So if you look at it as Lebanon vs. Israel, than absolutely, Israel struck first. If you look at it as Israel vs. Hezbollah, it’s a bit more difficult to support either side. The whole thing is basically a clusterfuck mired in so much history (as you rightly pointed out) that it makes it nearly impossible for anyone living in the west to understand it. So much so that we could write volumes on it, if we wished. As for Cuba, that’s a whole nother ridiculous issue, and a huge condemnation for every president in my lifetime, including Clinton. But again, another issue entirely. And one I hope to not have to tackle anytime soon, but we’ll see what Bush and Co. have in store, won’t we?

Personally, I am just amazed at how much I miss Sharon. Even in his more militant days, he handled things far better than this, and his last few years were so growingly progressive that it really gave me hope for some stability between Israel and its neighbors.

Of course, I say that Nasrallah isn’t much of a cheat and a liar, but I _am_ biased. And I would argue that Lebanon was hit first, thus is the innocent [and since almost all of lebanon, including cristian and non-shia muslims has pledged support for hizb'allah since Qana, hizb'allah is now standing for all of lebanon], but if I was to argue that it would detract from the beautiful neutrality of your post.

And I _am_ biased.