Don't start your day with the New York Times. It may be bad for your health. While I am suffering from jet-lag and a cold, I had to do my daily homework. I had to start with the reading the New York Times, which can only worsens your health condition. First, the very headline gets to you. "Clashes Spread to Lebanon as Hezbollah Raids Israel." Later, the internet edition changed the title from the print edition: it of course, refers to Israel "entering" Lebanon. I was expecting the New York Times to even say that Lebanon welcomes the Israeli savage invasion. But who is raiding whom? This is the question. Bring out all the liberals in the US. Ask them why even attacks on Israeli occupation troops are also considered terrorism? Ask them for their real intentions? They really don't want Arabs to ever resist, not even peacefully--have you actually read the text of the lousy Road Map?--Israeli occupation and colonization. But the front picture of the print edition shows Israeli occupation artillery firing on Lebanese civilian targets. Israel has already killed some 50 Lebanese all but one are civilians. Israeli record of violence against Arab civilians is quite comparable to that of Al-Qa`idah. I mean that. Both are equally reckless in their killing of civilians, and both use the same justifications for their murders. This is why we now should insist on referring to Israeli killings as old-fashioned, classical terrorism. Pure and simple, just as we refer to Al-Qa`idah's violence as terrorism. As if this was not enough, I read that Hassan Fattah was dispatched to Lebanon. I mean, has there been a more imbalanced and more inaccurate and ill-informed reporter on Lebanon, than this dude? I mean, really. Go back and read his dispatches on Lebanon after Hariri's assassination. He basically got excited thinking that Arab neo-conservatives will be coming to power in all Arab capitals with US tanks behind them. That was not meant to be, o Hassan Fattah. (Fattah once wondered to somebody I know why I have not been criticizing him as of late. Oh, don't worry o New Republic-trained correspondent. I will, I will). And then you read this "news analysis." How nice and insightful. Basically, the New York Times, following the clues of Israeli propaganda, reproduces the dogmas--always--of Israeli propaganda. It was all an Iranian conspiracy. Read this piece. I mean, do they believe this stuff? Do they believe that Arabs on their own have no problem with Israel, but that they are being manipulated by Iran? I mean, were Arabs friendly to Israeli brutality during the days of the Shah--how nostalgic US media are to the days of the Shah, it must have been the gifts that the Shah's ambassador in Washington, DC was giving to American journalists, including the liberal Tom Brokaw--read about that in James Bill's The Eagle and the Lion. But this conspiratorial "news analysis" is even more surprising for somebody with some historical, or contemporary, memory. When I came to the US, I was reading books articles by fanatic Zionists like Jilian Becker, Clair Sterling, Yonah Alexander, Michael Ledeen--ya, that one, among others, and all of them were maintaining that the Soviet Union was behind Palestinian hostility to Zionism, and that once the Soviet Union is contained, all will be well, and Arabs would then enjoy brutal Israeli occupation. That was the view then: so there is the conspiracy analysis, and you just have to replace the conspirator's identity. It was the Soviet Union then, and now it is Iran. The New York Times adjusted its coverage of Palestinian nationalism accordingly. And the New York Times then produced this editorial. It was classic New York Times. It basically justified, as it always does, Israeli killing of Arabs, but wants Israel to be careful in its killing, not out of concern for the civilian Arabs that Israel habitually kills, but out of concern for "the soul of Israel," as Michael Lerner would put it in his most uneloquent way. But if you look at the Arab-Israeli conflict from a historical perspective: there is no doubt that the premise of Zionism is flawed: that Arabs would submit to Zionist dictates with the continuous use of massive and indiscriminate violence by Israel. Even the New York Times realized that: "Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel." But look at this line: it is always about the "terrorists" who provoke Israel. Israel, as far as US media are concerned, is always provoked. This is a state that is never guilty, as far as the US media are concerned. But then again, maybe the Nation magazine will come out with an editorial calling on Palestinians to make concessions, and to accept less than 22% of historic Palestine. Fat chance. Fat chance, o outlets of the American Left. When I was growing up, Israel was also bombing South Lebanon quite regularly. Back then, Israel used to say that it had no problem with the Lebanese people, and that it only is hostile to Palestinian "terrorists". Well, the Palestinian "terrorists" were expelled from Lebanon. Israel is now facing a movement--say what you will about it--that has the overwhelming support of the residents of South Lebanon. Israel is now facing the people of South Lebanon, and it will not be able to drive a wedge between the people and the resistance movement in the region. This is the major problem that no scale of Israeli indiscriminate violence can solve. In other words, Israel's dilemma today is far worse than what it faced back in the 1970s. But all this confirms my premise: that there can't be, and there should not be, peace with Zionism in Palestine. NEVER.