the world's new realities -- in this case, the effectiveness of the internet -- and using them to thrive. And, god willing, the debate over the war in Lebanon will only benefit from the influx of new participants, regardless of whether or not they are pro-Israel.

If Israel has any amount of success waging this electronic information war, it can be expected that other states -- such as the United States -- will seek to emulate it.

The future is now. Internet warfare is probably here to stay.

Harper Must Learn his Lessons in Order to Adjust to Middle Power Status

Room remains for Canada to act as an intermediary... But it is slim

As a world leader, there is no question that one has a lot less control over world events than they would like. Often, crises can develop quite quickly, with few if any warning signs, or can start as something smaller, then escalate out of control.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has certainly learned this the hard way over the past two weeks, as what began essentially as a hostage situation, boiling over a period of months, exploded into a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah this week. There is no doubt that Harper has learned many hard lessons in the days since.

Despite criticism regarding command-and-control from the Prime Minister's Office hampering efforts, the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon proceeded fairly efficiently. Even the Prime Minister himself lent a hand, as he diverted his Airbus flight home from France to Turkey in order to pick up a planeload of evacuees. Many evacuees complained about poor conditions on board the ships chartered to bring them to safety, while others complained about lax treatment by officials at the Canadian consulate in Cyprus. On top of all this, the operation was far from perfect, as a Canadian family of eight from Montreal was confirmed dead in an Israeli airstrike. There was also a report of an Israeli aircraft opening fire on a ship bearing Canadian refugees (however, the small explosion was ultimately traced to a faulty fire extinguisher).

Considering that this was the largest civilian evacuation in Canadian history, the operation went as well as could be hoped.

But Harper learned one other harsh lesson this week: as he has little control over international crises, he also has very little control over the public perception of his response.

When conflict began in earnest, Harper responded quickly by calling the Israeli actions a "measured response" to the actions of Hezbollah, who were not only holding two captured Israeli soldiers, but were also launching rocket attacks into Israel from southern Lebanon.

While whether or not the Israeli military expidition can be considered a "measured response" (especially in the face of many civilian casualties) is entirely open for debate, these key facts of the issue really are not. Which may be what made the criticism that quickly followed all the more absurd.

Liberal Party interim leader Bill Graham complained about Harper's lack of initiative as a peacemaker. "Canada has always been able to serve as an intermediary," he explained, "but we can only serve in that useful role if in both our comportment and our actions we take steps and stances which enable us to play that role."

Graham didn't deny that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Deputy Prime Minister and current Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay responded fairly simply: "A ceasefire and return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," MacKay told CTV's Canada AM. "Let's not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organiztion. Missiles were being fired into Israel."
Harper was also accused of "parroting" the American position on Israel. "He's almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right," said Axworthy. "We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."

However, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Axeworthy knows full well that support is Israel is a traditional tenet of Canadian foreign policy. In 1997, Axworthy himself closed an investigation on wether or not Israeli intelligence operatives were using Canadian passports (although Axworthy did offer Israel his fair share of criticism).

In the end, MacKay argued that Harper's stance actually served the interests of establishing long-term peace. " The Prime Minister has taken a very independent sovereign decision to participate in world events in a way that we feel is cognizant of all the circumstances including the history and the ongoing struggles in the region," he noted. " It is very much in keeping with an effort to find a long-term peaceful solution, not one that is going to be just a quick fix."

He also insisted that no peace will ultimately come of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

Many pro-peace activists also took to treating Harper's stance in a manner comparable to that given to U.S. President George Bush. On Saturday, in protests in Montreal and Toronto, anti-war activists carried banners of Harper emblazoned with the words "war monger" -- despite the absence of Canadian troops in the war zone.
Ultimately, the trouble with the debate on this crises is that each side seems to enjoy ignoring the key facts that make the issue so complex. Bill Graham, Lloyd Axworthy and (portions of) the Liberal party seem to subscribe to some sort of bizarre belief that peace talks are practical in an environment where a terrorist organization is launching continuous rocket attacks against a soveriegn country. Many of the most extreme anti-war groups are ignoring the matter of these attacks althogether.

Yet it seems that the Conservative party is largely ignoring the issue of civilian casualties -- even after the deaths of Canadians in the crosshairs. Not to mention claiming that Israel's actions serve the interest of long-term peace, when the Israeli Defense Force's actions will almost certainly spawn the next generation of Hezbollah members.

There certainly do need to be peace talks -- there is no question about that. But Hezbollah has already proven itself to be a terrorist organization with absolutely no interest in peacefully coexisting with Israel. As such, any such peace talks would have to take place exclusively between Israel and Lebanon. As part of the price for peace, Lebanon will have to agree to work together with Israel do deal with Hezbollah once and for all.

This is where Stephen Harper comes in. If he has left himself any room to function as an intermediary (as the Liberals so desire), it would be under such a framework. Similarily, the Liberals will also have to recognize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and will need to be treated as such.

However, before he can even begin to do so, Harper will have to learn the lessons this crises is teaching him -- and learn them quickly.

Will the War in Lebanon Become World War Three?

Probably not... but what if it were?

If you've had the unfortunate experience of waching CNN recently, or even coming within twenty feet of a FOX news broadcast (not recommended by physicians), you've probably heard all the frantic talk about the "Third World War".

That's right, kids, get your party hats: the Third World War is upon us. Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.Even Stephen Colbert has proclaimed it so.

Certainly, the armed conflict currently taking place in Lebanon (like Iraq, without the benefit of a declaration of war) has brought the world's alarmists and wingnuts to a state of absolute frenzy.

On a recent installment of Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich, for one, made his views on the matter clear. " is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war," he said. " ...I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel."

He quickly drew allusions to the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the situation regarding North Korea. " I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III."

Wow. That's heavy stuff. It's downright biblical, in fact.

Speaking of biblical, the most famous World War III prophecy comes, in fact, from the bible. The famous "Revelations" prophecy, which many people have interpreted and endorsed as a prophecy of a third global-spanning conflict, which will eventually bring about the endtimes.

A look at the prophecy itself foretells the third world war in a prelude and six acts. In the prelude, the stage is set as the events leading up to the third world war first begin to happen. In act one, the middle east is engulfed in more and more of that dreaded conflict. In act two, Israel finally goes on the warpath, and starts laying the smackdown. Act three brings a new element to bear: the machinations of those mischevious far-easterners. In the fourth act, confidence in "the system" is "eroded". In act five, the economies and moral systems of the western nations (including the U.S.) collapse. The whole affair wraps up with act six, and the signifcant reduction of population.

According to www.threeworldwars.com, the events leading up to the Third World War have already begun to take place.

The prelude, according to the site, began September 11, 2001 (quelle surprise!). Certainly, this was a date that changed the world, in almost every way that anyone can imagine. If any event of the past ten years "set the scene" for a global war, it was certainly 9/11. Fair enough.

The site kicks off act one with the invasion of Iraq 555 days later (isn't 666 more of a foreboding number? Oh, well) on March 10, 2003. According to this site, Iranian or Pakistani radicals may, in the near future, use a nuclear weapon in the region.
Act two, according to the site, is what we are seeing right now. Fed up with having their soldiers kidnapped and missiles fire at them by Hezzbollah, Israel is expected to move into southern Lebanon in a full-scale invasion later today. But after this, things start to get a little bit hazy.

Act three, as previously noted, concerns troubles in the far east. But there's been trouble in the far east for the past fifty years. Repeated problems with the South Korean missile program, as well as nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan (mostly over the hotly-contest Kasmir region) have been significant news topics over the past five years. Suddenly, act three predates act two.

Act four, erosion of confidence in the system is nothing new, either. It's been happening in many countries (particularly the United States) ever since the 1980s, when voter turnout first started to tank. So now, act four predates act three, which already predates act two.

Act five, some warn, is currently in the process have happening. The collapse of the American economy has been forecasted by a number of economists for a little while now. Once again, nothing new, but at least this one has yet to pass.

Act six, however, could be argued to be underway. The site notes that the population reduction in question could happen by way of natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina, recent earthquakes in Indonesia, and the Tsunami that obliterated the south western Pacific basin come to mind. So, act six, predates act five (which has yet to happen), which is predated by act four, which is predated by act three, which predates act two.

Now, certainly, the chronological order of the events probably shouldn't matter much to those who subscribe to the biblical WWIII prophesy. The fact that enough of the events can be argued to have happened, or be in the course of happening should be unsettling enough for most.

But wait! There's more.

According to this site, the Illuminati is involved, too! It wouldn't be a proper prophesy if the Illuminati weren't thrown in there, somehow. In fact, according to the site the Illuminati and the New World Order have in fact planned the Third World War, and it won't begin to happen until all the necessary puzzle pieces are in place. The recent meeting of the mysterious Bilderberg group in Ottawa probably won't do much to allay those fears, either.

Is the Third World War ongoing as we speak? It may already have been for at least five years now. If anything, the War on Terror is a global war, taking place on two or more continents -- the historical definition of a world war. Regardless of whether or not Israel's campaign in Lebanon sparks a nightmarish global war, historians may one day recognize the war on terror as World War 3 -- or World War 4, if you agree with those who consider the Cold War to have been World War 3.

Certainly, much of the "news coverage" of the ongoing "World War 3" is simply alarmism. But if left untended (and no world leader has yet to make a serious peace overture), this situation could easily balloon into a world war.

While it's easy to simply throw our hands in the air in an act of exasperation over the drama, we must resist the urge to do this, and pressure our leaders to help Israel find the most peaceful resolution possible with Hezbollah and Lebanon. Certainly, Israel cannot permit Hezbollah to continue attacking them, but an all-out war is something that simply must be avoided, if at all possible.

Otherwise, what has existed for the past fifty years in the way of a small regional conflict breaking into occasional wars could become something much bigger, and much, much worse.