[I was able to take a vacation, from both work and the news. Many were not so lucky...]

The Washington Post has been updating its collection of photo essays and other media associated with the violence in Lebanon at: Crisis in the Middle East Multimedia.

The biggest side effect: unanticipated popular support for Hezbollah. My extremist political friend had been talking up Israel's attacks on Lebanon as the sort of bold action that so many Americans prize, even when it's directed at the wrong target. While I am relieved not to know too many people like my friend, their are plenty of them in the world, but without his particular political biases. As a result Hezbollah, who is seen as taking decisive action against Israeli aggression, is winning support as the violence against the civilians of Lebanon continues. They are "doing something" about the scenes of horror that people see on the nightly news, and people who think like my friend admire that.

This doesn't sit well with many regional authorities. Arab leaders fear rise of Hezbollah (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/28/06) describes the disruption that such broad support for a militia might have on other countries.

Some Saudi religious figures have gone much further. For them the issue is not so much political as sectarian.

One well-known sheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring it illegal for Muslims to join, support or even pray for Hezbollah.

In a time with many unpopular Arab governments, a wildly popular militia in any Arab country could be perceived as a threat.

This points to the fear that many have had about Israel's action against Lebanon destabilizing the region in unpredictable ways.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair defends decision on Lebanon (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/29/06):

He added it was 'simply not correct' to say he and US President Bush had not called for an immediate ceasefire because they wanted Israel to win the conflict.

The reason Blair was put in a position to issue this rather odd defense, while traveling to promote high tech business in the U.S., was that he hadn't prepared a really coherent, brief explanation as to why he didn't support a ceasefire. (The article quotes his explanation - see if you can decipher it.)

Please keep track of which war I'm referring to... Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Bush Administration remains frustrated that Americans do not see all the good news about the U.S.-sponsored rebuilding projects. It turns out that it's probably better that we not read about those. Iraq Hospital Touted by Laura Bush Delayed (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) provides some reasons why.

He said that, of nearly 180 medical facilities promised by the U.S., contracts were awarded for 142. Only six have been completed and turned over to the Iraqis and those ''are not even fully complete.''

''This comes as a sharp contrast to the Japanese,'' Ali said. ''They have promised and delivered 13 hospitals around the country, including three cutting-edge cancer centers. The Japanese have been very faithful to us, unfortunately, the Americans aren't like that.''

I think it's important that the interviewee for this story differentiate between the U.S. and the Japanese. U.S. contractors have been saying that working in Iraq is impossible, while still cashing their checks. If the Japanese are delivering on their commitments, it means that it IS possible, but we're not doing it correctly.