So they occupy, and then they pull back.

Brilliant - it gives Hizbollah a chance to claim they defeated Israel.

Again.

The Rome conference is pretty clearly not designed to accomplish anything serious,

I disagree. The conference is pretty clearly designed to do something serious, but there is a rather essential participant, a UN SC veto power, who isn't interested in anything but continued war.

and in the meantime Israel is gearing up for a long-term occupation of Lebanon

...because it worked so well before...

— I'd bet on years myself, not weeks or months.

Olmert has already said the occupation and offensive operations will continue until the costs are too high to bear.

It's hard to think of a worse outcome for Israel, the Middle East, or the world, but that's what we're getting.

Well, I can think of a worse outcome that involves Syria's chemical arsenal and Israel's nuclear arsenal, but this is pretty bad and has the potential to expand.

Its also a bad result for the US, as it does nothing good for our capacity (even if it wasn't already negative) to contribute to security in Iraq.

In other news, General(issimo) Ariel Sharon is still in purgatory.

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier.

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (Shebaa Farms: it was stolen from Syria by Jews in the Jew surprise attack of 1967, so the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return it to Lebanon when they withdrew in 2000) knowing full well how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into Arab lands. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Isn't it obvious that freedom is on the march in Lebanon? Because in Bush's world, freedom always comes at the barrel of a gun.

Israel said that it would occupy a strip inside southern Lebanon with ground troops.

Yeah, "occupy" doesn't sound good. Trying to think positively, maybe just maybe the UN can get a coalition force together to patrol this area, and Lebanon's government would somehow assent to the troops' presence. I'd argue for some kind of DMZ made up of 5 miles on Lebanon's side and 5 miles from Israel's territory.

Then, with this new precedent, send in the UN troops to patrol a wall (just build a goddamn wall already) between the Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza. Don't let Palestinians into Israel anymore, and take the 9 billion we give to Israel each year and give it to the Palestinians as compensation.

(Then, I'd add rather gratuitiously, blow up the Jewish and Muslim religious sites, and rebuild them as a themepark. Call it "Abrahamic Disney").

Then, with this new precedent, send in the UN troops to patrol a wall (just build a goddamn wall already) between the Israel,..... and the rest of the world.

And don't let the dangerous Israeli mongrels out.

Good idea, luci.

I can understand why Markos and others are so disinclined to blog this mess; there is nothing for liberals here.

If the creation of a Jewish state hadn't resulted in the displacement of a not-insubstantial number of people who happened to be living there at the time, there would be a clear moral imperative to support Israel's actions.

If the Palestinian people had chosen non-violent resistance, demanding a one state solution - one-man-one-vote for Jews and Arabs alike - rather than blowing up young girls on public buses there would be a clear moral imperative to support the Palestinian cause.

But all we have here are the awful calculations of global realpolitik. Israel's friend in the White House won't insist on an immediate ceasefire, and there may be little hope Hezbollah would agree to the terms demanded by Israel for such a ceasefire.

And so the terribleness goes on. Hezbollah will continue lobbing rockets into Israeli hospitals and gas stations, and Israeli warplanes will continue to bomb Lebanese civilians fleeing the conflict.

I'm not wholly convinced that this catastrophe won't metastasize into something that ends in the dissolution of Lebanon. I'm not wholly convinced it won't escalate into some kind of war with Syria, even Iran.

But there is nothing for liberals here.

When the Palestinians attack Israel, liberals constantly say that Israel should give up some of its land to make the terrorists happy. When Israel counterattacks Hezbollah and uses some land as a buffer zone, liberals say that Israel should not take land to make the terrorists happy. In the liberal eye, the only positive development for the middle east is a shrinking Israel and exploding Jewish schoolchildren.

More mischaracterization of liberal views from the uninformed, I see. So pathetic...

However, I'm sure Israel's occupation of Lebanon will be as successful as the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. People everywhere do so like having a military boot on their throat at all times. It really is the way God intended us to treat one another. People like Linus see the dictatorial beneficence of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as so undeserving of criticism, that peace in this region seems unlikely until the whole area is a smoldering slag of blood, intestines and shrapnel.

God doesn't just bless America - he blesses the whole world.

American Hawk: "When the Palestinians attack Israel, liberals constantly say that Israel should give up some of its land to make the terrorists happy."

Strictly speaking, liberals say that Israel should return to its rightful owners land that, under international law, they've illegally confiscated.

And that's not even getting into the whole "compensation for ethnic cleansing" issue.

your argument is flimsy, if not flawed and illogical. Just because one policy seems wrong doesn't make its opposite right. You apply the same half baked calculus to Iraq Kevin: going in didn't work out so leaving must be the right thing to do. Which is not to say Bush admin unwillingness to engage with people it dislikes is good policy but rather to say it's no more flawed at this point than engagement may prove to be. Afterall, Iran saying real peace is not attainable without participation by all in process is a rhetorical statement not meant to make happen what it pretends to desire. Peace, especially a just one, is not in Iran's interests and therefore engaging them serves what end? Don't think anyone at this point can coherently answer that question and so support of engagement is at worst naive at best - tactical.

Negotiate with people with whom you disagree. Are you nuts! This is the the bizzarro "World According to Bush"

How does Israel's occupying a thin sliver of ground on the border with Lebanon address their concerns about Hisbollah rocket attacks? From what I can see, it doesn't. The Israelis need to advance at least twenty miles into Lebanon to deny Hisbollah effective launch sites for them to attack northern Israel. Anything less than that doesn't solve the problem and in fact doesn't do anything at all except allow the Israelis to vent a little rage at their own ineffectiveness.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue requires a political solution. That requires the parties talk to one another directly, not through fourth parties. Condi's expressed idea of negotiations presage a complete collapse of the conference because even the Europeans will twig to the fact that she has no brief to actually solve the problem through negotiations and mutually accepted conditions.

Israel occupied South Lebanon from 1982 til 2000. This bought 6 years of relative calm along the border. The question is how to calm the border now that the rocket fire has returned - and with longer than ever reach.

But restoring calm has nothing to do w/ the Palestinian issue or Shaba Farms - and everything to do with the intentions of Iran and Syria.

Olmert has already said the occupation and offensive operations will continue until the costs are too high to bear.

...which, given the US's massive military support to Israel, will be later than it otherwise would.

It doesn't seem like a particularly positive outcome. On the other hand, degrading Hezbollah's ability to attack them at will, especially with long-range missiles, might keep something worse from happening in the future.

I do not believe there will be any volunteers for an international force in South Lebanon, particularly after the murder of the four UN observers.

Say Kevin: "One does not have to approve of either the Iranian or Syrian regimes to see that they have a point."

Come to think of it, can we name many regimes that we DO approve of? The Scandinavians stand out, but other that those few...

The Jews will continue to be total assholes till one of the aggrieved parties detonates a nuke in Tel Aviv.

Then what?

I just read where Richard Perle is leading a "conservative revolt" against Condi Rice. Her sin. She has fallen under the influence of the liberals in the State Department who want to approach problems diplomatically.

"A leading public critic of Miss Rice has been Richard Perle, a former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and regarded as close to Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Perle, pointing to the effort by the State Department to undermine the Reagan administration’s policy toward the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, has accused Miss Rice of succumbing to a long-time State Department agenda of meaningless agreements meant to appease enemies of the United States." www.insightmag.com - July 25-31, 2006, Posted On: 7/25/2006

They also bitch about her inexperience.

Maybe if we made Richard Perle Secretary of State we could save money as he laid off all the professional diplomats at State. He could replace them with members of Olmert's party. You don't have to be an American citizen to work as an assistant secretary of state do you? The Israeli government could pay their salaries.

Until this article I too thought Dr. Rice was not doing the job. It seems from the source of this criticism that Rice must have said something to the Israeli government that they didn't want to hear. If so, go Condi go.

Then what?

You'll finally STFU?

Perle, Kristol, Ledeen and their ilk are screaming that there's not enough blood being spilled. No, they're not too happy with Condi at the moment. But you know, they might get their wish at the end anyway, because there's no way out of this mess because we have no credibility in the region anymore.

Shut off the oil, Arabs. That should get their attention.

Ron, the agreement Condi is pursuing, to get an international force in Lebanon, is the one the ISRAELIS want.

Perle is more hawkish than Olmert. Which is perfectly logical. Olmert's decisions are actually grounded in some version of reality.

Escalating into a war with Iran, dear as it is to the neocon lizard brain, faces a rather severe impediment: an 800 mile supply line between Baghdad and Kuwait that passes through the most Shi'a-dominated, Iran-infiltrated region of Iraq. The current Lebanon conflict is a proxy war--if that is what it is--largely because Iran is essentially holding a knife to our jugular in Iraq.

I suspect that this is the subtext for why the buildup to making war on Iran, which looked so promisingly identical to the way they built up to Iraq, has suddenly developed all kinds of diffusions, complications and befuddlements.

What worries me is the combination of an exceedingly complex situation with no obvious exit ramps, and a lot of very powerful players who can't back down. It's a gordian knot, and I fear somebody is going to decide to cut it. And that means overcoming the impossibility of the situation when viewed from a conventional arms perspective by shifting the ground to an unconventional arms perspective. The ultimate trump card, someone is probably already thinking. And if the only alternative is to back down, accept defeat, then they are surely thinking "defeat is not an option."

Much as I'd like to see the astonished looks on all those fundies' faces when the mushroom clouds bloom and the rapture fails to materialize, I don't think it's worth the price.

brooksfoe
Ron, the agreement Condi is pursuing, to get an international force in Lebanon, is the one the ISRAELIS want.

Near as I can tell, it is also the one the LEBANESE want too. Excepting the Hezbollah portion. I believe this should be viewed as a fight for Lebanon as much as a fight for Israel.

This is the best thing I've seen written on the situation to date.

A cease-fire freezes the status quo in place: a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which is dedicated to killing Israelis, stays in power in southern Lebanan.

Only an idiot wants Hezbollah to stay in control of southern Lebanan. Oh, the Libs would feet better. But this isn't about Kevin Drum feeling better, this is about Israel becoming secure.

You want a cease fire that will make a long-term difference? First destroy Hezbollah.

DrBB
Escalating into a war with Iran, dear as it is to the neocon lizard brain, faces a rather severe impediment: an 800 mile supply line between Baghdad and Kuwait that passes through the most Shi'a-dominated, Iran-infiltrated region of Iraq. The current Lebanon conflict is a proxy war--if that is what it is--largely because Iran is essentially holding a knife to our jugular in Iraq.

And we're holding one to theirs. Go look at a map. we're in Iraq. We're in Afhanistan. We control the Straits of Hormuz, through which their economy flows. These knives cut both ways.

What worries me is the combination of an exceedingly complex situation with no obvious exit ramps...

I don't know about that...Syria calls of its dogs after being threatened with attack and the extension of the war to their soil, a couple of countries step up and agree to patrol the border and enforce SC 1559, the people in Lebanon march en masse in a huge peace march...there are a lot of off ramps. But they all need to lead to the enforcement of SC 1559.

"You want a cease fire that will make a long-term difference? First destroy Hezbollah." Patty Whack

Exactly how is that done by force of arms? If history demonstrates anything it is that distroying a popular non-state It can't be done. Hezbollah will simply dissolve into the landscape and will reemerge, stronger, after the Israelis leave. Don't believe me, talk to anybody who fought in Vietnam. How about the American troops fighting the Taliban in Afganistan. Don't want to talk to Americans, talk to the Russians about their fights in Afganistan. Don't trust the Russians, ask the Brits about their unilateral military success in Ireland. How about the experience of the Brits in Kenya and India. What about the long fruitless struggle of the French in Algeria.

The current Israeli efforts in Lebanon are as pointless as their efforts in the early 1980s.

"Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) are “seriously reconsidering” their opposition to U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, according to a New York Sun report. “I think there’s a reasonable chance they might support him this time around,” said Zionist Organization of America president Morton Klein.'

Nah, the Israel's lobby not powerful at all.

Paddy Whack
Only an idiot wants Hezbollah to stay in control of southern Lebanan. Oh, the Libs would feet better. But this isn't about Kevin Drum feeling better, this is about Israel becoming secure.

It's much more than that. It's about Lebanon being a liberal democratic sovereign state independent of Syria or Iran.

Mike,

You going to impose democracy on Lebanon at the point of an Israeli gun?

Actually the Lebonese were moving toward becoming a true democratic soveriegn state before the Israelis took the Hezbollah bait. It could be argued that this entire fight is intended to strenghten the hands of Hezbollah and Syria in Labanon. It seems to be working like a charm.

Aren't you proud of the creative and proactive guys running American foreign policy? Thev NeoCon nitwits, and their followers in the Administration Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelt never seem to steal a march on anybody. They are always reacting and are never on top of any situation. On the other hand they do like to watch things blow up. Shock and Awe, baby. Shock and Awe.

Isn't it obvious that freedom is on the march in Lebanon? Because in Bush's world, freedom always comes at the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Pennypacker on July 26, 2006 at 4:00 AM

Great line. It seems to me that in Bush's world, freedom is the barrel of a gun. The more guns we have, the more militarized, the more free, ipso facto.

Ron, the agreement Condi is pursuing, to get an international force in Lebanon, is the one the ISRAELIS want.

Near as I can tell, it is also the one the LEBANESE want too.

The principle difference of position is that the Israelis want an international force to come in and take over once the cost has become to high for them, whereas the Lebanese want an international force organized as soon as possible and coming along with an imposed cease-fire.

It's about Lebanon being a liberal democratic sovereign state independent of Syria or Iran.

Ah, we see Bull Shit Mike's definition of democracy: the will of the people, where 'the people' doesn't necessarily mean the people in that particular country.

And if the same 'protest babes' who turned out in Beirut to demand Syria got out of Lebanon turn out again to demand that Israel get out of Lebanon, I'm sure you'll be cheering them on, won't you?

Here's the dirty truth: Israel doesn't want a 'liberal democratic' Lebanon any more than it wants a liberal democratic Palestinian state. It wants weak, economically-stunted neighbours, while it sucks on the American teat. And then it plays the victim card (and the anti-semitism card) when those neighbours, having had their economy set back a decade by large amounts of American-made and American-paid high explosive, appear somewhat annoyed at the fact.

I have a really hard time seeing how John Bolton and his anti-peace attitude is in the interest of Israel. The only thing that the United States risks in an expanded war in the Middle East is a little inconvenience when the oil is cut off. Israel risks its entire existence.

Ron Byers
Actually the Lebonese were moving toward becoming a true democratic soveriegn state before the Israelis took the Hezbollah bait.

No they weren't. The Cedar Revolution was being rolled back through assassinations of democratic advocates and the inclusion of Hezbollah tentacles into the political process. SC 1559, leading to where the Lebanese Army would eventually patrol it's own sovereign border with Israel, was dead. Hezbollah had its own state within a state, dealing directly with foreign powers and randokmly attacking Israel. That situation and democracy are irreconcilable. Syria's grip on Lebanon was waxing, not waning.

It could be argued that this entire fight is intended to strengthen the hands of Hezbollah and Syria in Labanon. It seems to be working like a charm.

I agree, in that I think Hezbollah's attacks on Israel had more to do with their situation in Lebanon that with Israel. The "works like a charm" part is up in the air, since Israel obviously responded in a far greater matter than Hezbollah thought they would. I wish I could find the quote from the Hezbollah rep who said, "We thought they would respond with commando raids and limited strikes, as before."

If the UN or other international body can pony up forces to patrol the border and make it stick, it will be a huge win for Lebanon and Israel, and a huge defeat for Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

A cease-fire freezes the status quo in place: a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which is dedicated to killing Israelis, stays in power in southern Lebanan.

From past evidence, continued and unrestrained Israeli military action preserves that status quo; its not as if the Israeli military hasn't tried its hardest to destroy Hezbollah. It lacks the capacity to do so, however.

A cease-fire and an international force placed in the region with a robust mandate is the only way the problem is ever going to be dealt with.

"...the agreement Condi is pursuing, to get an international force in Lebanon, is the one the ISRAELIS want."

Which is why the IDF spent hours attacking a long-standing and well-marked UNIFIL base. Just to make them feel like they weren't being left out of the party.

ahem
And if the same 'protest babes' who turned out in Beirut to demand Syria got out of Lebanon turn out again to demand that Israel get out of Lebanon, I'm sure you'll be cheering them on, won't you?

Absolutely. Abso-f%^&ing-lutely.

The majority of Lebanese want SC 1559 implemented. The majority want Hezbollah reined in. Guess who doesn't? The minority Hezbollah. So why hasn't it been implemented?

Don't let your BDS get in the way of reality here.

cmdicely
A cease-fire and an international force placed in the region with a robust mandate is the only way the problem is ever going to be dealt with.

I agree completely.

"First destroy Hezbollah"

Then, destroy Dawa - Oops, that might take out al-Maliki as well.

So much to destroy - so little time

The conference in Rome is not intended to provide a solution. It is to present a viable plan and a united front amongst the attendees. One of the proposals is for Israel to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms area, further conceeding more land.

Wasn't their withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 suppose to bring about peace? Are you guys seriously not getting this yet?

cm, If Israel unleashed the full arsenal of it's armed forces, southern Lebanon would no longer exist. They are still fighting a "restrained" war.

"A cease-fire and an international force placed in the region with a robust mandate is the only way the problem is ever going to be dealt with."

I agree with this as well though.

"I have a really hard time seeing how John Bolton and his anti-peace attitude is in the interest of Israel. The only thing that the United States risks in an expanded war in the Middle East is a little inconvenience when the oil is cut off. Israel risks its entire existence"

What Bolton is working towards is a different approach to a tired old problem. If we continue to do the same, we will get more of the same. It is time to address this problem in a different manner.

Ron Byers wrote: Exactly how is that done by force of arms? If history demonstrates anything it is that distroying a popular non-state It can't be done.

Actually the United States destroyed a popular terrorist non-state: the Ku Klux Klan. Fortunately, the KKK was not supported by a rich, fanatical foreign nation. Note that nobody was foolish enough to invite the the KKK to help plan and implement their own loss of power.

I disagree with Kevin's post. Iran and Syria are the problem. Look at all the advanced Iran-built weapons delivereed by Syria and used by Hezbollah. The solution involves thwarting Iran's desire to become the major power throughout the middle east.

Kevin seems to assume that the Iran problem can be solved by negotiation and compromise. Maybe some of you think all problems can be solved by negotiation and compromise. In my opinion, Iran won't give up their desire for power unless they first lose a major military engagement. Even wiping out Hezbollah won't stop Iran, but I believe it's a necessary first step.

I remember when the idea was that democracy would be the transforming force in the mid-east and now we have two democratic nations at war.

Seems that the neocons have very little faith in democracy (in the US and abroad).

The majority of Lebanese want SC 1559 implemented. The majority want Hezbollah reined in. Guess who doesn't? The minority Hezbollah. So why hasn't it been implemented?

Because the Lebanese government lacks the military capacity to force it and there is no international force in place with the force and mandate to alter that equation. A problem which, incidentally, was a focus of efforts at strengthening both the force and mandate of UNIFIL even before the present explosion of violence.

Wasn't their withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 suppose to bring about peace?

Well, no.

They were unilateral withdrawals with no provisions for managing security done simply for domestic political reasons. Maybe they were "supposed" to bring peace in that that was part of the sales effort by Israeli politicians, and maybe some people were hopeful that they would provide a context in which progress could be made, but, no, I don't think many intelligent observers thought that the withdrawals were enough to bring peace in and of themselves.

"I remember when the idea was that democracy would be the transforming force in the mid-east and now we have two democratic nations at war."

um.......no we don't. Israel is at war with a terrorist organization, not Lebanon. Condi met with Lebanese leaders this week in fact and assured them the international community will help them, in light of the fact that your vaunted UN was unable to disarm Hizbollah as mandated.

"...in light of the fact that your vaunted UN was unable to disarm Hizbollah as mandated."

You can't expect a largely unarmed UN observer force to disarm anyone, despite what you think their "mandate" is.

Want a UN force capable of disarming someone? Give them the same mandate, rules of engagement and heavily armed forces as are deployed in, e.g., MONUC in the Congo.

Otherwise, you get things like 4 unarmed UNIFIL observers killed...

They should not pass resolutions then that they are incapable of enforcing. And you wonder why so many of us think that the UN is a joke.

Israel is at war with a terrorist organization, not Lebanon.

That doesn't seem to be what Israel thinks. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert said on July 12th that "the events this morning are not terror attacks but actions of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason. The Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member, is trying to destabilize regional stability. Lebanon is responsible and it will bear responsibility."

...in light of the fact that your vaunted UN was unable to disarm Hizbollah as mandated.

The UN was never mandated to disarm Hezbollah; the Lebanese government was mandated to do so.

The UN presence in Lebanon has no mandate other than as an observer force; its only authorization to use force is in immediate self-defense, and it doesn't have a whole lot of capacity even in that regard.

"...despite what you think their "mandate" is."

Un resolution 1559. Look it up.

A lot of you are having trouble distinguishing the PR campaign from the military goals.

They "want" an international force but they have placed conditions on it that are quite unrealistic [ 1) a force willing to sit in the crossfire between the Lebanese army, Hezbollah, Israel, and Syria and 2) a force that is predisposed and willing to give up any appearance of being impartial and take sides against Syria and Hezbollah ]. And then to sweeten the deal, they demonstrate what can happen to members of an international force sitting in the crossfire along the border.

The only international force they would actually be happy with would be the US military. Barring that, they'd rather no one else gets in the way.

Let's hope Bush and Condi aren't stupid enough to actually put boots on the ground. It might unify the Shiites and Sunni, but not in a good way.

Israel is at war because it has failed to withdraw from the occupied territories, as the UN has mandated.

Un resolution 1559.

Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004) contains no extension of the mandate of UNIFIL.

It does direct other things to happen, without providing any new authority to any to do them, making them the responsibility of the soveriegn governments involved.

Isn't it obvious that freedom is on the march in Lebanon? Because in Bush's world, freedom always comes at the barrel of a gun.

While freedom was on the march, at the moment it seems to be taking cover in a bomb shelter. Frankly, freedom's feeling a bit jittery right about now....

Full text of 1559:

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally territorially recognized borders,

Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory,

Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of this matter.

"The UN was never mandated to disarm Hezbollah...."

um....yes it did.

part of the resolution stated:

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.

For anyone who is confused, here is the UNIFIL's mandate, from the UN webpage:

According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

* Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
* Restore international peace and security;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

Most recently the mandate of UNIFIL was extended until 31 July 2006 by Security Council resolution 1655 (2006) of 31 January 2006.

Jay, UNIFIL is a separate thing from SC 1559.

Jay & RSM,

Guys, please read the Security Council resolutions. You've posted portions here yourselves. Please identify in those resolutions where UNIFIL forces are authorized to engage Hizbullah, or anyone else, in battle.

I am not talking about UNIFIL. I am talking about the current incompetency and uselessness of the UN.

Wonderin
Guys, please read the Security Council resolutions. You've posted portions here yourselves. Please identify in those resolutions where UNIFIL forces are authorized to engage Hizbullah, or anyone else, in battle.

They're not authorized to engage anything.

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.

That general "call for" language does not mandate the UN, specifically, to disarm Hizbollah, it merely states that all militias should be disarmed, but doesn't say by whom it should be done or who should compel and verify this process.

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias

Are these just advertising slogans then? All talk and no walk. WTF is the point then?

All talk and no walk.

Speaking of that, how's your tour of duty in Iraq coming along? Kilt any a 'em tarrists yit?

Of course, it's increasingly obvious that we don't want to get anything done. The Rome conference is pretty clearly not designed to accomplish anything serious

Thus the news that it didn't comes as no surprise.

I am still trying to find you Stefan. First things first.

I am still trying to find you Stefan. First things first.
Posted by: Jay

Jay, that's a line not to be crossed.

Jay, contrast the language of SC resolution 1559, which you're so enamored of, with the language of SC resolution 1493, concerning Congo.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/443/15/PDF/N0344315.pdf?OpenElement

1493 gives MONUC ass-kicking powers. Note phrases such as "all necessary means." That's diplo-speak for "all necessary means."

btw, I am still waiting for your lawyer friend to call me. Can't imagine what the delay is.

They should not pass resolutions then that they are incapable of enforcing.

You may want to learn the difference between a "resolution" -- which is often a general statement of principles -- and an enforceable law. The UN is not a sovereign government, and does not have the power to enforce its resolutions against sovereign states unless its members collectively agree to compel action.

I am still trying to find you Stefan. First things first.

Oh dear me, being stalked by Jay. Now I know how those twelve year old girls must feel....

There are lines?

Didn't the current Nobel Peace award winner say the she wanted to kill GW?

Get a sense of humor.

"....and does not have the power to enforce its resolutions against sovereign states unless its members collectively agree to compel action."

That will be a cold day in hell.

Thus the news that it didn't comes as no surprise.

From the article:

But with the United States resisting demands for an immediate cease-fire, insisting that a cessation of hostilities must be part of a wider plan to permanently disarm Lebanese Hezbollah militants, there was no crucial cease-fire deal.

Rice said she had been moved by an impassioned plea by Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to "stop the killing" but said the U.S. favors long-term efforts to end "spasms of violence" in the region.

I believe this should be viewed as a fight for Lebanon as much as a fight for Israel.

Yeah, and those Lebanese are just being so darn ungrateful to Israel for their efforts to liberate them!

Gregory
Yeah, and those Lebanese are just being so darn ungrateful to Israel for their efforts to liberate them!

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?

Wow, pointing out that Jay is a simple blowhard sure got under his skin.

Don't fret, Jay, we all knew this long ago. In a way you are special - most cowards don't encourage others to do their dirty work. I suppose you figure if you can convince others you are not a coward you will believe it yourself but it doesn't work that way.

Red State Mike: They're not authorized to engage anything.

And yet:

"disarm" apparently means "account for all dual use WMD components last seen before large war destroyed most military facilities a decade ago"

"serious consequences" appears to mean "invasion, looting, occupation, puppet state, sectarian battles, civil war"

The language of UN resolutions is so opaque. People must have to go to school for a long time to figure them out.

The good news (maybe it's bad, I dunno), is that both the United States and Israel have lost the Lebanese War. Get used to it, and get over it. On to the next catastrophe.

"Don't fret, Jay, we all knew this long ago. In a way you are special - most cowards don't encourage others to do their dirty work. I suppose you figure if you can convince others you are not a coward you will believe it yourself but it doesn't work that way."

So.....expecting the UN to put some teeth into their mandates is being a coward?

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah

Of course not. They curse their own impotence and lack of a strong government. I suppose they also curse the international community for not helping them more to get on their feet.

They were starting to finally get a functioning society going again and now this - they are the site of a proxy war.

"The good news (maybe it's bad, I dunno), is that both the United States and Israel have lost the Lebanese War. Get used to it, and get over it. On to the next catastrophe."

Are you French?

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?

Its not either/or. Consider the 1982 invasion where the Lebanese weren't happy with the PLO, but were less happy (to say the least) with Israel, creating an environment favorable to the formation of Hezbollah.

"I suppose they also curse the international community for not helping them more to get on their feet."

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Oh, Jay - you know what I meant. You feel it deep down every night. Stop playing games with yourself and finally do something constructive. Otherwise you'll live a life of impotent misery waiting for the world to fix itself so you'll be fixed. Good luck with that.

Actually the United States destroyed a popular terrorist non-state: the Ku Klux Klan. Fortunately, the KKK was not supported by a rich, fanatical foreign nation. Note that nobody was foolish enough to invite the the KKK to help plan and implement their own loss of power. exliberal

I don't know which time you are talking about, but the last time the KKK was badly weakened or destroyed was in the 1960s. It was not destroyed by an outside military. It was "destroyed" by the American people themselves. It was destroyed politically.

I don't much care for Jay's sense of humor.

"The UN was never mandated to disarm Hezbollah...."

um....yes it did.

part of the resolution stated:

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.

Yes, the UN told foreign forces to leave, and told the responsible governments to disarm militias.

That is, Lebanon (as relates to disarming Hezbollah) was mandated (by its obligation to comply with binding SC resolutions under the UN Charter) to do these things.

No UN body was mandated, empowered, or authorized to do them, however.

Haven't we been reigning in Israel's forces long enough? Maybe they should stop picking fights expecting some one to step in and stop it before they get hurt.

"Otherwise you'll live a life of impotent misery waiting for the world to fix itself so you'll be fixed. Good luck with that."

You need to practice your sarcasm.

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?

No, not at all. Unfortunately, once the fight starts they move on from blaming Hezbollah for starting it, to blaming Israel for responding. A fight against an outside force will most often compel people to paper over their differences to band together against the attacker.

Think about it in personal terms: if someone in your family picks a fight with someone, you might be annoyed with him, but you'll back him up in that fight.

"Think [the Lebanese] are grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?"

Well, of course not. That doesn't mean that they won't rally behind them, though. Have a look at the link below, written by a resident of Beirut (who had been living until recently in NYC).

One of the interesting things is her take on the Hizbie issue. Pissed at them, yes, but also indicates a willingness to pull together in the face of such a disproporationate Israeli response.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/from_rasha_in_b.html#more

"No UN body was mandated, empowered, or authorized to do them, however."

This is exactly my point. It's a worthless exercise designed to make the world community "feel" better about themselves. What message does that send to the decent people of Lebanon?

Rice said she had been moved by an impassioned plea by Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to "stop the killing"

Frankly, I find that hard to believe.

but said the U.S. favors long-term efforts to end "spasms of violence" in the region.

And to that end will block short term efforts to end the current spasm of violence, which is disproportionately targeting Lebanese civilians and civil and political infrastructure (to say nothing of UN observers).

Israel's actions, to say nothing of the US government's explicit endoresement, the reprehensible justifications by certain pundits and the naked slavering for a wider war by some who seem smug in demanding that other people die for their ambitions and/or feelings of security, strikes me as nothing short of insane.

I like your link more than I expected, Red State Mike.

There's not going to be a robust international force in Lebanon, though. It would have to come out of genuine negotiations between all parties. Hizballah would have to agree not to blow it up. The current overreaching goals and blatantly non-impartial attitude of the Bush Admin make that impossible. Once again, when a robust but modest international force might have talked everyone into Hizballah consenting to be moved back from the border, the Bush Admin wants to write checks it can't cash, and tell the UN to forcibly disarm Hizballah - in short, join the war on Israel's side.

Not happening.

Stefan (and others, roughly)
No, not at all. Unfortunately, once the fight starts they move on from blaming Hezbollah for starting it, to blaming Israel for responding. A fight against an outside force will most often compel people to paper over their differences to band together against the attacker.

Not arguing. I agree it's not an either/or. And my biggest nit with Israel has been that they've probably crossed the line, undercutting Lebanese disgust with Hezbollah.

"Israel's actions, to say nothing of the US government's explicit endoresement, the reprehensible justifications by certain pundits and the naked slavering for a wider war by some who seem smug in demanding that other people die for their ambitions and/or feelings of security, strikes me as nothing short of insane."

Thank you for Irans point of view gregory.

"This is exactly my point. It's a worthless exercise designed to make the world community "feel" better about themselves. What message does that send to the decent people of Lebanon?"

Jay, the backbone of the Security Council consists of the five permanent members with veto power. Guess who one of the most powerful permanent members is?

If the US wanted to have an armed UN force in Lebanon, with the power to use "all necessary means" to enforce disarmament, think that we might be able to get it?

This is exactly my point.

Then why did you say the opposite?

It's a worthless exercise designed to make the world community "feel" better about themselves.

No, its a statement of expectations. Its what you do before you resort to enforcement: you communicate what is expected of the parties and give them a chance to carry it into execution.

"If the US wanted to have an armed UN force in Lebanon, with the power to use "all necessary means" to enforce disarmament, think that we might be able to get it?"

NO. Resolution 1441 should have taught you that.

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?

Probably not. So what? They still don't seem to appreciate Israel's efforts to bomb their civil and political infrasturcture back 20 years -- excuse me, liberate them.

You have this funny habit, Mike, in suggesting that the bad behavior of Hezbollah excuses Israel's bad behavior. I find that notion unconvincing. Furthermore, I consider Israel's behavior counterproductive. As Joseph Fouche said, It is worse than a crime: it is a mistake.

"No, its a statement of expectations. Its what you do before you resort to enforcement: you communicate what is expected of the parties and give them a chance to carry it into execution"

We've been doing that for over fifty years. How much longer do you want to continue with that strategy?

Jay,

You need to practice your sarcasm.

Perhaps, since I rarely use sarcasm. I was being sincere, not that I expect you to understand that.

But - carry on - it's your life.

Not arguing. I agree it's not an either/or.

Then why did you suggest that it was by your comment? Or if you didn't mean to suggest it was, what was your point -- or were you, once again, simply trying to distract from Israel's excesses in its war on Lebanon (and yes, Mike, that's exactly what it is) by bringing up Hezbollah?

And my biggest nit with Israel has been that they've probably crossed the line, undercutting Lebanese disgust with Hezbollah.

Probably?! Jeez, but you're blinkered, Mike.

Jay, if you're not willing to put your boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps you could get on John Bolton's UN delegation? Then, you could help negotiate and craft an SC resolution that provides a UN force with some serious disarmament muscle, and then you could help persuade Israel, the Lebanese and Hizbie to sign off. Then perhaps the UN wouldn't be as useless as you think it is.

How's your CV these days?

Oh....thank you Tripp.

What would we all do without liberals telling us what we're allowed to do?

I'll look into that wonderin.

btw, say hi to Cindy Sheehan for me.

We've been doing that for over fifty years. How much longer do you want to continue with that strategy?

I think you fail to appreciate which UN SC veto power stands in the way of an enforcement resolution.

Back to basics: can someone explain what the U.S. interests is in supporting Israel?

"btw, say hi to Cindy Sheehan for me."

No probs...we're dropping some acid later this afternoon, and then we'll talk about starting up a new magazine we hope to call "Pinko World."

"No probs...we're dropping some acid later this afternoon, and then we'll talk about starting up a new magazine we hope to call "Pinko World."

Now that's good sarcasm.

Gregory
RSM: Not arguing. I agree it's not an either/or.

Then why did you suggest that it was by your comment?

I didn't. Go back and read it.

Just an aside, I have to commend everyone here for engaging in such an interesting, passionate debate as well as totally ignoring the anti-Semitic troll who refers to Israel as "mongrels" and Jews as "Nazis."

"Israel occupied South Lebanon from 1982 til 2000. This bought 6 years of relative calm along the border."

Where on earth do people come up with this nonsense? Israel occuupied South Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, which brought unceasing guerrilla warefare, with heavy casualties on all sides, until Israel withdrew.

I didn't. Go back and read it.

Why don't you just explain what you meant, Mike?

Where on earth do people come up with this nonsense? Israel occuupied South Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, which brought unceasing guerrilla warefare, with heavy casualties on all sides, until Israel withdrew.

And afterward, I might add.

Gregory
Why don't you just explain what you meant, Mike?

This article pretty much captures it. Snippet...

For the south, which suffered for more than a decade under Israeli occupation, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is a folk hero who helped drive out the Israelis. But many middle-class Lebanese who have worked for the past decade to generate an economic revival are tired of war and resent Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

“The first thing I thought was, ‘How crazy to go wake up the monster,’ ” said Issam Saleh, a secular Shiite and an engineer who spends most of his days writing poetry in the garden at the Paul Restaurant. Hezbollah “knew exactly what would happen, but did it anyway.”

Even so, as the Israeli bombardment of the south drags on, dividing lines have softened: Even those who hate Hezbollah are horrified by the destruction. Now, as the war rages without any foreseeable end, almost everybody has been wondering where their embattled country can possibly go from here...

The division burst into the open last year, when hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, Christian and Muslim, marched in support of the government after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the country’s wealthy former prime minister, who had driven the transformation of postwar Beirut from a dead zone to a vacation destination. The marches brought together Lebanese who had even fought against each other in the civil war.

At the same time, Hezbollah and thousands of Shiite supporters organized huge counterdemonstrations in support of Syrian forces that the government was trying to evict.

“It was like a thorn in our hearts,” said a Lebanese businessman, a Druse, who was stranded in the Damascus airport on Thursday after fleeing Lebanon...

Some of the gap between the two Beiruts has roots in historical animosities. On Saturday in Fatqa, a small Christian town north of the capital, an angry mob of men attacked a car that had a sticker of a Christian group that has made an alliance with Hezbollah, throwing things at the car and pounding it with their fists. Hours before, a friend of the attackers, a guard at a nearby television tower, had been killed in an Israeli airstrike, and the men were furious that Hezbollah’s actions had invited destruction on their town.

“They wanted this war,” said a man in a striped shirt named Joel. A cashier at a grocery nearby, Rita Dekmak, began to cry when she started to speak about the dead man. She spoke darkly of Shiite soldiers who been stationed near the tower but left suddenly...

But the longer Israeli planes continue to pound the country, the more the Lebanese find it difficult to stay angry with Hezbollah. Horrific scenes unfolded on the Printania screen: collapsed buildings and vast stretches of rubble in Nabatiya, in the south.

“We’re not Hezbollah supporters, but we cannot excuse what the Israelis are doing,” said Rima Beydoun, a secular Shiite who owns an advertising agency.

“We knew there would be repercussions, but no one expected they would be like this,” Mr. Salhab, the filmmaker, said of Shiite support for Hezbollah. “I am very critical of that part of my country, but I have to put it aside, because we are being destroyed.

“At this point, I can’t just say: Hezbollah, go to hell.”

watcher is a madrassa trained sophist.

One more time. Seriously, can someone explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? Is it support for democracy? Is it holocaust guilt? What?

Is there a website that explain this?

Why is the U.S. incurring so much hatred from the islamic world on behalf of Israel?

Is it worth it?

...incompetency and uselessness of the UN.

Till I read the last two letters of the phrase, I thought that some Bushista has finally realized that the people he has been so loyally supporting all this while have their heads up their asses.

Jay, here is the remedial version:

1) The UN is made of nations.

2) These nations have competing interests. On some issues they can find common ground. On others they can not.

3) Kofi Annan is a mediator not an economic or military leader.

4) The ability to manipulate UN action in your favor is related to an art called diplomacy.

5) Nations give the UN as much power as the most powerful amonst them is willing to give. This power can be revoked.

6) When the security counsel and general assembly agree on something (and individual nations are willing to act) stuff gets done. The action can be considered a net positive unless you are a pariah state with no friends on the security counsel.

7) When the UN does not act (and is unlikely to take future action), world events proceed as if they didn't exist.

So let's recap:

Mike implies that Israel's wanton destruction of the civilian and military infrastructure of Lebanon -- not to mention the 400-so civilian casualties, bombed ambulances, destruction of cars carrying families fleeing at Israel's demand, etc. -- should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah.

Frankly, I don't think I subjected that notion with the ridicule it deserved when I retorted, "Yeah, and those Lebanese are just being so darn ungrateful to Israel for their efforts to liberate them!"

Mike responds with:

Think they're grateful to the minority Hezbollah for going off and picking a fight with the neighbors?

After a flurry of "of course not, but what does that have to do with anything," Mike claims that he wasn't presenting an "either/or."

I asked why he suggested he was by his comment. (And again, Mike, if not, then why bring it up? To distract from Israel's bad behavior by mentioning Hezbollah's?) Mike claims he wasn't, and then presents an article that he claims "pretty much captures it."

But again, Mike, regardless of whether some Lebanese are ticked at Hezbollah for provoking Israel, as your own citation shows, the Lebanese hardly perceive Israel's destruction of their country as "liberating them." So again, I can only suggest that your bringing up Hezbollah is irrelevant, and utterly fails to deflect the well-deserved ridicule that your suggestion Israel is "liberating Lebanon" -- as opposed to "inflicting wanton destruction on the civil and political infrastructure of Lebanon" -- deserves.

Oh, by the way, Mike -- that attack on the television tower the article mentioned...this is not Israel attacking a civilian target how, exactly? Don't you think, now that Israel destroyed a UN outpost, it's time to drop the fantasy of Israel conducting surgically targeted attacks against terrorists?

Trying to destroy Hezbollah would be like trying to destroy America's Southern Baptists. Attacking the organization that represents the largest religious group in any country is only going to steele the population's resolve to resist and retaliate. The only way to subdue a majority is through systemic terror, like the Palestinian model Israel has developed. The Shi'a of Lebanon know this and is why they support Hezbollah. Iran knows it too and is why they support Hezbollah. What many do not understand is that Iran has had their religious majority suppressed by a secular government installed by the US. It led to a revolution easily predicted by the historical dialectic. Iran's power in the region is derived from their large population and relative economic wealth. Iran's power is not won from military might or aggression, like America's, which wants to use its military to suppress the majorities of the world for reasons other than spreading democracy.

"When the UN does not act..."

Please tell me when they do act. Effectively.

I can understand why Markos and others are so disinclined to blog this mess; there is nothing for liberals here.

What about US gifts of state of the art weaponry to Israel? Americans, left, liberal, and moral, should concentrate their efforts to end US subsidy of overwhelming military strength to Israel. Ignoring these deadly gifts to Israel while decrying Hezbollah and Iran, is like invading Iraq because of 9/11.

"Please tell me when they do act. Effectively."

Okay, okay, I'll bite...

The list is practically endless. From the perspective that we're talking about here, i.e., UN peacekeeping with teeth, I offer once again the activities of the UN in the Congo (google MONUC). Yes, there are problems with the intervention, and UN troops don't always behave like choirboys, but it's a muscular UN intervention.

Outside of the Secretariat and the Security Council, you've got the UN specialized agencies, like UNICEF and WHO, that do tons of effective things around the world. Yes, some deadwood in some of these agencies - have seen it myself - but on the whole very useful investments.

So I am guessing that you also call for the elimination of Israel, right Hostile?

Gregory

Mike implies that Israel's wanton destruction of the civilian and military infrastructure of Lebanon -- not to mention the 400-so civilian casualties, bombed ambulances, destruction of cars carrying families fleeing at Israel's demand, etc. -- should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah.

Liar. Mike implies this whole conflict should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah. And sicne Hezbollah started it, one should examine their motives first.

So again, I can only suggest that your bringing up Hezbollah is irrelevant, and utterly fails to deflect the well-deserved ridicule that your suggestion Israel is "liberating Lebanon" -- as opposed to "inflicting wanton destruction on the civil and political infrastructure of Lebanon" -- deserves.

I never said that. I never said that Israel is liberating Lebanon. Israel is acting in its own interest to secure its border.

You suggest Hezbollah's actions are irrelevant. How stupid can that be? They started this whole thing. It's their damn fault. The Lebanese know it, even if you don't.

And Hezbollah's actions have more to do with Lebanese politics and power plays than it has to do with their relationship with Israel. Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian puppetmasters do not want a free and democratic Lebanon. The Syrian frog march out with the Cedar Revolution was a big setback. Huge. That Hezbollah protested on behalf of Syria speaks volumes. the It is job #1 of Hezbollah to not allow the Cedar Revolution to succeed. Once you (meaning other people, Gregory, since you personally will never get it) view actions through that complicated prism, then things can be correctly understood.

Mike implies this whole conflict should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah.

I never said that Israel is liberating Lebanon.

I'm sorry, Mike, but I'm having trouble reconciling the two statements above. So even though Israel is not in fact liberating Lebanon, the conflict should be viewed in the context that they are liberating Lebanon?

"Please tell me when they do act. Effectively."

Look, man, you may not like the UN, but they're bound to be very effective at implementing a One World Gover...whoops.

Stefan
I'm sorry, Mike, but I'm having trouble reconciling the two statements above. So even though Israel is not in fact liberating Lebanon, the conflict should be viewed in the context that they are liberating Lebanon?

To repeat, I believe Hezbollah's actions against Israel had everything to do with their position in Lebanon. So to the extent that one tries to understand Hezbollah's actions, look to the status of democracy and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. They expected Israel to "play by the rules" and just do some commando raids and limited attacks.

I believe Israel is acting to put a buffer space on their borders, first and foremost, not liberate Lebanon of Hezbollah's (and therefore Syrian and Iranian) control. but getting Hezbollah to allow Lebanon to comply with SC 1559 and gain sovereign control over their own borders is obviously in Israel's interest. I just don't think it is the top focus of their efforts.

It's subtle.

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

北京酒店 said

如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店

So's your mother.

Mike, I'm having trouble reconciling your statement that

如家快捷酒店

With your later statement that

元以下酒店

They can't both be true. It's just not logical.

Liar.

for starters, Mike, you have not demonstrated any basis for this accuation.

Mike implies this whole conflict should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah.

And this ridiculous assertion makes me a "liar" exactly how? Furthermore, not only do the actions I described -- destroying Lebanon's civil and political infrasturcture, attacking civilian targets, and killing hundreds of civilians -- demand to be included in the definition of "this whole conflict," they belie the assertion that "this whole conflict should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah."

I said your assertion that "this whole conflict should be viewed in the context of "liberating" Lebanon from Hezbollah" is ridiculous, and I reiterate it. Israel is doing nothing of the kind, and as an apology for her destruction fo the Lebanese state, it's beyond pathetic.

And sicne Hezbollah started it, one should examine their motives first.

I can only observe that perceptions of "who started it" depend on one's blinkered perceptions.

But again, Mike, pointing to Hezbollah as a villain to defend Israel's overreaction simply won't do.

I never said that. I never said that Israel is liberating Lebanon.

As Stefan pointed out, you not only did so, you reasserted it just a moment before. Liar.

Israel is acting in its own interest

I disagree.

to secure its border.

One is hard pressed to imagine how Israel's destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infratructure "secures its border." But since "securing its border" is of course a legitimate cause for military action, you lap it up, notwithstanding that it's a piss-poor rational for what Israel is actually doing. Jeez, you're blinkered.

You suggest Hezbollah's actions are irrelevant.

Liar. I did no such thing. I assert that citing Hezbollah's actions is irrelevant to a defense of Israel's actions -- especially one that, laughably, characterizes Israel as a liberator.

Israel is destroying Lebanon -- including civilian targets, thank you very much -- Mike, period, full stop. It isn't "liberating" anyone from anything but their lives and livelihoods.

But that's okay with you, because Hezbollah is a bad guy. We get it, Mike.

They started this whole thing. It's their damn fault. The Lebanese know it, even if you don't.

Well, again, since Israel's invasion of Lebanon was responsible for Hezbollah's existence in the first place, the assertion that Hezbollah "started this whole thing" rings pretty hollow, Mike.

And once again, Mike, the fact that Hezbollah provoked Israel -- by, let's not forget, an attack against her soldiers, not her civilians -- does not justify Israel's disportportionate response, nor Israel's attacks on civilian targets. And as the article you yourself linked proves, the Lebanese quite rightly blame Israel for its overreaction.

As to your paranoid rehash of neocon talking points, Mike, they are truly stupid, because if it truly is the goal of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to prevent a democratic Lebanon, Israel just played right into their hands by wrecking the state, you moron. Talk about not getting it -- jeez, but you're blinkered!

And i'll help myself to a point you made to Stefan:

They expected Israel to "play by the rules" and just do some commando raids and limited attacks.

In other words, they expected Israel to behave proportionally, rationally, and with some due regard for the Lebanese. Which, of course, excuses Israel's murderous overreaction not one whit.

You talk a lot about what you "believe" Israel's intentions and motives are. But they smack much more of someone who is desperately trying to fit reality into his own preconceptions -- Hezbollah bad, Israel good -- than of someone willing to acknowledge what Israel is actually doing. Again -- you're blinkered, Mike, and your steadfast refusal to confront Israel's deadly acts of terrorism -- by your own definition, Mike -- shows you to be deliberatel,y and dishonestly, so.

But then, I'm past expecting honesty from you, Mike. Thanks for never letting me down.

Mike, I'm having trouble reconciling your statement that

如家快捷酒店

With your later statement that

元以下酒店

They can't both be true. It's just not logical.

Stefan, if that was you, and not the spam bot, that was frickin' hilarious.

Even if it was the spam bot, it's pretty damn funny.

Gregory
But then, I'm past expecting honesty from you, Mike. Thanks for never letting me down.

Moron

Stefan
They can't both be true. It's just not logical.

Your inability to see their truth is due to the cartesian-ness of your western philosophy.

"Almost two weeks into its military assault on Hezbollah, Israel said Tuesday that it would occupy a strip inside southern Lebanon with ground troops until an international force could take its place"

The problem is twofold:

A) Israel doesn't hold a strip inside Southern Lebanon, and they are taking heavy casualties just trying to stay in the tiny area where they are now.

B) WHAT "international force" ? I don't see any combat troops from the international community on the horizon.
.

"I suspect that this is the subtext for why the buildup to making war on Iran"

Yes quite a number of people predicted an Israeli attack on the local area, in order to pull Syria and Iran into the conflict, and then "deal with them" by dragging the US into the conflict (Bush would be in, in a second, but the US public might not be as stupid).

Probably, the only thing stopping the mad-man Bush, is the corporate types don't want to be paying $500 a barrel for oil after the Iranians take out the Saudi refineries, etc.

The 800 mile supply line between Baghdad and Kuwait that passes through the most Shi'a-dominated, Iran-infiltrated region of Iraq, is probably the least of the problems. Getting any ships in and out of the Gulf will be tough as coastal missile batteries will make resupply through the Gulf to Kuwait impossible. Even if Iran is occupied, freedom fighters will still launch missiles at ships in the Gulf, till they run out of missiles.

If Iran is attacked, how many pipelines that continue to pump, do you figure will be blown up? Perhaps it is better to ask,... how many pipelines that continue to pump, do you figure will NOT be blown up?

"You want a cease fire that will make a long-term difference? First destroy ISRAEL."

Moron

Convincing defense of your credibility, there, Mike. Thanks for never letting me down.

Stefan, if that was you, and not the spam bot, that was frickin' hilarious.

Yeah, that was me. Based, of course, on Mike's comments above.

If the US and Israel were interested in peace, they would agree to cease fire without conditions.

Israel would have negotiated for the return of the soldiers with Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a well organized resistance movement.
But like spoiled kids, the BSer in chief and Co will not talk to people he does not like.

It appears the monsters are in Washington and Jerusalem. And Condi calls it the birth pangs for the ME, the mess in the ME is their baby, they produced it, that is grotesque.

I fail to see what is so bad about returning to status quo ante. That arrangement lasted for 10 years.

The Bush administration's language is unnervingly similar to what it said about the situation before 9/11. Back then, the Bush administration claimed that it didn't want to engage in tit-for-tat actions against Al Qaeda, but was seeking a more comprehensive (and allegedly more effective action).

"In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country, it's not Iraq. It's going to be there. It's going to be a player."

What's it going to play at? What will be it's strategy. This comment is as useless as if it were about Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

For the last 6+ years, Iran's big play has been the arming of Hizbollah in Lebanon. the play that they have announced next is the total destruction of Israel. They act like they mean it, so why don't we take their intention seriously?

It's hard to think of a worse outcome for Israel, the Middle East, or the world,

Sometimes I wonder whether you could possibly be more superficial. That quoted comment is just plain not serious.

Renate,

Is unconditional cease fire truly peace? Hezbollah (as they themselves have admitted) kidnapped soldiers to have Hezbollah prisoners released from jail....and why not? Israel has played along with this for years. If they trade a handful of prisoners for two soldiers today...they are looking at endless murders and kidnappings in the future just as their past dealings have landed them now.

But in the current world political atmosphere, Israel felt it was time to end this game at the choke point and send a message that this strategy will work for terrorists/guerillas no longer.

This of course is leaving out the influence and ambitions of Iran...assuming they were behind Hezbollah's actions.

In reality, both sides moved forward with ignorance. Hezbollah did not think Israel would respond with such force and Israel did not know Hezbollah's weapon cache and strength that they've been building in Beirut and along Israel's border.

But let's not forget about a UN Resolution demanding Hezbollah out of that area and requiring them to disarm. If we are to take world diplomacy seriously, there has to be enforcement of international UN mandates. Whenever Israel vacates a region they occupy...Hamas or Hezbollah has used that land to point missiles in Israel's direction.

People can argue all they want that Israel should not have been handed to the Jews 60 years ago, but that (ignorant) opinion does not get us past the violence that exists today. In fact, if you are making that argument to disparage Israel, you are for violence to root Israel out and shouldn't be in an argument regarding how to bring peace to the middle east, but rather sitting in a room of Jihadists and Nazi youth planning the Zionist elimination.

Is unconditional cease fire truly peace?

No, nor is it intended to be. Its often a practical precondition to establishing peace.

This of course is leaving out the influence and ambitions of Iran...assuming they were behind Hezbollah's actions.

If they were, they are getting exactly what they wanted from them.

People can argue all they want that Israel should not have been handed to the Jews 60 years ago, but that (ignorant) opinion does not get us past the violence that exists today.

People can argue all they want that Hezbollah should have disarmed in the past few years, but that doesn't get us past the violence that exists today either.

The problem isn't going to be resolved unless a force that doesn't face the political problems Israel has as invader, and that doesn't face the lack of military capacity problems the Lebanese government currently faces, acts to secure the southern border region of Lebanon and deny it to Hezbollah as an offensive base against Israel.

Steve

There have been prisoner exchanges before, nothing new and not as bad as the consequences of war.

A cease fire is to gain time and if the parties do want peace they can negotiate.How can that be wrong?

Don't mention the UN resolutions, there are many and the Israelis refused to comply with a single one.

It was Israel invading Lebanon in the 80s, about 14 000 Lebanese lost their lifes.Maybe you don't know it, but Israel occupied Lebanon for almost 20 years, and the destruction was as bad as it is now. It was the invasion and occupation that created Hezbollah. They too have a right to defend themselves and have allianzes, just as Israel does.

One question, do you think Arab children,mothers and fathers feel less pain, their blood is not red?

There are accounts of Israel using cluster bombs and white phosphate.

The furie in response to a border incident from Israel is insane to say the least. Of course it is possible that Israel and the US are after bigger fish, like Iran and Syria.

Yes, it is all about land, water and oil.

Some of the gap between the two Beiruts has roots in historical animosities. On Saturday in Fatqa, a small Christian town north of the capital, an angry mob of men attacked a car that had a sticker of a Christian group that has made an alliance with Hezbollah, throwing things at the car and pounding it with their fists. Hours before, a friend of the attackers, a guard at a nearby television tower, had been killed in an Israeli airstrike, and the men were furious that Hezbollah’s actions had invited destruction on their town.Some of the gap between the two Beiruts has roots in historical animosities. On Saturday in Fatqa, a small Christian tow

According to MidEast security expert, Patrick Lang:

It looks like the wheels are coming off the Olmert/Halutz master plan for dealing with Hizballah. The "Air Power" enthusiasts (including Americans) maintained stoutly at the beginning that "air power" alone would suffice to deal with Hizballah, herding them around, intimidating them, etc. None of that has happened.

Now the Israelis are talking about some trivial belt along the Lebanese side of the border that they are going to occupy to "protect" northern Israel.

From what? Hizballah rockets and mortar shells will fly across that 2 or 3 kilometer belt. What is the IDF going to do, wave at this stuff as it passes overhead?

Turkish and Egyptian Muslim troops are going to disarm Hizballah? What a joke? The governments might attempt to do something like this in event of a cease-fire but the soldiers will be very reluctant to fight fellow Muslims, Shia or not.

Given the fiasco in Rome today, I see no end to the fighting in Lebanon any time soon.

Thursday, July 27th, 2006
They Were Once Vikings

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government:

“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

From The Brussels Journal

hat tip to Karen

-- Oak Leaf
**************************************
Send in the Swedes. They'll surrender for you. Fortunately it's only a minority in the West who are cowards. We are not going to negotiate with Iran.

Hi, very interesting site. I really like it.
http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/pop_up_stopper_professional_serial/ pop up stopper professional serial http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/adssvr_popup/ adssvr popup http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/blocker_free_pop_up/ blocker free pop up http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/blocker_popup_super_v4.3/ blocker popup super v4.3 http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/sbc_pop_up_blocker/ sbc pop up blocker http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/blocker_popup_smart/ blocker popup smart http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/camper_conroe_popup_sales_tx/ camper conroe popup sales tx http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/xp_pop_up_blocker/ xp pop up blocker http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/blocker_internet_pop_up/ blocker internet pop up http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/popup_ad_blocking/ popup ad blocking http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/free_popup_software_stop/ free popup software stop http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/panicware_free_pop_up_stopper/ panicware free pop up stopper http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/stop_aol_popups/ stop aol popups http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/block_free_popup_yahoo/ block free popup yahoo http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/free_popup_blockers/ free popup blockers http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/install_pop_up_blocker/ install pop up blocker http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/killer_popup_zero/ killer popup zero http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/ads_popup_stopping/ ads popup stopping http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/ads_pop_software_stop_up/ ads pop software stop up http://popupblocker.awardspace.com/pop_up_shelter/ pop up shelter

is the vile watcher an actual anti-semitic troll or is he/she a Likudnik playing the part? was watcher a commenter before the past two weeks?
Just curious