This year at GA, UUSC was able to bring together exciting panelists to talk about who pays the price of the Iraq war, how families in Iraq and the United States have been devastated by the war, and how many veterans are speaking out.

Our speakers included Dahlia Wasfi, an Iraqi American who has traveled to Iraq twice since the 2003 invasion; Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out; Lindsay Burnett, who helped found Appeal for Redress; Camilo Mejía, of Iraq Veterans Against the War; and Andy Shallal, an Iraqi American who has helped found several peace groups and owns Busboys and Poets, in Washington, D.C.

The diversity of the speakers highlights the Civil Liberties Program's attempt to bring diverse groups together to work collectively to end the occupation. It also shows UUSC's commitment to freedom of speech and social justice by building coalitions.

Over the past few weeks, I was so busy planning GA events that I lost sight of how painful the content can be. Wasfi spoke eloquently of the pain and suffering of her family in Iraq, sharing disturbing pictures of not only what the current war has done to the country but of the huge role that the United States played in destroying vital infrastructure through economic sanctions in the 1990s.

Lessin shared painful stories of how military families feel betrayed by the government and how many lives of military families had been shattered by this war, even when a soldier survives to return home. Many of the veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and struggle to get vital care. Suicide rates have skyrocketed. One poignant story she shared was of a woman who walked into her house only to find her three-year-old daughter beside the dead body of her father who had shot himself in the head. After that, she and her two daughters had to live in the basement because her kids were afraid that "Daddy's ghost" was in the house. They did not have enough money to pay for funeral expenses.

Mejía talked about how some of the things he was asked to do in Iraq disturbed him and how, when he returned to the United States, he could not convince himself to go back and applied for conscientious-objector status, only to be denied and sent to jail for nine months for desertion.

Burnett talked about the increase in substance abuse, violence, and suicide among soldiers due to the lack of resources for mental health care. On average, just one psychologist is assigned to 4,000 troops. Service personnel are allowed 30 minutes of therapy for a maximum of 4 sessions. Burnett also talked about how difficult it was for her and others to get medical care when they returned from Iraq. She emphasized that the military was built on the "backs of the poor" because so many who are in the service come from low-income households and joined just to survive.

Shallal spoke movingly about his family in Iraq and how they are suffering without adequate electricity and water in intensely hot weather — and how they lack security. He talked about how the U.S. military were not welcomed at all and how angry Iraqis feel about what this war has done to them.

So, who has paid the price of this war? The answer is all of us. It is clear that the ending this occupation is vital to begin the healing on both sides. During this important election year, we can work hard to make sure our voices are loud and clear. However, the presidential elections are not a panacea to all problems. Our work really begins when a new president has been elected.

Van Jones, founder and president of Green For All, based in Oakland, Calif., who delivered the UUA's Ware Lecture last night, bluntly said that the hard work of the last eight years was just flexing muscles for the real workout ahead. He said that the social-justice movement has become very successful in protesting and working against a powerful and irresponsible government. However, it is important to prove to those who have become disillusioned that people with progressive values, in government and in society, are prepared to govern and know what it takes to get this country back on track.

World Refugee Day is observed every year on June 20. According to a June 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the total number of people considered as refugees and internally displaced people amounts to 67 million.

On this day, it is important to reflect on how climate change, poverty, and conflicts (both long-standing and new) have ravaged the lives of millions of people who were forced to flee from their homes. It is also important to take this moment to pressure our government to provide more resources to assist and protect this vulnerable and sometimes forgotten population.

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, the number of refugees and displaced people are expected to continue to increase: "Now, unfortunately, with the multiplication of conflicts and the intensification of conflicts, the number is on the rise again...people being forced to move, unfortunately, will be one of the characteristics of the 21st century."

Over the past year, much of the increase in the number of refugees and internally displaced people can be attributed to conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For the past year, UUSC's Civil Liberties Program has focused on The Cost of Iraq: Who Pays the Price?, drawing attention to, among others, the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced by the war. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, almost 5 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes by violence and insecurity. Almost half of those are "internally displaced," having fled elsewhere in Iraq. Others have fled to Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Syria, and other neighboring countries. Because the vast majority of these refugees do not have an official refugee status, they could be deported back to Iraq at any time. They face challenges in finding housing and employment, obtaining food, and accessing health and education systems, particularly in host countries.

The lack of security and the political deadlock in Iraq have contributed to this situation. These issues need to be addressed in earnest by members of the international community, especially the United States.

According to a June 28, 2008, article in the Christian Science Monitor, Sweden is home to the largest number of refugees in Europe, 40,000; while the United Kingdom houses about 22,000. To date, only 8,000 Iraqis have been settled in the United States. Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged that the United States will process applications for 12,000 Iraqi refugees by September. While this is good news, much, much more needs to be done for the millions of Iraqis displaced by the war.

UUSC supports legislation to assist Iraqi civilians and calls on Congress to increase funding for programs authorized under the Torture Victims Relief Act. We also advocate increased assistance for internally displaced Iraqis, Iraqi refugees in the region, and Iraqi refugees resettling in the United States.

We are now hearing that this is the second-largest General Assembly ever. Rumor has it that registrations are approaching the 7000 level, which is quite exciting.

Many exciting things happened on Thursday, but, for me the most moving moment was a workshop entitled, "The Story of Rachel Corrie: A Death in Rafah," organized by Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East.

If you don't know Rachel's story, she was a young activist who went to Palestine in 2003 to work with The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a group promoting direct action against the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The workshop involved a dramatic reading of a script put together by Madeline Izzo from the writings of Rachel, her parents, and other sources. Rachel's parents, who live in Olympia, WA, were in attendance.

Rev. David Herndon, minister of the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Rachel Krishnasawami and Aushra Abouzeid performed the reading beautifully. Tears flowed freely down the cheeks of many of the 200 people jammed into the small room given over for this purpose.

Relying heavily on correspondence between Rachel in her parents during the last days of Rachel's life, the play provides a rare view into the mind of someone developing a powerful commitment to act against injustice. Ultimately, it was the strength of this commitment and an absolute faith in the power of life to overcome death that put Rachel in the path of the bulldozer that day. The reading offers less insight about what led the two Israeli soldiers driving the bulldozer to drive over Rachel with the giant machine and then shift into reverse and back over her, again.

It will come as no surprise that not all UUs are of a single mind on this issue. When Rachel's parents offered themselves for a Q & A session after the reading, one woman stepped to the microphone and suggested that, while she truly wanted peace for the region, Rachel had been manipulated by a group that was consciously recruiting foreigners to act as "human shields." If patience is a virtue, Rachel's parents showed themselves to be uncommonly virtuous.

Rev. Herndon suggests that any congregation or community group wishing to receive the script to hold their own event can contact him at the First Church of Pittsburgh.

By all accounts, a truce designed to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is near. It will come on the heels of the worst day of the war for Israel, in terms of military casualities.

Israel's cabinet voted unanimously on Sunday to accept a U.N. deal, and, while it still criticizes the inability of the United Nations to label Israel as the "main aggressor" in the conflict, the Arab League also believes that this is the best chance to end the fighting.

A coalition of Lebanese organizations that has been providing relief to those affected by the fighting around Beirut continues to provide information on the fighting, but has yet to comment on the ceasefire agreement. A group on international activists gathered in Beirut is organizing a convoy to deliver aid directly to desperate villagers in Southern Lebanon. They see this as one way to highlight the continuing humanitarian crisis created by the Israeli attacks. They wonder what Israel will do when their convoy crosses the Litani River. I wonder if I would get onto one of those trucks . . .

Israel says it won't leave Lebanon until U.N. peacekeepers and the Lebanese army establish their control in Southern Lebanon. Given that weeks of heavy bombing and a massive ground offensive haven't allowed Israel to establish control of Southern Lebanon, one wonders how long the Israelis will be there.

Hezbollah, for its part, says that it won't stop fighting until the Israelis leave. Will this truce bring peace?

Some Israeli commentators are not waiting for the fighting to stop to demand a rethinking of Israeli policy. For one of them, the obvious failure of this military thrust should be cause for reflection. Others suggest that the ceasefire agreement meets Israel's goals, but the language of one analysis suggests that the writer, himself, isn't so sure.

The more critical views aren't just coming from maverick columnists. . . . How about a man who sat on the Israeli side of the table during the negotiations with the Palestinians at Oslo and at Taba? Daniel Levy suggests that the Israeli embrace of the neoconservative gang running U.S. foreign policy should be reconsidered in the wake of this episode. He is right.

And, speaking of the Palestinians, let's not join the mainstream media in forgetting that this was a two-pronged Israeli offensive that is making a mess of the lives of over one million Gazans. A stop to the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and the Hezbollah rockets hitting northern Israel won't mean peace in the region.

This weekend has been as bad as any in the "other" Middle East war. While the diplomats at the United Nations chew on language, the death toll mounts.

We've been screaming for a cease-fire for weeks, so we should be happy that the United Nations might be ready to vote on one, right? Not so.

The cease-fire resolution as now written is a non-starter. It rightly requires Hezbollah to halt its operations, but it only requires Israel to halt "offensive operations." What is that? Don't the Israelis consider the entire operation a defensive operation? The draft also rests on the notion of a "buffer zone" in Southern Lebanon. History suggests that, regardless of what the Security Council might desire, no such buffer will exist without the settlement of a number of other issues that divide Israel and its neighbors.

One long time observer of the region calls the draft a "lemon." He's being kind. He could have called it much worse.

Not surprisingly, the United States, in the person of Israel's most effective representative at the United Nations, John Bolton, is pressing for a quick vote on the draft. Now it appears that opposition to the draft will delay the vote until at least Tuesday. One can only hope against hope that the opposition of the Lebanese government will cause someone to take another look at this.

In the meantime, people like Maya Mikdashi, a Lebanese woman living in Beirut, will continue to try to keep going. I'm sure many living in Haifa are telling similar stories.

Is Israel any safer for all of this?

Not so very long ago, drunk driving was an acute problem in the United States. Drivers would swagger into their automobiles in defiance of entreaties by friends and relatives and take off into the world of hapless innocents to wreak havoc sometimes on themselves, but with greater vigor on the innocent.

A surprising coalition eventually took command in this arena and simply stated that the slaughter and maiming of innocents by swaggering intoxicants was no longer acceptable. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was interested in building a civil society in which "friends don't let friends drive drunk."

But in the Middle East, it's drunk drivers who are in charge all along the famous road map. On the slippery slope of violence, swaggering warriors in the Middle East have lost sight of any ghostly image of a civil society. The idea that those in charge try to avoid the slaughter and maiming of innocents is pulp fiction. They're trying to win at all costs. And just what defines winning? We see the deaths and injuries of civilians everyday in newpapers and on television and the Internet. We see the broken societies. Who wins in the wake of this?

If the feckless combatants listened, they would know that most people want to live their lives in the absence of war. But they don't listen preferring to beat their chests and proclaim with emotional bravado their might and right. They continued to imbibe the intoxicating ideas of dominance swaggering through the sands of time and the Middle East laying waste to civilians, to military personnel who have left their families at home to grapple with life without fathers or brothers or sisters or mothers . . . wasting the land and its resources, destroying common infrastructures and economic futures, creating homelessness of enormous proportion and producing hopelessness.

And it's not as though there are alternative solutions for the Middle East.

For me, it's time to tell every military and political leader in the Middle East to stop his drunk driving. Stop the violence. Stop killing civilians. Start building toward partnerships. If the political and military leaders can't come up with a way to start resolving their differences let them slug it out in a field somewhere and leave the rest of us to pursue our lives.

Yes, we all know that it takes a village to raise a child. It also took a village -- the southern Lebanese village of Qana -- to get the United States to act to stop the carnage in the Middle East.

The news of the killing of 57 civilians -- 34 of them children -- in a single bombing raid on Qana finally got the United States to abandon its "clean house" policy and to an insistence that Israel proclaim a 48-hour halt in air attacks on Lebanon. It is worth noting that a direct Israeli attack on a U.N. observation post earlier in the week had not achieved such a change.

An emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council condemned the attack in the strongest terms and insisted that the parties to the conflict allow free access for humanitarian aid. The Security Council also continued its call for an immediate ceasefire.

Unfortunately, it may take more than a village to secure a real ceasefire. In announcing the cessation of bombing, Israeli officials expressed determination to continue their offensive until the terror threat to Israel is extinguished. There is certainly a threat to Israel present in Southern Lebanon. Only a few short years ago, Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon after a disastrously unsuccessful attempt to remove that threat by military means. It is also true that the tactics of Hezbollah make it very difficult to distinguish its fighters from the civilian population. That said, the threat to Israel only intensifies every time Israel uses collective punishment of a civilian population to try to eliminate its enemies.

And it is not just the Israeli policy that needs to be questioned. The current bombing has also left U.S. policy in the region in tatters.

New communications technologies have offered some Lebanese the opportunity to raise their own voices during this conflict. Surely we must hear these voices, too, if we wish to understand what it means to stand for human rights during such a conflict.

If a Global Good Neighbor Ethic is to have any value, it must help us understand and decide upon a course of action in foreign policy dilemmas like the current Middle East conflict.

Secretary of State Rice's visit to the region is a good example of foreign policy as practiced in the Bush White House. Hezbollah sits right on the Axis of Evil, so the narrative goes. Hamas isn't far off. As a result, any attack on such groups is to be applauded. All the better if we don't even have to do it ourselves. If over a thousand innocent Lebanese and a much smaller number of Israeli civilians need to die in the process, we can live with that.

Condi listened. If she plays the violin, she could have fiddled. Tyre burned. Then the Condi show shifted to Rome, where no breakthrough on a ceasefire was desired. To no one's surprise, no breakthrough came.

This sad tale does not show the limits of diplomacy: It shows the bankruptcy of the Bush foreign policy. A Good Neighbor would pull out all of the stops to arrange a ceasefire on all sides, and then use all diplomatic means to facilitate negotiations without preconditions on all fronts.

Noam Chomsky and friends circulated a letter yesterday reminding us how all of this actually started. This history has already been rewritten to someone's convenience. Since it is extremely concise and can be grasped in a single reading, we know that Noam probably didn't write the letter. It does, however, offer a perspective sadly missing in media treatments of the situation.

The New York Times doesn't seem to be interested, but a human rights organization must say something.

Human Rights Watch reports that Israel is using cluster munitions in its bombing attacks in civilian areas in Lebanon. Cluster bombs are known to cause tremendous "collateral damage" and a growing international movement opposes their use in civilian areas. Many of them also fail to fully explode, which leaves behind extremely dangerous unexploded ordnance. These bombs should not be used at all, especially around civilians.

We are unlikely to hear Condi Rice criticize Israel for its tactics. The United States used the same cluster ordnance in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, and in Iraq in 2003. Israel is, therefore, in bad company.

Independent journalist Dahr Jamail exposed the U.S. use of white phosphorous bombs in Iraq. In an interview with Democracy Now, Jamail reports on his visits to Lebanese hospitals. While he can't confirm it yet, he is convinced that the Israelis are using white phosphorous bombs in Southern Lebanon.

Have you done anything today to stop this insanity? Our government has no intention of lifting a finger.

Take a moment to contact your representative and ask him/her to cosponsor H.Con.Res.450, which calls for the United States to pursue an immediate cease-fire and negotiations without preconditions.

When has U.S. foreign policy been more of a shambles? North Korea's missile launch . . . terror attacks in India . . . widening war in the Middle East . . . and all of this against the backdrop of a failed war in Iraq and one that is hanging by its fingernails in Afghanistan. Where does it all end?

You must have seen it. Our president is chowing down while Phony Blair is trying to get his attention onto the conflict in the Middle East. If you haven't seen it, check it out. He never misses a bite.

The open mike makes the policy clear. "See . . . the irony is that all they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop this shit and it's over." If life were only so simple.

Blair and Bush will laugh it off. What else can they do? Perhaps the scariest thing about the whole episode is that 38 percent of the people taking the CNN Quick Poll on this say that both of these guys actually enhanced their reputation through the mishap. This is more than the 33 percent who said that Bush was more embarrassed by the gaffe.

Foreign policy is especially on my mind as my stomach turns. I spent this weekend at a conference that brought together activists and policy people to discuss the Global Good Neighbor Ethic. Developed by the New Mexico-based International Relations Center, GGN reaches back to the foreign policy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt to locate the seeds of a new approach to foreign policy. It also looks forward to what a guiding ethic to policy might mean as the war on terror threatens to set the entire world on fire.

The need for such a new approach has never been so evident in my three decades or so of caring about such things, but will anyone care? We spent a lot of time talking about the "Fear Factor," and the question of who will want to talk about being a good neighbor when it seems that the next terror attack might be days away.

Maybe so, but our own Fear Factor can't be an excuse for not trying to change this debate. As we were getting ready to fold up our conference on Friday, The New York Times filled its op-ed page with a call for a "progressive realism". I'm happy to see that they, too, see the need to get foreign policy onto a new track, but, for now, I'll focus my realism on building the good neighborhood.