The atrocities being committed in Lebanon once again provide us in the Arab world a superfluous, all too frequent and unnecessary reminder of the fact that our blood is cheap. As if Iraq wasn’t enough to prove to us our irrelevance in the global picture, further insults are being heaped onto our mounting sense of humiliation.

The duplicity and flagrant disregard for the destruction of an entire country by the Israeli government, the American president, his neocon cronies and “Yo Blair” have demonstrated beyond doubt that the return of two Israeli soldiers (even though thousands of their Arab counterparts rot in Israeli prisons) equate to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians. While the rest of the world desperately waited for the announcement of a cease-fire that only America had the clout to negotiate, Auntie Condi arrived to play the fiddle to Israel’s tune as Lebanon burned in the background.

I watch in sheer awe-filled horror the pictures that flood our television screens of children, Lebanese, Palestinian and Iraqi, screaming in agony covered in blood thinking “My God! That could have been my child.” I constantly reassess what our intrinsic value is in the international marketplace of humanity. What is even more pathetic is that every time I think we have sunk to a new low in terms of our worth Uncle George reminds me that we haven’t quite got to the bottom of his global cesspit yet. Our lives, the lives of our children, our dreams, our aspirations, tantamount to a little less than nothing in his disgust-filled estimation.

As civilians in Lebanon and Palestine are murdered daily by US-made and US taxpayer-funded weapons, President Bush has characteristically shown more interest in the abstract phenomenon of protecting frozen embryos. One would be forced to wonder (given his total disinterest in the sanctity of Arab and Muslim life) that if these embryos were conceived in the Middle East whether Bush would be as enthusiastic about such research or preservation.

And what lesson is it exactly that Bush has set out to teach us? Ah yes! But of course. He wants to show us “Ayrabs” how to behave. How repugnant and downright disrespectful that we speak a queer language that he doesn’t understand! And what’s even worse is that we camel-herding desert-dwelling bedouins have a whole crazy bunch of oil that would be far better suited to the gluttonous gas-guzzling consumption of his citizens than to our modest campfires.

We should be grateful to Bush. He is, after all, our self-appointed savior and wants to instil within us the etiquette of democracy. No. Not hypocrisy, even though they sound remarkably similar when he pronounces the words (the “Ayrab” definition of hypocrisy would be the United States providing humanitarian aid to Lebanon while rushing precision-guided missiles to Israel in order to obliterate those who it seeks to “help”) but democracy. However, not just democracy in the broad definition of the word, for when we followed his advice and tried to do that by electing Hamas with a sweeping majority we were punished for bringing in the people’s choice.

No, no, no! In the Middle East, democracy, according to the new definition from the “State Department Dictionary,” is “a government that is not necessarily elected by the people but who we think should be elected.” A sort of color-coded new-improved super-imposable version of the American dream that has become so fashionable in the highest echelons of the US government these days that choosing one is a bit like the political version of selecting the latest Prada handbag. Popular opinion is so definitely last season! But if you think about it, it all makes perfect sense. After all, why on earth should we be allowed to select what we want if it doesn’t happen to coincide with what Rice’s new look for the Middle East is?

Is it not a great affront to her designing talents that we could infringe upon her lovely color scheme by opting for so