An excellent editorial from the editor of the Beirut Daily Star:
A.B.
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Time for America to put its diplomatic muscle where its mouth is
Editorial
This week has given a sense of just how quickly things can change in the Middle East. In a matter of hours, a relatively confined conflict in the Gaza Strip erupted into a two-front war, posing a dangerous threat of even wider escalation. But perhaps the most startling development of late is that the United States is at least publicly trying to take a relatively balanced approach to the conflict unfolding in Lebanon.
Expressing concern for Lebanon's "fragile democracy," US President George W. Bush urged the Israelis to show restraint during their siege, stressing that precautions should be taken so as not to weaken the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Likewise, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also urged Israel to show concern for the democratically elected government of Lebanon, as well as infrastructure and innocent civilians.
It is the least that they can do, considering the suffering that we Lebanese have endured as a result of US policies. For 15 years, we were trampled under the weight of Syrian oppression, via an occupation that had been approved by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, in exchange for Damascus' cooperation in the 1991 war in Iraq. We were emboldened by the younger Bush's decision to terminate America's policy of sanctioning Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. We took to the streets, demanding Syria's withdrawal and the return of democracy to our country.
From that point forward, we became a focal point in Bush's democracy scorecard, as he proudly boasted that his policies had helped achieve democratic advancements around the region. Lebanon was held up as a shining example of the fact that the people of the region have a real desire to live in free and democratic states. And we trusted Bush when he promised that he would do everything to protect and advance our aspirations.
But now, our fledgling independence is under fire. Only a little over a year since we started making our own decisions and trying to forge a sense of national unity, we have been hit with a crisis of unexpected proportions. Our fledgling government, which like any 1-year-old is still struggling to stay on its feet, is under fire. Our civilians, who had no part in the decision to abduct Israeli soldiers, are being killed. Our infrastructure, which has only recently been built, is being destroyed.
Yet even now, as Israel is laying waste to our country with guns and missiles paid for with US tax dollars, and as American-made bombs are raining down on our cities, we are still clinging to the same values and ideals that the Bush administration has promoted: We want life, liberty and happiness; we want democracy, sovereignty, freedom and independence.
No one is calling for the return of Syrian occupation, even though one could argue that Syria's presence served as a deterrent to this kind of Israeli onslaught. No one is asking whether the US government only asked the Syrians to step out only so that the Israelis could step in to replace them. We are holding out hope that the Americans will be faithful to the values that they have championed and protect us from further harm.
The Americans now need to choose sides, not between warring parties, but between right and wrong. They must now demonstrate their commitment to freedom, human rights and international law and speak out loudly and firmly against the killing of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure and the brutal collective punishment that all of us are now enduring.
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Full Version: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE NEW MIDEAST CONFLICT
This war is a tragedy for all concerned. Surely, Israel's response to the abduction of a few soldiers is too massive to be believed, even by her strongest supporters.
My guess is that after Israeli Intelligence determined that Hezbollah had Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 rockets (supplied by Iran) clearly capable of hitting major Israeli cities, they were spring-loaded to destroy that capability.
The rocket that hit Haifa was a clear shot across the bow.
War is nasty business. Hezbollah is committed to firing these longer range weapons on innocent people in the major cities.
I don't know what I would do if I were Ehud Olmert.
Hopefully, there is back-channel negotiating going on. There ususally is in the middle east. But the longer this war goes on, the harder it will be to stop.
Bush is no help. He says "play nice."
Really.
My guess is that after Israeli Intelligence determined that Hezbollah had Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 rockets (supplied by Iran) clearly capable of hitting major Israeli cities, they were spring-loaded to destroy that capability.
The rocket that hit Haifa was a clear shot across the bow.
War is nasty business. Hezbollah is committed to firing these longer range weapons on innocent people in the major cities.
I don't know what I would do if I were Ehud Olmert.
Hopefully, there is back-channel negotiating going on. There ususally is in the middle east. But the longer this war goes on, the harder it will be to stop.
Bush is no help. He says "play nice."
Really.
Anyone who doesn't recognize Bush's responsibility here hasn't been paying attention.
The Middle East conflict was closer than at any time I can recall to reaching some kind of reasonable accord when he took office. He ignored it and them for the first two years in office. He was busy waging war in Afghanistan .. which he left unfinished .. on the road to Iraq which was his game plan all along.
Now the mood in the entire Middle East is on the edge of complete disaster and an inferno due in no small measure to Bush's folly.
And while all this goes on the other area he neglected is building nuclear weapons and refuses to be contained. North Korea is a potential holocaust just waiting for the match to be lit.
Bush may well go down in history ... but not as he might like, and with no one to write it. It may well be that we will see the end of this planet on his watch. He unfortunately does still have time to finish what he started. God help us all.
The Middle East conflict was closer than at any time I can recall to reaching some kind of reasonable accord when he took office. He ignored it and them for the first two years in office. He was busy waging war in Afghanistan .. which he left unfinished .. on the road to Iraq which was his game plan all along.
Now the mood in the entire Middle East is on the edge of complete disaster and an inferno due in no small measure to Bush's folly.
And while all this goes on the other area he neglected is building nuclear weapons and refuses to be contained. North Korea is a potential holocaust just waiting for the match to be lit.
Bush may well go down in history ... but not as he might like, and with no one to write it. It may well be that we will see the end of this planet on his watch. He unfortunately does still have time to finish what he started. God help us all.
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Jul 15 2006, 02:38 PM)
Anyone who doesn't recognize Bush's responsibility here hasn't been paying attention.
The Middle East conflict was closer than at any time I can recall to reaching some kind of reasonable accord when he took office. He ignored it and them for the first two years in office. He was busy waging war in Afghanistan .. which he left unfinished .. on the road to Iraq which was his game plan all along.
Now the mood in the entire Middle East is on the edge of complete disaster and an inferno due in no small measure to Bush's folly.
And while all this goes on the other area he neglected is building nuclear weapons and refuses to be contained. North Korea is a potential holocaust just waiting for the match to be lit.
Bush may well go down in history ... but not as he might like, and with no one to write it. It may well be that we will see the end of this planet on his watch. He unfortunately does still have time to finish what he started. God help us all.
The Middle East conflict was closer than at any time I can recall to reaching some kind of reasonable accord when he took office. He ignored it and them for the first two years in office. He was busy waging war in Afghanistan .. which he left unfinished .. on the road to Iraq which was his game plan all along.
Now the mood in the entire Middle East is on the edge of complete disaster and an inferno due in no small measure to Bush's folly.
And while all this goes on the other area he neglected is building nuclear weapons and refuses to be contained. North Korea is a potential holocaust just waiting for the match to be lit.
Bush may well go down in history ... but not as he might like, and with no one to write it. It may well be that we will see the end of this planet on his watch. He unfortunately does still have time to finish what he started. God help us all.
He more than ignored it. He stated firmly that he was not a "nation builder."
Well that's for sure; the name of nation destroyer fits him better.
And, yes, even though Arafat walked away from the deal of the century, and even though Clinton busted his *ss to broker a deal, you are right that one could have been had. That is the way things work there. But Bush had his own agenda, and while he is big on talk about peace he is short on action and commitment.
Bush, the PR president.
Bush has knowingly let what happened because the bushfamily inc wants it
He wants the all out war
He gave Iran til July 12th and on July 12th they are now into a multii nation including Iran war
Its no coincidence
Its done with Bush and the neo-cons blessing. Right in the open.
without a blessed thing anyone could do Jewish, non-Jewish, it don't matter
What Bush and thebush family and the neo-cons want they got before their own time clock ran out.
And nobody stopped them.
Pity t'is
He wants the all out war
He gave Iran til July 12th and on July 12th they are now into a multii nation including Iran war
Its no coincidence
Its done with Bush and the neo-cons blessing. Right in the open.
without a blessed thing anyone could do Jewish, non-Jewish, it don't matter
What Bush and thebush family and the neo-cons want they got before their own time clock ran out.
And nobody stopped them.
Pity t'is
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 15 2006, 07:05 PM)
He more than ignored it. He stated firmly that he was not a "nation builder."
Well that's for sure; the name of nation destroyer fits him better.
And, yes, even though Arafat walked away from the deal of the century, and even though Clinton busted his *ss to broker a deal, you are right that one could have been had. That is the way things work there. But Bush had his own agenda, and while he is big on talk about peace he is short on action and commitment.
Bush, the PR president.
Well that's for sure; the name of nation destroyer fits him better.
And, yes, even though Arafat walked away from the deal of the century, and even though Clinton busted his *ss to broker a deal, you are right that one could have been had. That is the way things work there. But Bush had his own agenda, and while he is big on talk about peace he is short on action and commitment.
Bush, the PR president.
And let's not forget Iran .. and the deal he and his crew turned down flat which would have seen that situation under control as well.
If he isn't the worst President and most disastrous Free World Leader in history, I am a raving lunatic. ( and before anyone suggests that I may well be exactly that .. think about it.) His 'Axis of Evil' has become a self fulfilling prophecy ... as idiotic and reckless as his"Bring it On" braggadocio.
It is my belief that Israel is doing our bidding.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Jul 15 2006, 03:30 PM)
It is my belief that Israel is doing our bidding.
I think some view it the other way around.
Which ever way it is or niether, we should not get drawn into it. I don't care how nuts the leader of Iran is, or what he says. Same with N. Korea. Let them saber rattle all they want.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Jul 15 2006, 03:30 PM)
It is my belief that Israel is doing our bidding.
An oldie, but one that rings true for me.
QUOTE
Published on Monday, May 13, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Israel Serves as a Convenient Foil for the United States
by Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan
For all the talk of a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, it's clear that for American policymakers there's nothing particularly special about their support for Israel or rejection of Palestinian rights.
For all the talk in Washington about peace in the Middle East, it's clear that American policymakers are not much concerned about peace.
Instead, the primary aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is U.S. dominance over the region and its oil resources, through support for regimes that play our game and through our ever-increasing military presence.
To the degree that U.S. policymakers believe backing Israeli conquest and aggression in Palestine advances U.S. long-term business interests, support for Israel continues. To the degree that peace helps solidify U.S. control, peace is acceptable.
But U.S. policy is driven neither by unquestioned support for Israel nor concern for people's suffering in conflicts. Any hope for real peace requires getting past this rhetoric to the reality of U.S. policy.
That reality is clear: The central principle of every U.S. administration since the end of World War II has been that the resources of the region do not truly belong to the people of the region, but instead exist for the benefit of Americans.
It is not simply a question of who owns the oil, but who controls the flow of oil and oil profits. Even if the United States were energy self-sufficient, U.S. elites would seek to dominate the Middle East for the leverage it brings in world affairs, especially over the economies of our primary competitors (Europe and Japan), which are more heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
One component of this policy is support for the oil-rich countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers take their cut of the profits, channeling what remains into investments in the West and the purchase of U.S. weapons. In exchange, Saudi Arabia -- a monarchy that could not exist independently -- gets U.S. protection.
In this system, Israel is a key pillar of U.S. strategy. Especially after its impressive military victory over the Arab states in 1967, Israel was a hammer that was used to smash Arab nationalism, which could have upset the system of weak, fragmented client regimes that the United States favors. Israel serves as a local cop on the beat, in the terminology of the Nixon Doctrine, and an integral part of the U.S. military-intelligence complex in that part of the world. These roles became especially important after the Iranian revolution in 1979, when the U.S. lost its other main base in the region.
Israel also serves as a convenient foil for the United States. Even though the United States has exercised tremendous, repressive control over the region, until recently the brunt of Arab anger was always borne by Israel, with the United States representing itself to the Arabs as a friend. The U.S.-backed Arab regimes use this foil as well, diverting the anger of the so-called "Arab street" away from those states' corruption and despotism, to Israel.
This analysis is often rebuffed by pointing to the frequent tensions between the United States and countries in the region, including allies. How is it that these nations are our clients when they seem so unruly?
This simply reflects the complexity of maintaining control in such a volatile region. It is common practice for empires to set up client regimes in a region and then play them off each other, which not surprisingly produces tension, especially when the governments are not representative of their people. That's what U.S. diplomatic and military officials are paid to do -- manage the tensions, always keeping an eye on the ultimate goal.
U.S. control -- not peace -- is that goal. That is why policymakers were happy to see Iraq and Iran at war throughout the 1980s and gave various kinds of covert support to both sides. Never mind the millions killed -- it kept the two regional powers at each other's throats, and hence weakened.
In Palestine, if the United States were serious about promoting peace it would have long ago joined the international consensus for a political settlement built on a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel. Instead, it has long blocked that consensus, such as when it vetoed a 1976 U.N. Security Council resolution that offered something much like the Saudi plan being touted today as a solution.
U.S. leaders don't mind peace, so long as it is within a system that doesn't threaten U.S. control. Yes, a Middle East in a constant state of tension -- either engaged in war or on the verge of war -- has been dangerous. But that's a price the United States has been willing to pay.
These points are crucial to answering the claim that U.S. leaders simply do Israel's bidding. Of course there are well-organized and well-funded groups in the United States lobbying very effectively for Israel. And of course U.S. politicians feel pressure from vocal constituents who support Israel. But those domestic political realities alone do not drive U.S. financial and diplomatic support that allows Israel to continue to defy international law in its 35-year military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has skillfully used the "war on terrorism" banner to expand further the level of violence against Palestinians that the United States will accept, and the expressions of reflexive support for Israel in Congress have never been stronger.
But in the end, the U.S. policymakers shape foreign policy to benefit U.S. elite economic interests, not those of another country.
The inevitable conclusion to draw from this is that United States cannot be a positive force in the Middle East without a fundamental shift in goals: The United States must replace its quest for control with a commitment to peace AND justice, under international law.
Never has it been more crucial that Americans understand this. While Israel steps up the violence in Palestine, the Bush administration plots a war on Iraq. U.S. officials tell us Iraq presents a grave threat to the world, though other nations (including Kuwait) don't feel threatened and all the world (save Israel and the always-loyal Tony Blair) rejects the U.S. plans.
It's not that other countries support Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, but that they see that a war on Iraq will deepen U.S. control over the region at the expense of the Iraqi people. As U.S. officials talk about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq, they search for an Iraqi general who can be trusted to follow U.S. orders if put in charge. All this after more than a decade of economic sanctions -- demanded by the United States, largely to break Iraqi control of its own oil -- that have killed a half-million Iraqi children (according to a comprehensive UNICEF study).
The more the United States overplays its hand in the Middle East, the more the rest of the world sees clearly U.S. intentions. The question is, can we the American people see the same, and demand of our government a policy geared toward justice not domination.
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Board of Peace Action and is author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism. Both are members of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com). They can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Israel Serves as a Convenient Foil for the United States
by Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan
For all the talk of a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, it's clear that for American policymakers there's nothing particularly special about their support for Israel or rejection of Palestinian rights.
For all the talk in Washington about peace in the Middle East, it's clear that American policymakers are not much concerned about peace.
Instead, the primary aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is U.S. dominance over the region and its oil resources, through support for regimes that play our game and through our ever-increasing military presence.
To the degree that U.S. policymakers believe backing Israeli conquest and aggression in Palestine advances U.S. long-term business interests, support for Israel continues. To the degree that peace helps solidify U.S. control, peace is acceptable.
But U.S. policy is driven neither by unquestioned support for Israel nor concern for people's suffering in conflicts. Any hope for real peace requires getting past this rhetoric to the reality of U.S. policy.
That reality is clear: The central principle of every U.S. administration since the end of World War II has been that the resources of the region do not truly belong to the people of the region, but instead exist for the benefit of Americans.
It is not simply a question of who owns the oil, but who controls the flow of oil and oil profits. Even if the United States were energy self-sufficient, U.S. elites would seek to dominate the Middle East for the leverage it brings in world affairs, especially over the economies of our primary competitors (Europe and Japan), which are more heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
One component of this policy is support for the oil-rich countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers take their cut of the profits, channeling what remains into investments in the West and the purchase of U.S. weapons. In exchange, Saudi Arabia -- a monarchy that could not exist independently -- gets U.S. protection.
In this system, Israel is a key pillar of U.S. strategy. Especially after its impressive military victory over the Arab states in 1967, Israel was a hammer that was used to smash Arab nationalism, which could have upset the system of weak, fragmented client regimes that the United States favors. Israel serves as a local cop on the beat, in the terminology of the Nixon Doctrine, and an integral part of the U.S. military-intelligence complex in that part of the world. These roles became especially important after the Iranian revolution in 1979, when the U.S. lost its other main base in the region.
Israel also serves as a convenient foil for the United States. Even though the United States has exercised tremendous, repressive control over the region, until recently the brunt of Arab anger was always borne by Israel, with the United States representing itself to the Arabs as a friend. The U.S.-backed Arab regimes use this foil as well, diverting the anger of the so-called "Arab street" away from those states' corruption and despotism, to Israel.
This analysis is often rebuffed by pointing to the frequent tensions between the United States and countries in the region, including allies. How is it that these nations are our clients when they seem so unruly?
This simply reflects the complexity of maintaining control in such a volatile region. It is common practice for empires to set up client regimes in a region and then play them off each other, which not surprisingly produces tension, especially when the governments are not representative of their people. That's what U.S. diplomatic and military officials are paid to do -- manage the tensions, always keeping an eye on the ultimate goal.
U.S. control -- not peace -- is that goal. That is why policymakers were happy to see Iraq and Iran at war throughout the 1980s and gave various kinds of covert support to both sides. Never mind the millions killed -- it kept the two regional powers at each other's throats, and hence weakened.
In Palestine, if the United States were serious about promoting peace it would have long ago joined the international consensus for a political settlement built on a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel. Instead, it has long blocked that consensus, such as when it vetoed a 1976 U.N. Security Council resolution that offered something much like the Saudi plan being touted today as a solution.
U.S. leaders don't mind peace, so long as it is within a system that doesn't threaten U.S. control. Yes, a Middle East in a constant state of tension -- either engaged in war or on the verge of war -- has been dangerous. But that's a price the United States has been willing to pay.
These points are crucial to answering the claim that U.S. leaders simply do Israel's bidding. Of course there are well-organized and well-funded groups in the United States lobbying very effectively for Israel. And of course U.S. politicians feel pressure from vocal constituents who support Israel. But those domestic political realities alone do not drive U.S. financial and diplomatic support that allows Israel to continue to defy international law in its 35-year military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has skillfully used the "war on terrorism" banner to expand further the level of violence against Palestinians that the United States will accept, and the expressions of reflexive support for Israel in Congress have never been stronger.
But in the end, the U.S. policymakers shape foreign policy to benefit U.S. elite economic interests, not those of another country.
The inevitable conclusion to draw from this is that United States cannot be a positive force in the Middle East without a fundamental shift in goals: The United States must replace its quest for control with a commitment to peace AND justice, under international law.
Never has it been more crucial that Americans understand this. While Israel steps up the violence in Palestine, the Bush administration plots a war on Iraq. U.S. officials tell us Iraq presents a grave threat to the world, though other nations (including Kuwait) don't feel threatened and all the world (save Israel and the always-loyal Tony Blair) rejects the U.S. plans.
It's not that other countries support Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, but that they see that a war on Iraq will deepen U.S. control over the region at the expense of the Iraqi people. As U.S. officials talk about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq, they search for an Iraqi general who can be trusted to follow U.S. orders if put in charge. All this after more than a decade of economic sanctions -- demanded by the United States, largely to break Iraqi control of its own oil -- that have killed a half-million Iraqi children (according to a comprehensive UNICEF study).
The more the United States overplays its hand in the Middle East, the more the rest of the world sees clearly U.S. intentions. The question is, can we the American people see the same, and demand of our government a policy geared toward justice not domination.
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Board of Peace Action and is author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism. Both are members of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com). They can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0513-07.htm
On Huffington post front page........reason for all of us to worry
Worldwide Alarm
Israel Orders “Special Measures” For Northern Cities…Lebanese PM Says Country Is ‘Disaster Zone’…Arab League Says Mideast Peace Process Is ‘Dead’… European Nations Plan Evacuations For Thousands… Lebanon Calls For Cease-Fire…Israel Hits Lebanon-Syria Border…Warns Hezbollah May Strike Tel Aviv…Bush Blames Hezbollah…Oil Prices Rise, Stocks Prices Fall…
Worldwide Alarm
Israel Orders “Special Measures” For Northern Cities…Lebanese PM Says Country Is ‘Disaster Zone’…Arab League Says Mideast Peace Process Is ‘Dead’… European Nations Plan Evacuations For Thousands… Lebanon Calls For Cease-Fire…Israel Hits Lebanon-Syria Border…Warns Hezbollah May Strike Tel Aviv…Bush Blames Hezbollah…Oil Prices Rise, Stocks Prices Fall…
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 03:44 PM)
Which ever way it is or niether, we should not get drawn into it. I don't care how nuts the leader of Iran is, or what he says. Same with N. Korea. Let them saber rattle all they want.
We are already in it, in my opinion. Israel, the U.S. - what's the difference? We support them.
The story of the world has always been about the adventures of Seekers after Power. The American Constitution was a bright spot and a hinderance to that goal. After WWII those who wished for a Hitler or a Stalin to set up the old Authoritarian Control Parademn were temporarily thwarted by America's goodness. They then sought to subvert America. Eisenhower saw this and warned us. We didn't listen. Now. Does what we have as leadership look like the America you grew up in or ever read about?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 03:58 PM)
The story of the world has always been about the adventures of Seekers after Power. The American Constution was a bright spot and a hinderance to that goal. After WWII those who wished for a Hitler or a Stalin to set up the old Authoritarian Control Parademn were temporarily thwarted by America's goodness. They then sought to subvert America. Esenhower saw this and warned us. We didn't listen. Now. Does what we have as leadership look like the America you grew up in or ever read about?
Greed and the desire for power and control have always been with us.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 04:58 PM)
The story of the world has always been about the adventures of Seekers after Power. The American Constution was a bright spot and a hinderance to that goal. After WWII those who wished for a Hitler or a Stalin to set up the old Authoritarian Control Parademn were temporarily thwarted by America's goodness. They then sought to subvert America. Esenhower saw this and warned us. We didn't listen. Now. Does what we have as leadership look like the America you grew up in or ever read about?
Nope it doesn't ROU.....the day this administration took us into Iraq was the day we lifted the lid of Pandora's box.......that is my feeling ... I thought so then, I think so now.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Jul 15 2006, 03:30 PM)
It is my belief that Israel is doing our bidding.
It is a proxy war.
Like Vietnam
We support Israel; Iran supports Hezbollah
Poor Lebanon.
They supplied the battlefield.
Israel Crosses the Line
And you read it here first… Justin Raimondo July 14, 2006
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9301
The lobby, Israel and the USA....
The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
The Power of the Israel Lobby By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON Former CIA analysts
George Bush and Natan Sharnasky who he says is part of his Political DNA...
Whitehouse press release extolling the virtues of "expanding democracy"
Natan Sharansky and US Israel Policy by Tom Barry
And this paper written in 1996 by many Bush administation members...
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
You do the math.
And you read it here first… Justin Raimondo July 14, 2006
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9301
QUOTE
The Israeli offensive against Iran – until now, purely polemical – morphed into military action the moment the IDF crossed the border into Lebanon and took on Hezbollah. As our regular readers know, this turn of events was predicted in this space two months ago:
"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know perfectly well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border, where their deadly enemies – Hezbollah – are an effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba'athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change."
The suggestion, by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their now famous "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," that the Iraq war was fought for Israel's sake, and against our own interests in the region, was received in many quarters with outright horror, and not only from the Amen Corner. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes both objected to this thesis of an Israel-centric foreign policy: Israel, they insist, is the "junior partner" of the American hegemon, and is only acting at the behest and under the de facto control of its masters in Washington.
"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the first battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know perfectly well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border, where their deadly enemies – Hezbollah – are an effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba'athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change."
The suggestion, by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their now famous "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," that the Iraq war was fought for Israel's sake, and against our own interests in the region, was received in many quarters with outright horror, and not only from the Amen Corner. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes both objected to this thesis of an Israel-centric foreign policy: Israel, they insist, is the "junior partner" of the American hegemon, and is only acting at the behest and under the de facto control of its masters in Washington.
The lobby, Israel and the USA....
The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
The Power of the Israel Lobby By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON Former CIA analysts
George Bush and Natan Sharnasky who he says is part of his Political DNA...
Whitehouse press release extolling the virtues of "expanding democracy"
Natan Sharansky and US Israel Policy by Tom Barry
And this paper written in 1996 by many Bush administation members...
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
You do the math.
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 15 2006, 07:18 PM)
Great link Magmak1, a good read.
Just one person's opinion Mag. I don't let Israel off the hook for it's excesses, and the nut jobs in the settlements. But there has been an effort by Israel to negotiate and the Palestinians constantly refuse. It's not all their fault. The rise of Hamas and the other militant groups have made control increasingly difficult. It is now perhaps almost impossible. If Hamas cannot negotiate and if they cannot control the other militants, then we have a failed state "run" by those who will commit terroist acts whenever they feel like it, and then hide behind the population.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 15 2006, 04:13 PM)
It is a proxy war.
Like Vietnam
We support Israel; Iran supports Hezbollah
Poor Lebanon.
They supplied the battlefield.
Like Vietnam
We support Israel; Iran supports Hezbollah
Poor Lebanon.
They supplied the battlefield.
Politically, Bush couldn't get away with fighting Iran after the disaster in Iraq. So, what starts happening? Israel steps up the violence and the rhetoric against Hamas and now it has escalated.
Yes, poor Lebanon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14005.htm
-- -- --
Israeli is preparing the battlefield
Stratfor Intelligence Report
07/15/06 "Stratfor" -- -- We are now in the period preceding major conventional operations. Israel is in the process of sealing the Lebanese coast. They have disrupted Lebanese telecommunications, although they have not completely collapsed the structure. Israeli aircraft are attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure and road system. In the meantime, Hezbollah, aware it is going to be hit hard, is in a use-it or-lose-it scenario, firing what projectiles it can into Israel.
The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.
Hezbollah's strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.
The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there. So far, there has been only one reported airstrike on a Syrian target. Both Israel and Syria were quick to deny this.
What is interesting is that it was the Syrians who insisted very publicly that no such attack took place. The Syrians are clearly trying to avoid a situation in which they are locked into a confrontation with Israel. Israel might well think this is the time to have it out with Syria as well, but Syria is trying very hard not to give Israel casus belli. In addition, Syria is facilitating the movement of Westerners out of Lebanon, allowing them free transit. They are trying to signal that they are being cooperative and nonaggressive.
The problem is this: While Syria does not want to get hit and will not make overt moves, so long as the Syrians cannot guarantee supplies will not reach Hezbollah or that Hezbollah won't be given sanctuary in Syria, Israel cannot complete its mission of shattering Hezbollah and withdrawing. They could be drawn into an Iraq-like situation that they absolutely don't want. Israel is torn. On the one hand, it wants to crush Hezbollah, and that requires total isolation. On the other hand, it does not want the Syrian regime to fall. What comes after would be much worse from Israel's point of view.
This is the inherent problem built into Israel's strategy, and what gives Hezbollah some hope. If Israel does not attack Syria, Hezbollah could well survive Israel's attack by moving across the border. No matter how many roads are destroyed, Israel won't be able to prevent major Hezbollah formations moving across the border. If they do attack Syria and crush al Assad's government, Hezbollah could come out of this stronger than ever.
Judging from the airstrikes in the past 24 hours, it would appear Israel is trying to solve the problem tactically, by degrading Lebanese transport facilities. That could increase the effectiveness of the strategy, but in the end cannot be sufficient. We continue to think Israel will choose not to attack Syria directly and therefore, while the invasion will buy time, it will not solve the problem. Hezbollah certainly expects to be badly hurt, but it does not seem to expect to be completely annihilated. We are guessing, but our guess is that they are reading Israel's views on Syria and are betting that, in the long run, they will come out stronger. Of course, Israel knows this and therefore may have a different plan for Syria. At any rate, this is the great unknown in this campaign.
The other unknown is the withdrawal of Western nationals from Lebanon. We have received very reliable reports from sources in Lebanon who assure us Hezbollah does not intend to renew hostage taking, which is deemed an old and nonproductive strategy. These same sources have reported splits in Hezbollah over how aggressive it should be. We believe Hezbollah has no current plans for hostage taking. We are not convinced, however, that in the course of the battle it will not change its mind, or that with weakened central control elements, elements of Hezbollah will take hostages as a bargaining chip. Regardless of what Hezbollah is saying now, hostage taking must be taken seriously as a possibility.
The U.S. Embassy in Beirut is now saying plans are being developed in concert with the U.S. Defense Department for extracting U.S. nationals from Lebanon. A convoy scheduled to travel from the American University of Beirut to Amman, Jordan, via Syria, was cancelled at the last moment, with participants being told that the embassy has other plans.
There are said to be 25,000 U.S. citizens in Lebanon, but many of these are Lebanese-American dual nationals who actually live in Lebanon as Lebanese. These are less visible, less at risk and have greater resources for survival. The most at-risk Americans are those who hold only U.S. papers and are clearly American, such as employees of American companies, students studying at Lebanese universities and tourists. There is no clear count of these high-risk nationals, nor is there a count on high-risk nationals from other non-Islamic countries. There are thousands, however, and getting them out will be difficult.
The U.S. Embassy is considering flying them to Cyprus. That would mean an air bridge from Beirut International Airport, where a single runway has been opened, to Cyprus, a short flight away. The United States will not do this while Beirut is under attack, so it will ask the Israelis to create a safe zone and air corridor during the evacuation. But the threat on the ground is real, and we suspect the United States will send troops in to secure the perimeter and surrounding areas against shoulder-launched missiles. They will also keep the precise timing secret, although thousands of people in Lebanon -- the evacuees -- will know it is coming.
There was a Marine Expeditionary Force on maneuvers in the Red Sea a few days ago. We do not know where they are now, but they had 2,200 marines on board -- the right number to secure extraction. We suspect aircraft will be chartered from airlines in the region and that some U.S. Air Force and allied aircraft might also be used. Doubtless, the United States is busy organizing it. Given that the United States cancelled several ad hoc withdrawals, it must be highly confident it has the process nailed; we would expect this operation to get going sometime Sunday. Assuming aircraft that can carry any average of 200 people (purely arbitrary), 50-100 flights could get everyone out. Assuming that everyone can be notified and can get to Beirut International Airport. That won't happen. The remainder who are at risk will probably be advised to move into Christian areas east and northeast of Beirut and to keep their heads down for the duration. It is also possible that discussion of Cyprus notwithstanding, the path will be through Syria, but we doubt that.
In the meantime, that Israel has not sent major ground units into Lebanon yet (lots of small units are operating there) but is taking rocket attacks and hunkering down indicates it does not plan to act piecemeal. If we were to guess, the main thrust would likely begin late Sunday night or Monday morning. They will be ready by then. Of course we are not privy to Israeli operations, so it could be delayed 24-48 hours to give forces a chance to gear up. But given the Hezbollah bombardment, the Israelis are under pressure to move sooner rather than later.
We are in a relatively quiet spell (emphasis on quiet). Both sides have made their strategic decisions. Both know how the war will be fought. Hezbollah thinks it can give as good as it will get for a while, and will ultimately be able to regroup for a guerrilla war against the Israelis. Israel thinks it can immobilize and crush Hezbollah quickly and decisively and will be able to withdraw. Both sides know Syria is the wild card, and neither is quite sure how it will play its hand. One side is wrong in its expectations about the outcome. That's the nature of war.
-- -- --
Israeli is preparing the battlefield
Stratfor Intelligence Report
07/15/06 "Stratfor" -- -- We are now in the period preceding major conventional operations. Israel is in the process of sealing the Lebanese coast. They have disrupted Lebanese telecommunications, although they have not completely collapsed the structure. Israeli aircraft are attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure and road system. In the meantime, Hezbollah, aware it is going to be hit hard, is in a use-it or-lose-it scenario, firing what projectiles it can into Israel.
The Israeli strategy appears to be designed to do two things. First, the Israelis are trying to prevent any supplies from entering Lebanon, including reinforcements. That is why they are attacking all coastal maritime facilities. Second, they are degrading the roads in Lebanon. That will keep reinforcements from reaching Hezbollah fighters engaged in the south. As important, it will prevent the withdrawal and redeployment of heavy equipment deployed by Hezbollah in the south, particularly their rockets, missiles and launchers. The Israelis are preparing the battlefield to prevent a Hezbollah retreat or maneuver.
Hezbollah's strategy has been imposed on it. It seems committed to standing and fighting. The rate of fire they are maintaining into Israel is clearly based on an expectation that Israel will be attacking. The rocketry guarantees the Israelis will attack. Hezbollah has been reported to have anti-tank and anti-air weapons. The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet been seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.
The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there. So far, there has been only one reported airstrike on a Syrian target. Both Israel and Syria were quick to deny this.
What is interesting is that it was the Syrians who insisted very publicly that no such attack took place. The Syrians are clearly trying to avoid a situation in which they are locked into a confrontation with Israel. Israel might well think this is the time to have it out with Syria as well, but Syria is trying very hard not to give Israel casus belli. In addition, Syria is facilitating the movement of Westerners out of Lebanon, allowing them free transit. They are trying to signal that they are being cooperative and nonaggressive.
The problem is this: While Syria does not want to get hit and will not make overt moves, so long as the Syrians cannot guarantee supplies will not reach Hezbollah or that Hezbollah won't be given sanctuary in Syria, Israel cannot complete its mission of shattering Hezbollah and withdrawing. They could be drawn into an Iraq-like situation that they absolutely don't want. Israel is torn. On the one hand, it wants to crush Hezbollah, and that requires total isolation. On the other hand, it does not want the Syrian regime to fall. What comes after would be much worse from Israel's point of view.
This is the inherent problem built into Israel's strategy, and what gives Hezbollah some hope. If Israel does not attack Syria, Hezbollah could well survive Israel's attack by moving across the border. No matter how many roads are destroyed, Israel won't be able to prevent major Hezbollah formations moving across the border. If they do attack Syria and crush al Assad's government, Hezbollah could come out of this stronger than ever.
Judging from the airstrikes in the past 24 hours, it would appear Israel is trying to solve the problem tactically, by degrading Lebanese transport facilities. That could increase the effectiveness of the strategy, but in the end cannot be sufficient. We continue to think Israel will choose not to attack Syria directly and therefore, while the invasion will buy time, it will not solve the problem. Hezbollah certainly expects to be badly hurt, but it does not seem to expect to be completely annihilated. We are guessing, but our guess is that they are reading Israel's views on Syria and are betting that, in the long run, they will come out stronger. Of course, Israel knows this and therefore may have a different plan for Syria. At any rate, this is the great unknown in this campaign.
The other unknown is the withdrawal of Western nationals from Lebanon. We have received very reliable reports from sources in Lebanon who assure us Hezbollah does not intend to renew hostage taking, which is deemed an old and nonproductive strategy. These same sources have reported splits in Hezbollah over how aggressive it should be. We believe Hezbollah has no current plans for hostage taking. We are not convinced, however, that in the course of the battle it will not change its mind, or that with weakened central control elements, elements of Hezbollah will take hostages as a bargaining chip. Regardless of what Hezbollah is saying now, hostage taking must be taken seriously as a possibility.
The U.S. Embassy in Beirut is now saying plans are being developed in concert with the U.S. Defense Department for extracting U.S. nationals from Lebanon. A convoy scheduled to travel from the American University of Beirut to Amman, Jordan, via Syria, was cancelled at the last moment, with participants being told that the embassy has other plans.
There are said to be 25,000 U.S. citizens in Lebanon, but many of these are Lebanese-American dual nationals who actually live in Lebanon as Lebanese. These are less visible, less at risk and have greater resources for survival. The most at-risk Americans are those who hold only U.S. papers and are clearly American, such as employees of American companies, students studying at Lebanese universities and tourists. There is no clear count of these high-risk nationals, nor is there a count on high-risk nationals from other non-Islamic countries. There are thousands, however, and getting them out will be difficult.
The U.S. Embassy is considering flying them to Cyprus. That would mean an air bridge from Beirut International Airport, where a single runway has been opened, to Cyprus, a short flight away. The United States will not do this while Beirut is under attack, so it will ask the Israelis to create a safe zone and air corridor during the evacuation. But the threat on the ground is real, and we suspect the United States will send troops in to secure the perimeter and surrounding areas against shoulder-launched missiles. They will also keep the precise timing secret, although thousands of people in Lebanon -- the evacuees -- will know it is coming.
There was a Marine Expeditionary Force on maneuvers in the Red Sea a few days ago. We do not know where they are now, but they had 2,200 marines on board -- the right number to secure extraction. We suspect aircraft will be chartered from airlines in the region and that some U.S. Air Force and allied aircraft might also be used. Doubtless, the United States is busy organizing it. Given that the United States cancelled several ad hoc withdrawals, it must be highly confident it has the process nailed; we would expect this operation to get going sometime Sunday. Assuming aircraft that can carry any average of 200 people (purely arbitrary), 50-100 flights could get everyone out. Assuming that everyone can be notified and can get to Beirut International Airport. That won't happen. The remainder who are at risk will probably be advised to move into Christian areas east and northeast of Beirut and to keep their heads down for the duration. It is also possible that discussion of Cyprus notwithstanding, the path will be through Syria, but we doubt that.
In the meantime, that Israel has not sent major ground units into Lebanon yet (lots of small units are operating there) but is taking rocket attacks and hunkering down indicates it does not plan to act piecemeal. If we were to guess, the main thrust would likely begin late Sunday night or Monday morning. They will be ready by then. Of course we are not privy to Israeli operations, so it could be delayed 24-48 hours to give forces a chance to gear up. But given the Hezbollah bombardment, the Israelis are under pressure to move sooner rather than later.
We are in a relatively quiet spell (emphasis on quiet). Both sides have made their strategic decisions. Both know how the war will be fought. Hezbollah thinks it can give as good as it will get for a while, and will ultimately be able to regroup for a guerrilla war against the Israelis. Israel thinks it can immobilize and crush Hezbollah quickly and decisively and will be able to withdraw. Both sides know Syria is the wild card, and neither is quite sure how it will play its hand. One side is wrong in its expectations about the outcome. That's the nature of war.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 09:29 PM)
Just one person's opinion Mag.
Agreed that it is one opinion among many.
I'm not taking sides in this affair. I'm not pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Syrian, Iranian, or any other interest. And I'm not obligated to make a choice, either.
I don't see any good that's going to come to the world by this continued puerile nonsense. Blessed are the peacemakers... but where are they? They get assassinated, or discredited, or shouted down, or crucified.
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Jul 15 2006, 05:55 PM)
Agreed that it is one opinion among many.
I'm not taking sides in this affair. I'm not pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Syrian, Iranian, or any other interest. And I'm not obligated to make a choice, either.
I don't see any good that's going to come to the world by this continued puerile nonsense. Blessed are the peacemakers... but where are they? They get assassinated, or discredited, or shouted down, or crucified.
I'm not taking sides in this affair. I'm not pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Syrian, Iranian, or any other interest. And I'm not obligated to make a choice, either.
I don't see any good that's going to come to the world by this continued puerile nonsense. Blessed are the peacemakers... but where are they? They get assassinated, or discredited, or shouted down, or crucified.
Blessed are the peacemakers... for they are few and far between...
QUOTE(wundermaus @ Jul 15 2006, 09:14 PM)
Blessed are the peacemakers... for they are few and far between...
Blessed were the peacemakers, there are NONE left.
Unless this is all a plan to get Condie to make worldwide peace and get her elected in 08.
Why is the US vetoing UN calls for a cease-fire? Perhaps BushCo doesn't want the violence to stop?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...45-1702,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...45-1702,00.html
QUOTE
US vetoes UN ceasefire call
By Irwin Arieff in the United Nations
July 16, 2006
THE UN Security Council has again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said overnight.
Washington argued in closed-door talks that the focus for Middle East diplomacy for now should be on the weekend summit in St Petersburg of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, council diplomats said.
It was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, they said.
"We would expect much more from the Security Council," Lebanese Foreign Ministry official Nouhad Mahmoud told reporters after the council meeting, singling out the United States for blame.
While Washington has been very supportive of the Lebanese government in the past, "when it comes to Israel, it seems things changed," Mr Mahmoud said. "Destruction is still going on, people are still dying ... and here we are impotent."
The council planned another discussion of the conflict on Monday, and hoped to soon begin work on a "substantive" response to the conflict, said French UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, the council president for July.
The Monday meeting would be the council's third since Hezbollah guerrillas crossed over into Israel last week and captured two Israeli soldiers, triggering an intensifying military response by Israeli forces that has been met with a steady rain of Hezbollah missiles into northern Israel.
On Thursday, the Lebanese government called on the Security Council to adopt a resolution imposing a cease-fire.
The plea was renewed on Saturday by Qatar, the council's sole Arab member.
Separately, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assured the United Nations that Israeli forces would not interfere in a plan by UN peacekeepers to move Lebanese villagers living along the border with Israel out of the line of fire, UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno said.
Mr Olmert's assurances came in a Saturday telephone call to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Guehenno said.
Israel's Northern Command had previously warned UN peacekeepers to keep out of a zone several miles wide running along the Lebanese side of the border, he said.
Such an order would have been "impossible to comply with, unacceptable," Mr Guehenno said.
Mr Olmert's assurances cleared the way for the peacekeepers to try to move the civilians, he said. Arrangements would also have to be worked out with Hizbollah, he added.
By Irwin Arieff in the United Nations
July 16, 2006
THE UN Security Council has again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said overnight.
Washington argued in closed-door talks that the focus for Middle East diplomacy for now should be on the weekend summit in St Petersburg of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, council diplomats said.
It was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, they said.
"We would expect much more from the Security Council," Lebanese Foreign Ministry official Nouhad Mahmoud told reporters after the council meeting, singling out the United States for blame.
While Washington has been very supportive of the Lebanese government in the past, "when it comes to Israel, it seems things changed," Mr Mahmoud said. "Destruction is still going on, people are still dying ... and here we are impotent."
The council planned another discussion of the conflict on Monday, and hoped to soon begin work on a "substantive" response to the conflict, said French UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, the council president for July.
The Monday meeting would be the council's third since Hezbollah guerrillas crossed over into Israel last week and captured two Israeli soldiers, triggering an intensifying military response by Israeli forces that has been met with a steady rain of Hezbollah missiles into northern Israel.
On Thursday, the Lebanese government called on the Security Council to adopt a resolution imposing a cease-fire.
The plea was renewed on Saturday by Qatar, the council's sole Arab member.
Separately, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assured the United Nations that Israeli forces would not interfere in a plan by UN peacekeepers to move Lebanese villagers living along the border with Israel out of the line of fire, UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno said.
Mr Olmert's assurances came in a Saturday telephone call to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Guehenno said.
Israel's Northern Command had previously warned UN peacekeepers to keep out of a zone several miles wide running along the Lebanese side of the border, he said.
Such an order would have been "impossible to comply with, unacceptable," Mr Guehenno said.
Mr Olmert's assurances cleared the way for the peacekeepers to try to move the civilians, he said. Arrangements would also have to be worked out with Hizbollah, he added.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 04:29 PM)
Just one person's opinion Mag. I don't let Israel off the hook for it's excesses, and the nut jobs in the settlements. But there has been an effort by Israel to negotiate and the Palestinians constantly refuse. It's not all their fault. The rise of Hamas and the other militant groups have made control increasingly difficult. It is now perhaps almost impossible. If Hamas cannot negotiate and if they cannot control the other militants, then we have a failed state "run" by those who will commit terroist acts whenever they feel like it, and then hide behind the population.
Rise of Hamas was two-fold: One was the Pals' disgust with the corruption and personal theft of most of the money meant for them by their "leaders." (Hell, Arafat PERSONALLY stole between 2 and 3 BILLION DOLLARS). Two was that Hamas actually provided services like child care and health clinics for the people. Things Fatah never bothered with.
Both Hamas and Fatah had militant factions (remember al Aksa Martyr's Brigade).
It is very hard indeed to control militants. Like putting toothpaste back into the tube.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 16 2006, 07:25 AM)
Rise of Hamas was two-fold: One was the Pals' disgust with the corruption and personal theft of most of the money meant for them by their "leaders." (Hell, Arafat PERSONALLY stole between 2 and 3 BILLION DOLLARS). Two was that Hamas actually provided services like child care and health clinics for the people. Things Fatah never bothered with.
Both Hamas and Fatah had militant factions (remember al Aksa Martyr's Brigade).
It is very hard indeed to control militants. Like putting toothpaste back into the tube.
Both Hamas and Fatah had militant factions (remember al Aksa Martyr's Brigade).
It is very hard indeed to control militants. Like putting toothpaste back into the tube.
Yes but now that the've been elected their role is "supposed" to change. Now they are supposed to govern. As Israel keeps saying we need a "partner" to negotiate with. Now however there will be no more negotiations, just bloodshed until both tire of it. We should never have gone into Iraq, and we should not get drawn into Lebanon, or Syria, or Iran. But with the Fubar leadership we have, and with the "Dr. Evils" behind the scenes I don't know what will happen.
QUOTE
Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy
U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.
For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.
For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."
Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.
Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.
"It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah neutralization."
White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. "He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves," spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel."
Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory.
"We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.
The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year -- after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria.
If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said.
"The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel.
There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn.
"Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve," said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut.
The Bush administration's position -- and diplomacy -- are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration.
The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers.
Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993.
For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield.
Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was "way, way premature" to consider an end to hostilities. "There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change," he said. "That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities."
The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.
U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say.
"They do have space to operate for a period of time," the U.S. official said about Israel. "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course."
Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. "There is no Hamas government -- eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little," said the senior U.S. official.
U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.
For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.
For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."
Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.
Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.
"It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah neutralization."
White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. "He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves," spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel."
Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory.
"We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.
The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year -- after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria.
If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said.
"The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel.
There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn.
"Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve," said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut.
The Bush administration's position -- and diplomacy -- are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration.
The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers.
Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993.
For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield.
Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was "way, way premature" to consider an end to hostilities. "There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change," he said. "That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities."
The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.
U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say.
"They do have space to operate for a period of time," the U.S. official said about Israel. "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course."
Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. "There is no Hamas government -- eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little," said the senior U.S. official.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1500957_pf.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...airs/print.html
The Mideast death dance
Hamas and Hezbollah, Lebanon and Palestine, Syria and Iran, the U.S. and Israel: Unless these four pairs of actors turn away from their failed policies, the Middle East will sink further into violence and despair.
By Rami G. Khouri
Jul. 15, 2006 | You need to understand the relationship among four pairs of actors to grasp the meaning of the escalating attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel in recent days. The four pairs are Hamas and Hezbollah; the Palestinian and Lebanese governments; Syria and Iran; and Israel and the United States.
Simplistically, President George W. Bush has depicted this latest round of war as a clash between good and evil, while the Israeli government has tried to blame Palestinians and Lebanese who only want to make war against a peace-loving Israel. The more nuanced and complex reality is that, collectively, these four pairs of actors play roles in the ongoing fighting, as we witness the culmination of four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent.
Hezbollah and Hamas emerged in the past decade as the main Arab political forces that resist the Israeli occupations in Lebanon and Palestine. They enjoy substantial popular support in their respective countries, while at the same time eliciting criticisms for their militant policies that inevitably draw harsh Israeli responses. We see this in Lebanon today as the Lebanese people broadly direct their anger at Israel for its brutal attacks against Lebanese civilian installations and fault Palestinians, other Arabs, Syria and Iran for perpetually making Lebanon the battleground for other conflicts -- but more softly question Hezbollah's decision to trigger this latest calamity.
It is no coincidence that Israel is now simultaneously bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructure in Palestine and Lebanon, including airports, bridges, roads, power plants, and government offices. It claims to do this in order to stop terror attacks against Israelis, but in fact the past four decades have shown that its policies generate exactly the opposite effect: They have given birth, power, credibility and now political incumbency to the Hamas and Hezbollah groups whose raison d'ętre has been to fight the Israeli occupation of their lands. Israeli destruction of normal life for Palestinians and Lebanese also results in the destruction of the credibility, efficacy and, in some cases, the legitimacy of routine government systems, making the Lebanese and Palestinian governments key actors in current events -- or non-actors in most cases.
The Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services. With every new Israeli attack against the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership or the civilian populations, four important things happen, and will probably happen during this round of war: The Lebanese and Palestinian governments lose power and impact; Hamas and Hezbollah garner greater popular support, which enhances their effectiveness in guerrilla and resistance warfare; they expand their military technical capabilities (mainly longer-range missiles and better improvised explosive devices); and the anti-Israel, anti-U.S. resistance campaign led by Hamas and Hezbollah generates widespread political and popular support throughout the Middle East and much of the world.
This is linked to the third pair of actors, Syria and Iran, who have carefully and patiently positioned themselves as allies, patrons, hosts, financiers, armorers and ideological brothers of Hamas and Hezbollah. While these two Islamist groups are primarily driven by local resistance to Israel, and are Palestinian and Lebanese in their basic identity, they both play important roles in the foreign policies of Iran and Syria. We now witness strong convergence between two parallel but linked trends: The sovereign state actors, Iran and Syria, are fighting deadly political battles against Israel, the United States and, increasingly, Europe, while Hamas and Hezbollah fight similar battles against the same foes. It makes eminent sense, from the perspective of Damascus and Tehran, to foment greater troubles now for the United States and Israel along the Lebanon-Israel border. This is an opportune time to strike because Israel is deeply perplexed about how to handle Hamas' resistance in Palestine, and the United States seems unable to offer any policy other than to support Israel's right to defend itself while withholding the same right from Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
The fourth pair of actors, the United States and Israel, find themselves in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years. Israel has this to show for its track record of being tough: It is now surrounded by two robust Islamist resistance movements with greater striking power and popular support; Arab populations around the region that increasingly vote for Islamist political movements whenever elections are held; immobilized and virtually irrelevant Arab governments in many nearby lands; and determined, increasingly defiant, ideological foes in Tehran and Damascus who do not hesitate to use all weapons at their means however damaging these may be to civilians and sovereignty in Lebanon and Palestine.
The United States for its part is strangely marginal. Its chosen policies have lined it up squarely with Israel. It has sanctioned and thus cannot even talk to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and it has pressured and threatened Syria for years without any real success. The world's sole superpower is peculiarly powerless in the current crisis in the Middle East.
As long as these four pairs of main actors persist in their intemperate policies, the consequences will remain grim. The way to break this cycle is for all actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate grievances and demands. Everyone involved seems prepared to do this, except for Israel and the United States, who rely on military force, prolonged occupations, and diplomatic sanctions and threats. What will Israel and the United States do when there are no more Arab airports, bridges and power stations to destroy? The futility of such policies should be clear by now, and therefore a diplomatic solution should be sought seriously for the first time.
The Mideast death dance
Hamas and Hezbollah, Lebanon and Palestine, Syria and Iran, the U.S. and Israel: Unless these four pairs of actors turn away from their failed policies, the Middle East will sink further into violence and despair.
By Rami G. Khouri
Jul. 15, 2006 | You need to understand the relationship among four pairs of actors to grasp the meaning of the escalating attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel in recent days. The four pairs are Hamas and Hezbollah; the Palestinian and Lebanese governments; Syria and Iran; and Israel and the United States.
Simplistically, President George W. Bush has depicted this latest round of war as a clash between good and evil, while the Israeli government has tried to blame Palestinians and Lebanese who only want to make war against a peace-loving Israel. The more nuanced and complex reality is that, collectively, these four pairs of actors play roles in the ongoing fighting, as we witness the culmination of four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent.
Hezbollah and Hamas emerged in the past decade as the main Arab political forces that resist the Israeli occupations in Lebanon and Palestine. They enjoy substantial popular support in their respective countries, while at the same time eliciting criticisms for their militant policies that inevitably draw harsh Israeli responses. We see this in Lebanon today as the Lebanese people broadly direct their anger at Israel for its brutal attacks against Lebanese civilian installations and fault Palestinians, other Arabs, Syria and Iran for perpetually making Lebanon the battleground for other conflicts -- but more softly question Hezbollah's decision to trigger this latest calamity.
It is no coincidence that Israel is now simultaneously bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructure in Palestine and Lebanon, including airports, bridges, roads, power plants, and government offices. It claims to do this in order to stop terror attacks against Israelis, but in fact the past four decades have shown that its policies generate exactly the opposite effect: They have given birth, power, credibility and now political incumbency to the Hamas and Hezbollah groups whose raison d'ętre has been to fight the Israeli occupation of their lands. Israeli destruction of normal life for Palestinians and Lebanese also results in the destruction of the credibility, efficacy and, in some cases, the legitimacy of routine government systems, making the Lebanese and Palestinian governments key actors in current events -- or non-actors in most cases.
The Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services. With every new Israeli attack against the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership or the civilian populations, four important things happen, and will probably happen during this round of war: The Lebanese and Palestinian governments lose power and impact; Hamas and Hezbollah garner greater popular support, which enhances their effectiveness in guerrilla and resistance warfare; they expand their military technical capabilities (mainly longer-range missiles and better improvised explosive devices); and the anti-Israel, anti-U.S. resistance campaign led by Hamas and Hezbollah generates widespread political and popular support throughout the Middle East and much of the world.
This is linked to the third pair of actors, Syria and Iran, who have carefully and patiently positioned themselves as allies, patrons, hosts, financiers, armorers and ideological brothers of Hamas and Hezbollah. While these two Islamist groups are primarily driven by local resistance to Israel, and are Palestinian and Lebanese in their basic identity, they both play important roles in the foreign policies of Iran and Syria. We now witness strong convergence between two parallel but linked trends: The sovereign state actors, Iran and Syria, are fighting deadly political battles against Israel, the United States and, increasingly, Europe, while Hamas and Hezbollah fight similar battles against the same foes. It makes eminent sense, from the perspective of Damascus and Tehran, to foment greater troubles now for the United States and Israel along the Lebanon-Israel border. This is an opportune time to strike because Israel is deeply perplexed about how to handle Hamas' resistance in Palestine, and the United States seems unable to offer any policy other than to support Israel's right to defend itself while withholding the same right from Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
The fourth pair of actors, the United States and Israel, find themselves in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years. Israel has this to show for its track record of being tough: It is now surrounded by two robust Islamist resistance movements with greater striking power and popular support; Arab populations around the region that increasingly vote for Islamist political movements whenever elections are held; immobilized and virtually irrelevant Arab governments in many nearby lands; and determined, increasingly defiant, ideological foes in Tehran and Damascus who do not hesitate to use all weapons at their means however damaging these may be to civilians and sovereignty in Lebanon and Palestine.
The United States for its part is strangely marginal. Its chosen policies have lined it up squarely with Israel. It has sanctioned and thus cannot even talk to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and it has pressured and threatened Syria for years without any real success. The world's sole superpower is peculiarly powerless in the current crisis in the Middle East.
As long as these four pairs of main actors persist in their intemperate policies, the consequences will remain grim. The way to break this cycle is for all actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate grievances and demands. Everyone involved seems prepared to do this, except for Israel and the United States, who rely on military force, prolonged occupations, and diplomatic sanctions and threats. What will Israel and the United States do when there are no more Arab airports, bridges and power stations to destroy? The futility of such policies should be clear by now, and therefore a diplomatic solution should be sought seriously for the first time.
Good article, beamer! Who should turn away first? Who will be the first to blink?
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 16 2006, 07:40 AM)
Good article, beamer! Who should turn away first? Who will be the first to blink?
I think this paragraph is what is so frustrating about the whole thing. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS NOT WORKING!!!
QUOTE
The fourth pair of actors, the United States and Israel, find themselves in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years. Israel has this to show for its track record of being tough: It is now surrounded by two robust Islamist resistance movements with greater striking power and popular support; Arab populations around the region that increasingly vote for Islamist political movements whenever elections are held; immobilized and virtually irrelevant Arab governments in many nearby lands; and determined, increasingly defiant, ideological foes in Tehran and Damascus who do not hesitate to use all weapons at their means however damaging these may be to civilians and sovereignty in Lebanon and Palestine.
Of course, if you read the article I posted yesterday from 2002, peace is not the main goal. It's U.S. control of the region.
QUOTE
This simply reflects the complexity of maintaining control in such a volatile region. It is common practice for empires to set up client regimes in a region and then play them off each other, which not surprisingly produces tension, especially when the governments are not representative of their people. That's what U.S. diplomatic and military officials are paid to do -- manage the tensions, always keeping an eye on the ultimate goal.
U.S. control -- not peace -- is that goal. That is why policymakers were happy to see Iraq and Iran at war throughout the 1980s and gave various kinds of covert support to both sides. Never mind the millions killed -- it kept the two regional powers at each other's throats, and hence weakened.
In Palestine, if the United States were serious about promoting peace it would have long ago joined the international consensus for a political settlement built on a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel. Instead, it has long blocked that consensus, such as when it vetoed a 1976 U.N. Security Council resolution that offered something much like the Saudi plan being touted today as a solution.
U.S. leaders don't mind peace, so long as it is within a system that doesn't threaten U.S. control. Yes, a Middle East in a constant state of tension -- either engaged in war or on the verge of war -- has been dangerous. But that's a price the United States has been willing to pay.
U.S. control -- not peace -- is that goal. That is why policymakers were happy to see Iraq and Iran at war throughout the 1980s and gave various kinds of covert support to both sides. Never mind the millions killed -- it kept the two regional powers at each other's throats, and hence weakened.
In Palestine, if the United States were serious about promoting peace it would have long ago joined the international consensus for a political settlement built on a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel. Instead, it has long blocked that consensus, such as when it vetoed a 1976 U.N. Security Council resolution that offered something much like the Saudi plan being touted today as a solution.
U.S. leaders don't mind peace, so long as it is within a system that doesn't threaten U.S. control. Yes, a Middle East in a constant state of tension -- either engaged in war or on the verge of war -- has been dangerous. But that's a price the United States has been willing to pay.
All because of fossil fuel....How shallow and stupid. We have the technology to divorce ourselves for this, but we just won't do it.
I secretly wish for $5.00 dollar a gallon gas. I would suffer, but maybe we would all finally wake up..............or not!
I secretly wish for $5.00 dollar a gallon gas. I would suffer, but maybe we would all finally wake up..............or not!
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 16 2006, 08:03 AM)
All because of fossil fuel....How shallow and stupid. We have the technology to divorce ourselves for this, but we just won't do it.
I secretly wish for $5.00 dollar a gallon gas. I would suffer, but maybe we would all finally wake up..............or not!
I secretly wish for $5.00 dollar a gallon gas. I would suffer, but maybe we would all finally wake up..............or not!
I totally agree with you.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Jul 16 2006, 09:05 AM)
I totally agree with you.
Ditto. If this keeps up (Agreeing with Frenchy) I'm gonna hafta stop tellin Marshal Dillon that I keep spottin' Frenchy.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM)
The story of the world has always been about the adventures of Seekers after Power. The American Constitution was a bright spot and a hinderance to that goal. After WWII those who wished for a Hitler or a Stalin to set up the old Authoritarian Control Parademn were temporarily thwarted by America's goodness. They then sought to subvert America. Eisenhower saw this and warned us. We didn't listen. Now. Does what we have as leadership look like the America you grew up in or ever read about?
I expect history to show this period under GW to be the
watershed for the greatest loss of international influence
America ever suffered. GW has allied our enemies and
driven off our allies. Disasterous, sophomoronic, evil.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Jul 16 2006, 10:40 AM)
Good article, beamer! Who should turn away first? Who will be the first to blink?
I'm not sure either will blink...I'm expecting
eyes to close only to be covered with pennies for
The Boatman.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jul 16 2006, 08:09 AM)
I'm not sure either will blink...I'm expecting
eyes to close only to be covered with pennies for
The Boatman.
eyes to close only to be covered with pennies for
The Boatman.
Is this a poetic reference? I am not familiar with it.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 16 2006, 08:08 AM)
Ditto. If this keeps up (Agreeing with Frenchy) I'm gonna hafta stop tellin Marshal Dillon that I keep spottin' Frenchy.
I know. I keep agreeing with him lately too -- not on everything, but on several things.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jul 16 2006, 11:09 AM)
I'm not sure either will blink...I'm expecting
eyes to close only to be covered with pennies for
The Boatman.
eyes to close only to be covered with pennies for
The Boatman.
I'm afraid you're correct, Indianhead...Short-term memory will cause us to repeat the disasters of the past.
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Jul 16 2006, 09:12 AM)
Is this a poetic reference? I am not familiar with it.
Pennies on the eyes is a very old tradition that goes back to Ancient Greece. The dead were buried or burned with pennies on the eyes. Some say to keep the eyelids closed, and others say to have the coins to pay the "Boatman" you meet. Who demands payment to ferry a soul across the River Styx, to the Land of the Dead beyond.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Jul 16 2006, 08:26 AM)
Pennies on the eyes is a very old tradition that goes back to Ancient Greece. The dead were buried or burned with pennies on the eyes. Some say to keep the eyelids closed, and others say to have the coins to pay the "Boatman" you meet. Who demands payment to ferry a soul across the River Styx, to the Land of the Dead beyond.
Thanks, TROU! Cool imagery.
Wildly disproportionate attack on Lebanon seems like pretext to confront Iran
Jul. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
As Israeli firepower rained down on Lebanon last week, pundits here in the West wasted no time pinning the blame on — Iran.
"Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war," wrote Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
Washington defence commentator Edward Luttwak weighed in: "Iran's leaders have apparently decided to reject the Western offer to peacefully settle the dispute over its weapons-grade uranium-enrichment program."
In fact, Iran's leaders haven't rejected the "Western offer;" they've said publicly they will respond to it by Aug. 22. This isn't fast enough however to satisfy Washington, which considers the "offer" more of an ultimatum.
Is it really Iran that is pushing for war? Think about it. Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. — both heavily armed nuclear powers — when it has no nuclear weapons itself?
The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, are very keen to attack Iran. In a recent series of articles in New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed Washington's plans to attack Iran. Israel has called Iran a "major threat" that "must be stopped" from developing nuclear weapons.
But the U.S. and Israel don't want to look like aggressors. They insist their intentions are purely defensive. Recall that Washington also claimed its invasion of Iraq was purely defensive — to protect itself from Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons, which, it turned out, didn't exist.
So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose. Since Hezbollah has links to Iran, presto, here was a prima facie case that Iran was gunning for confrontation.
Did the Western pundits who quickly embraced this theory ever consider that the Hezbollah militants, as well as the Palestinian militants in Gaza who captured a single Israeli soldier last month, might have had their own motives for striking Israel?
Certainly the Palestinians have endless grievances against Israel. In addition to four decades of Israeli military occupation of their land, Israel has attempted to destroy the Hamas government, which was democratically elected by Palestinians last January.
Hezbollah's seizure of the two Israeli soldiers was probably an act of support for the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been under Israeli military siege since the capture of the first soldier. Hezbollah also said it seized the soldiers because it wanted to trade them for Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. A similar Israeli-Hezbollah prisoner exchange took place in 2004.
Abandoning Canada's traditional role as an honest broker in the Middle East, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unabashedly supported Israel last week, calling its devastating attacks on Gaza and Lebanon "measured."
And look for this cretin to support Bush all the way at the G8 summit. He is more NEO CON than Canadian and will sell his soul to curry favour with Bush (my note in red .. not part of article)
If Israel is simply trying to "defend" itself, its actions are wildly disproportionate.
On the other hand, if Israel and the U.S. are looking for an excuse to attack Iran, the capture of the Israeli soldiers is as good as any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795
Jul. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
As Israeli firepower rained down on Lebanon last week, pundits here in the West wasted no time pinning the blame on — Iran.
"Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war," wrote Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
Washington defence commentator Edward Luttwak weighed in: "Iran's leaders have apparently decided to reject the Western offer to peacefully settle the dispute over its weapons-grade uranium-enrichment program."
In fact, Iran's leaders haven't rejected the "Western offer;" they've said publicly they will respond to it by Aug. 22. This isn't fast enough however to satisfy Washington, which considers the "offer" more of an ultimatum.
Is it really Iran that is pushing for war? Think about it. Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. — both heavily armed nuclear powers — when it has no nuclear weapons itself?
The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, are very keen to attack Iran. In a recent series of articles in New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed Washington's plans to attack Iran. Israel has called Iran a "major threat" that "must be stopped" from developing nuclear weapons.
But the U.S. and Israel don't want to look like aggressors. They insist their intentions are purely defensive. Recall that Washington also claimed its invasion of Iraq was purely defensive — to protect itself from Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons, which, it turned out, didn't exist.
So when Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon seized two Israeli soldiers last week, a perfect opportunity arose. Since Hezbollah has links to Iran, presto, here was a prima facie case that Iran was gunning for confrontation.
Did the Western pundits who quickly embraced this theory ever consider that the Hezbollah militants, as well as the Palestinian militants in Gaza who captured a single Israeli soldier last month, might have had their own motives for striking Israel?
Certainly the Palestinians have endless grievances against Israel. In addition to four decades of Israeli military occupation of their land, Israel has attempted to destroy the Hamas government, which was democratically elected by Palestinians last January.
Hezbollah's seizure of the two Israeli soldiers was probably an act of support for the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been under Israeli military siege since the capture of the first soldier. Hezbollah also said it seized the soldiers because it wanted to trade them for Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. A similar Israeli-Hezbollah prisoner exchange took place in 2004.
Abandoning Canada's traditional role as an honest broker in the Middle East, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unabashedly supported Israel last week, calling its devastating attacks on Gaza and Lebanon "measured."
And look for this cretin to support Bush all the way at the G8 summit. He is more NEO CON than Canadian and will sell his soul to curry favour with Bush (my note in red .. not part of article)
If Israel is simply trying to "defend" itself, its actions are wildly disproportionate.
On the other hand, if Israel and the U.S. are looking for an excuse to attack Iran, the capture of the Israeli soldiers is as good as any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795
IF Canadians don't smarten up and FAST we are looking at being nothing more than idiots aiding and abetting in inciting WW3 as we become the 51st state of the US. I am so ashamed of this idiot I feel ill.
Harper to back Bush in Mideast debate
With world leaders badly split on the conflict, the PM is singling out Islamic militants for blame
Jul. 16, 2006. 07:54 AM
LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is likely to stand as a welcome ally for United States President George W. Bush as world leaders meeting here grapple with the increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East.
The spreading conflict has injected a sense of crisis into the annual summit of the Group of Eight leaders of major industrial nations this weekend.
Last night's opening event, a gala dinner for summit participants and their spouses in the 300-year-old Peterhof Palace, was overshadowed by urgent behind-the-scenes talks on how the powerful G-8 should respond to the rising tempo of violence in Israel and Lebanon.
But the summit countries — other members are host Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy — are badly split on who is responsible for the latest Middle East flare-up and how to keep it from spreading into a regional war.
Bush is pressing for G-8 leaders to adopt a joint declaration laying the blame for the crisis directly on Hezbollah, as well as the militant Islamic group's allies in Iran and Syria and the Palestinian group Hamas.
But most other leaders here differ with Bush. While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, they argue that the Jewish state's military onslaught in Lebanon in the past few days was an overreaction that is feeding the spiral of violence.
French President Jacques Chirac has sharply criticized Israel for what he said was an unbalanced response to the cross-border raid into Israel on Wednesday by Lebanese-based Hezbollah fighters who captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others.
Italian Premier Romano Prodi described Israel's military actions in the past few days as "disproportionate." Prodi called for all sides in the conflict to forsake violence.
Harper appears to be the only G-8 leader besides Bush who has singled out Islamic militants for blame in the latest outbreak of Middle East fighting.
Ending conflict in the region through a negotiated solution is very difficult as long as the Hamas Palestinian government refuses to swear off violence and accept Israel's right to exist, Harper said on Friday.
Like the Bush administration, the federal Conservatives have refused to officially recognize the Hamas government until it takes those steps.
Harper did not comment publicly yesterday and one of his advisers said it is too early to tell what stance Canada will take on the Middle East in the leaders' talks here today and tomorrow.
But it seems likely that Harper will lend Bush valuable support as the president pushes for the G-8 to put the onus on Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel from its bases in southern Lebanon and take steps to end the fighting.
"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking," Bush said after a one-on-one session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush added that "all parties want the violence to stop" and called on Syria, which backs Hezbollah, to use its influence to halt the confrontation with Israel.
Putin, who has seen his carefully laid out G-8 agenda upended by events in the Middle East, said it was unacceptable for Hezbollah to try to achieve its political objectives through the use of arms and kidnappings. But, at a press conference early this morning, Putin accused Israel of pursuing wider goals in its military campaign against Lebanon.
"However difficult the issues being confronted are, one should always try to resolve the situation through peaceful means and I don't think all peaceful solutions have been exhausted," he said.
"We deplore all acts of terrorism including the kidnapping of these soldiers. However, we do get the impression that the aims of Israel go beyond the return of the abducted soldiers," Putin said. Earlier, Putin had said "the use of force should be balanced" — a view similar to that expressed by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The credibility of the Group of Eight will be on the line as the influential group tries to forge a common position that could help usher in a ceasefire in the Middle East.
Harper met Putin for a tęte-ŕ-tęte yesterday but the subject of the Middle East did not figure prominently in the conversation, a Canadian government official said.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home
Harper to back Bush in Mideast debate
With world leaders badly split on the conflict, the PM is singling out Islamic militants for blame
Jul. 16, 2006. 07:54 AM
LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is likely to stand as a welcome ally for United States President George W. Bush as world leaders meeting here grapple with the increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East.
The spreading conflict has injected a sense of crisis into the annual summit of the Group of Eight leaders of major industrial nations this weekend.
Last night's opening event, a gala dinner for summit participants and their spouses in the 300-year-old Peterhof Palace, was overshadowed by urgent behind-the-scenes talks on how the powerful G-8 should respond to the rising tempo of violence in Israel and Lebanon.
But the summit countries — other members are host Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy — are badly split on who is responsible for the latest Middle East flare-up and how to keep it from spreading into a regional war.
Bush is pressing for G-8 leaders to adopt a joint declaration laying the blame for the crisis directly on Hezbollah, as well as the militant Islamic group's allies in Iran and Syria and the Palestinian group Hamas.
But most other leaders here differ with Bush. While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, they argue that the Jewish state's military onslaught in Lebanon in the past few days was an overreaction that is feeding the spiral of violence.
French President Jacques Chirac has sharply criticized Israel for what he said was an unbalanced response to the cross-border raid into Israel on Wednesday by Lebanese-based Hezbollah fighters who captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others.
Italian Premier Romano Prodi described Israel's military actions in the past few days as "disproportionate." Prodi called for all sides in the conflict to forsake violence.
Harper appears to be the only G-8 leader besides Bush who has singled out Islamic militants for blame in the latest outbreak of Middle East fighting.
Ending conflict in the region through a negotiated solution is very difficult as long as the Hamas Palestinian government refuses to swear off violence and accept Israel's right to exist, Harper said on Friday.
Like the Bush administration, the federal Conservatives have refused to officially recognize the Hamas government until it takes those steps.
Harper did not comment publicly yesterday and one of his advisers said it is too early to tell what stance Canada will take on the Middle East in the leaders' talks here today and tomorrow.
But it seems likely that Harper will lend Bush valuable support as the president pushes for the G-8 to put the onus on Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel from its bases in southern Lebanon and take steps to end the fighting.
"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking," Bush said after a one-on-one session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush added that "all parties want the violence to stop" and called on Syria, which backs Hezbollah, to use its influence to halt the confrontation with Israel.
Putin, who has seen his carefully laid out G-8 agenda upended by events in the Middle East, said it was unacceptable for Hezbollah to try to achieve its political objectives through the use of arms and kidnappings. But, at a press conference early this morning, Putin accused Israel of pursuing wider goals in its military campaign against Lebanon.
"However difficult the issues being confronted are, one should always try to resolve the situation through peaceful means and I don't think all peaceful solutions have been exhausted," he said.
"We deplore all acts of terrorism including the kidnapping of these soldiers. However, we do get the impression that the aims of Israel go beyond the return of the abducted soldiers," Putin said. Earlier, Putin had said "the use of force should be balanced" — a view similar to that expressed by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The credibility of the Group of Eight will be on the line as the influential group tries to forge a common position that could help usher in a ceasefire in the Middle East.
Harper met Putin for a tęte-ŕ-tęte yesterday but the subject of the Middle East did not figure prominently in the conversation, a Canadian government official said.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home
5 Canadian citizens were just killed in Beirut by Israeli bombs.. and Harper will STILL support Bush !!
Sorry, but I really feel ill.
Sorry, but I really feel ill.
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Jul 16 2006, 09:35 AM)
5 Canadian citizens were just killed in Beirut by Israeli bombs.. and Harper will STILL support Bush !!
Sorry, but I really feel ill.
Sorry, but I really feel ill.
We are all feeling ill this morning. As I watch breaking news it gets worse. I overheard a private conversation yesterday sitting in the food court at the base yesterday between 6 soldiers dressed in their camo uniforms. One of them said, "This is all we need!" They were watching and listening to Fox news which is on the hanging T.V.'s and the only station they ever show there. They were definately worried over the middle east bombings. Condi needs to get her butt over to the middle east pronto and cut her V.I.P. trip in Russia short.
Sorry Condi! Vacation is over. Get to work!
KT
QUOTE(kindergarten teacher @ Jul 16 2006, 01:43 PM)
We are all feeling ill this morning. As I watch breaking news it gets worse. I overheard a private conversation yesterday sitting in the food court at the base yesterday between 6 soldiers dressed in their camo uniforms. One of them said, "This is all we need!" They were watching and listening to Fox news which is on the hanging T.V.'s and the only station they ever show there. They were definately worried over the middle east bombings. Condi needs to get her butt over to the middle east pronto and cut her V.I.P. trip in Russia short.
Sorry Condi! Vacation is over. Get to work!
KT
Sorry Condi! Vacation is over. Get to work!
KT
From Condi's(and Bush's) viewpoint I am very much afraid "the universe is unfolding as it should". That is what is terrifying me. It isn't the 5 Canadian deaths, its the inevitability of what is unfolding that is making me ill. I remember WW11 and it was nothing in comparison to what is coming. God save us from chickenhawks!
QUOTE(kindergarten teacher @ Jul 16 2006, 09:43 AM)
We are all feeling ill this morning. As I watch breaking news it gets worse. I overheard a private conversation yesterday sitting in the food court at the base yesterday between 6 soldiers dressed in their camo uniforms. One of them said, "This is all we need!" They were watching and listening to Fox news which is on the hanging T.V.'s and the only station they ever show there. They were definately worried over the middle east bombings. Condi needs to get her butt over to the middle east pronto and cut her V.I.P. trip in Russia short.
Sorry Condi! Vacation is over. Get to work!
Sorry Condi! Vacation is over. Get to work!
I would rather Condi go out to Ferragamo again.
She will not bring peace to this troubled region.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jul 16 2006, 09:49 AM)
I would rather Condi go out to Ferragamo again.
She will not bring peace to this troubled region.
She will not bring peace to this troubled region.
Here (from debka.com) is the map of the various rocket and aircraft attacks:
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Jul 16 2006, 09:48 AM)
From Condi's(and Bush's) viewpoint I am very much afraid "the universe is unfolding as it should". That is what is terrifying me. It isn't the 5 Canadian deaths, its the inevitability of what is unfolding that is making me ill. I remember WW11 and it was nothing in comparison to what is coming. God save us from chickenhawks!
Too bad we had to go into Iraq when we did. It makes all these new events more difficult. What happens to the Global Warming issue now? Can we focus on that one too, or is it all about the middle east?
KT
I think it was Einstein who said that insanity is defined as continuing to do the same thing despite clear evidence that it isn't working.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please