He can't interrupt his vacation for this? Given that his term is over in less than three weeks, one would think that his Crawford chores can wait. With that said, other than encouraging/demanding/throwing a tantrum/anything to get Israel to stop the attacks, it's probably better that he isn't involved.

Israel has already killed three times the number that died in the Mumbai attack.

I would think this would fall at least as much on the new Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the UN as much as on Obama directly. This is where he importance of choosing truly competent people for these positions becomes really obvious, as will the difference between Bush's picks and Obama's.

It's a tragedy that this conflict hasn't been settled yet, but at least we don't have moronic idealogues like John Bolton in place to make things even worse.

This seems like an all too convenient way to monopolize the incoming administration and shift US attention away from fixing the economy and ending the war in Iraq.

Apparently Israel wanted to make good on that 'test' that Biden promised would be coming Obama's way.

The current situation has far more to do with Israeli politics than American politics, Bush and Obama. Obama has no power to do anything at the moment. Bush gets a thrill out of watching the Israelis kick the Palestinians. In the mind of Bush, it is in the US strategic interest for the US and its clients to demonstrate hard power to peoples that don't agree with us.

However, the global strategy of the US is headed for a major shift to the use of soft power. The US has little use for counterproductive Israeli hard power in the new global strategy. The current situation did not happen overnight and it won't be fixed overnight either.

I don't care how good the new SoS and ambassadors are, it would take god himself descending in a pillar of fire to sort that mess out, and I'm not even sure that would work. Somebody would probably start lobbing missiles at the pillar, and that would be the end of that.

Fascinating that more people are noticing Obama's relative silence than that of the guy who actually has the legal and political authority (the "one president at a time" line may well be "tired", and as Barney Frank says, it may overestimate the number of working presidents we have, but it's the law. The law needs to change. Even if Bush hadn't retired some time last March, even if the actual president weren't a maroon, the two month lame-duck period is too damn long).

But as the linked article says, Bush hasn't been completely idle. He called the King of Saudi Arabia. I guess cause the Saudis have been so effective in calming the waters of international politics and fighting terrorism.

Vacation at the "ranch" is just what the doctor ordered. Nothing can illustrate the ineffectiveness and just plain stupidity of how the US has been goverend over the last eight years than Bushit's going away present to his beloved Republic: More vacation time during a crisis.

However, there will be one last whizz-banger as he walks out the White House door officially for the last time: Cheney's pardon.

That one will surly put a shiver up Chris Matthews's leg. Maybe Bushit'll make us all elated and eat some pretzels very soon...

Fascinating that more people are noticing Obama's relative silence than that of the guy who actually has the legal and political authority

Bingo! And the media is too busy asking Bush, Cheney, Rice and Laura about the good old days. It's incredible.

>Israeli defense minister has promised Hamas a "war to the bitter end."

This is not a war... this is just killing.

Jim said:
Fascinating that more people are noticing Obama's relative silence than that of the guy who actually has the legal and political authority. . . .

Thank whatever deity you believe in for small favors. I was worried that Bush would try to get involved and end up outdoing the Detroit Lion's 0 - 16 record for ineptitude. Or maybe that Cheney with his mechanical heart would figure that he's not going to be around much longer anyway, so why not go out with a bang in instigate Armageddon?

But Obama is in a no-win situation. If he utters even a whisper of criticism against Israel, then the Republicans will start shrieking, "See, we told you he was too friendly with terrorists. Now he's going to abaondon those poor, peaceloving Israelis, leaving them with nothing but F-16s, tanks and guided missiles to defend themselves against those filthy Ay-rabs and their terrible stones and bottle rockets!" And naturally, the corporate-controlled media will faithfully report whatever the Republicans say without comment.

The abcnews.com link says:

"Since departing Washington for Crawford on Friday, President Bush has made no attempt to be seen in public. In fact, he has yet to leave his ranch. . . ."

"Not atypically, we have yet to learn anything more about what is keeping the commander in chief busy . . ."

He's drunk, of course.

That's why he goes to the ranch so often. Why would any intelligent person believe he ever stopped drinking?

It will all come out in those tell-all memoirs by his cabinet and staff a few years from now.

I heard a news report on TV a couple of days ago saying that they thought that Israel was taking advantage of the power vacuum in Washington. The way things are going, there will not be much for Obama to do in three weeks. The Israelis look like they are preparing a ground offensive and it might all be over before Obama takes office, with Bush sitting on the sidelines, arranging his post-inaugural tee times.

I always wonder how is it that people who have been through so much, at least allegorically, have learned so little. The irony of a Jewish Police State..

I don't understand why you continually read and quote Politico. It is run by right wing conservative hacks with little or no credibility regarding the reality based community.

It seems the President's role is really that of a good parent telling a bunch of egotistical and out of control kids (both home and abroad) to knock it off. Only Obama will use his head and consult and try everything possible diplomatic before resorting to violence.

He will be the good enough parent. (Or so I hope).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hamas broke the cease fire, Steve--you failed to mention that.

I do think Israel is over-reacting, but the Hamas rocket strikes have been multiple, albeit less dramatic-- and therefore have not gained near the media coverage of the Israeli strikes.

As such, Israel is painted the bad guy by those who aren't following the story carefully.

Hamas is counting on the "useful idiots" in the West to accept its propaganda - that the poor, innocent Arabs are being "disproportionately punished" for launching homemade rockets at Israeli civilians that most of the time missed their targets.

What maroons you are.

The whole "disproportionate" bullshit is just cover for the real Hamas agenda: to wit, Israel has no right to exist, the Jews have no right to a homeland in the land of Israel, and certainly no right to live in peace so long as they are living anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, so, the Hamas analysis goes, any action that Israel takes to stop the Arabs from exercising their rights to throw the colonialist white European JOOS into the sea is illegitimate. And the "useful idiots," the well-meaning pacifists of the left, buy it, like they always do.

This sentence:

"There hasn't been this much bloodshed among Israelis and Palestinians, in such a short period of time, in more than 40 years."

... is accurate, but also somewhat misleading, because it implies a sense of proportionality between the deaths. The Gaza rocket strikes have killed 17 people since the beginning of the year. The Israeli counter-attack has killed more than 300 people since Saturday.

I mean this purely as a factual statement, and not as a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli comment.

With all due respect to suffering on both sides, the Palestinians seem to be doing the great majority of the bleeding, not the Israelis. This is not some righteous vengeance, it is not an eye for an eye, it is lets kill their whole fucking family if they break my arm.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Steve: "There hasn't been this much bloodshed among Israelis and Palestinians, in such a short period of time, in more than 40 years."

Funny, but I seem to remember a large-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a rather bloody affair that prompted:
(a) The massacre by Christian militiamen of hundreds of Palesinian refugees in two large camps just outside Beirut;
(b) The deaths of hundreds of U.S. Marines and French Foreign Legionnaires in twin terrorist bombings during their grievously misconceived and ill-fated attempt at separating the warring factions; and
(c) The subsequent forced evacuation by the PLO and thousands of Palesinians from that city to Tunisia.

And should you subsequently qualify your initial remark by claiming a reference to a single three-day period, I'd then argue that you were making a qualification wholly unmerited of such a dubious distinction.

Bush's final parting shots at his legacy. War, war and more war...diplomassy and ecomonmy iz for smart peepulz.

It seems a good guess that what might be taking place is that the Israelis are taking advantage of the "lame duck" period.Knowing Bush will do nothing to stop them from some needed improvements in their situation and in the negotiating position of the more moderate Palistinian authority of the West Bank who are not on the same page as Hamas. By removing Hamas from power in Gaza, and killing any Hamas leaders of any consequence, they allow the West Bank government to move in with thier more moderate policies and the West Bank government gets rid of thier rivals, Hamas, in Gaza. A clever scheme albiet a bloody one...The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hamas broke the cease fire, Steve--you failed to mention that.

To be nitpicky, they didn't "break" the cease-fire. They informed Israel that they were going to allow it to expire on the previously agreed-upon date instead of renewing it.

It's not exactly a sneak attack if you inform your opponent ahead of time what's going to happen.

What's the phrase? I think Cheney is whistling past the "dustbin of history."

Media talking heads, supplied, of course, by Neocon Central, are pounding the drum over Iran's being the ultimate guilty party in Hamas rocket attacks, in spite of Hamas being Sunni and Iran Shia. Bush'n Cheney have three weeks to launch major strikes against or invade Iran, then dump the whole mess in Obama's lap while waving the flag at him. What's the betting they do it? Gives Cheney's interviews of the last few weeks a whole new context.

Bobby - You are naive in the extreme. First, Israel will have a difficult and bloody fight to eliminate all of Hamas. The only way to do that is to permanently re-occupy Gaza and they are NOT going to do that. Fatah is becoming more unpopular by the day as a quisling appendage of Israel. Fatah members who show up in Gaza after this bombing will be strung up by their balls.

[...] Obama expects Bush to take the lead, and Bush is reluctant to interrupt his vacation. -- Steve Benen

Presidentin' is a *hard* and tirin' job; he's earned his vacation. And it's not as if he were totally AWOL; he's just prioritizin'. He's still signing a new "screw 'em" rule a day, ain't he? What more do you want? So much to mess up, so little time...

There's no diff between Obama and Bush on Israel, anyway. Both have done their fair share of pandering, so there's no need for Obama to say anything that would, of course, be part of the same old, same old Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment talking points.

And, you ARE naive, Bobby. If anything, some even more splinter-like faction would emerge from Hamas even if Israel could do what it wanted. That incursion into Lebanon to crush Hezbullah sure worked well, didn't it?

Based on the information I've gathered, it appears that this goes deeper than they are letting on.

Apparently, it's been whispered that this attack was going to take place months ago.

Here's how I arrived at my conclusion;

1) during the election, the GOP kept saying that Obama will be tested in foreign policy.

2) isn't this what almost guaranteed Boy George a second term. "He wanted to finish the job." Remember he said that folks?

3) Speculation that attacking Palestine would somehow influence the elections. What elections, Israel or to give the GOP an edge in 2012 for president?

Now, let's go back through this entire administration,

1) Lebanon was almost completely destroyed.
2)Iraq was almost completely destroyed
3)if Iraq went quickly/smoothly Afghanistan would be almost completely destroyed
4) now, Palestine is almost completely destroyed
5) McCain made jokes about bombing Iran?
6) ***"Clean the World of Terrorists" - does that mean destroying the infrastructure of almost the entire Middle East?
7) Darfur went unnoticed

So, there's many other things going on - but I forgot, the African continent didn't matter with the GOP. At the same time, the Chinese is making their stake/claim here.

Does this make sense to go and destroy these countries? The citizens are then forced to uproot and flee to other countries, becoming a burden on their newfound country. Then we are under the impression that we will rebuild the destroyed country, but the monetary waste/fraud proves it's just another scam.

We have devastation in our own country, that have yet to be rebuilt. We have our own infrastructure that is old and falling apart - yet, we voluntarily tear up other people's country and then rebuild?

It's interesting that our own territories need a hand up, and we go around the world to tear things up. Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands have neighborhoods to put Haiti to shame.

BTW, what about Haiti, the people there are mistreated, live under dictatorship, people live under and well below the poverty line, there's slavery happening there TODAY, child labor.

Wait, there's no oy-yo there?

I'll stay out of the pie fight for the moment...

While the politico piece is not worth lining your bird cage (why piss off your canary?), it's worth going over to the Huff Post and reading the piece by Daniel Levy, the guy they're quoting.

His key point is that Bush's treating Hamas as a part of his "Glorious Global War On Terror" is the core problem here. It gave Hamas no wiggle room, and it created no basis for any kind of negotiated agreement between Hamas and Olmert's government to improve conditions for the Palestinians in Gaza, or to create more confidence on the Israeli side that Hamas wasn't going to use any let-up to upgrade their small missiles for something like proper SAMs (which would put them in the range of most of Israel's population. This was doable with the right American approach.

Levy points out that Obama is in no position to change the fundamental basis of US policy on Gaza, which is going to be precondition to doing anything. And that Bush can accomplish nothing with the current policy; staying on vacation really is the best thing he can do now.

But on the other hand, he does think the Europeans can help, and should, vigorously. While people are focusing on Barak's rather hard assed rhetoric, most of you are missing the fact he is busily tamping down the expectations as to what he thinks can be achieved. In particular, they are indicating pretty clearly that they expect they will neither remove Hamas, nor even completely reduce the missile problem. They are also making it pretty clear they are not going into Gaza to stay.

If this is so, then there really is a basis for diplomatic intervention; just not from the Americans. If Obama does anything right now, he (and probably Clinton as well) should be in close contact with European leaders.

We'll need Egypt as well, although I'm not sure folks realize that the Egyptians dislike Hamas almost as much as the Israelis. So getting the Egyptians engaged will likely require a fair amount of diplomacy as well.

Rob from Sta Cruz,

I believe Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel 30 years ago.

It hasn't been publicized, but, Egypt has a lot of their own kids & teens that are homeless, that are sleeping on the streets.

So, I would think they wouldn't want to burdened by foreigners when they have their own problems.

I hope Obama doesn't inherit all the bad will Bush built up. He'll have his hands full then.

Of course Obama "has been critical of Hamas" in the past, every "normal" US politician has been. That is no excuse for Israel to pretend that criticism of Hamas is endorsement of Israel's pumped-up, heavily collateralizing attack in Gaza. (The issue of how much to respond about X is always game.) Obama also realizes he must lie low and not look "pretentious" giving out advice now as mere PE, since shrub is sadly still Preznit for three more weeks ... Obama would easily become fat target if he got too prematurely Presidenty.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

from David Bernstein (at the Volokh Conspiracy):when a terrorist entity controls territory bordering that of a sovereign nation, and indiscriminately lobs rockets into that nation's territory, terrifying the civilian population and making normal life unlivable, what is a proportionate response?

Israel has engaged in pinpoint targeting of military facilities operated by said terrorist entities, and has gone so far as to send messages in Arabic to residents of Gaza, warning them that if they allow their homes or businesses are sheltering Hamas weaponry, they will be destroyed. Even according to Palestinian sources, the overwhelming majority of victims of Israeli bombs thus far have been Hamas fighters. This is perhaps the least extreme response that any sovereign nation faced with an analogous situation has ever engaged in. Cf. Russia in Chechnya.

Most of the dead have been armed and active enemies of Israel, that is to say the very people attacking Israeli citizens indiscriminately. That the number of dead exceeds the number of innocent dead in the Mumbai attacks is irrelevant.

The Israeli government is using Barack Obama's words to justify its attacks because that is their plain meaning. You all have reread his words today. Right now, Obama is acting as though he meant what he said. During the campaign, Obama expressed sympathy for Palestinians and support for Israel. He did not in any way express support for random missile attacks directed by Hamas toward Israel, neither in large numbers nor in small numbers.

What purpose would it serve for Bush to travel to Washington? The Israelis will achieve their military objectives without his help, and Hamas will ignore anything that he says. In a few days the U.S. will resupply Israel if Israel requests resupply. If any U.S. president could bring
peace to this region, that president would have been Clinton.

Luther: I hope Obama doesn't inherit all the bad will Bush built up. He'll have his hands full then.

This isn't about bad will that Bush built up. It's about conflict that exists independently of Bush. And yes, he will have his hands full.

Obama could stop all this with a word, and thus let the Israelis know that the Israeli tail won't be wagging the American dog this time, but the way he's positioned himself with Clinton and her buddies in the Israel Lobby, don't expect anything good here.

The whole atrocity shows just how weak the Israeli government is, that the only way Kadima and Labor can beat Netanyahu and the Likud Nazis is out out-Nazi them with this "defense" against rockets that have so far been 100% ineffective. This assault has nothing to do with what Hamas has done and everything to do with tying Obama to the failed policies of Israel before he takes office.

Curmudgeon: This is where he importance of choosing truly competent people for these positions becomes really obvious, as will the difference between Bush's picks and Obama's.

I'm doubtful. Our new Secretary of State saw close hand President Clinton's efforts. But that would be good.

If anyone is interested, worldfocus.org
has a special edition segment of the Gaza-Israel conflict.
view the show!!!

Most of the dead have been armed and active enemies of Israel

And as of today at least 62 of them have been non-combatant women and children. How man of the more than one thousand wounded been civilians? Two hundred? Five hundred? It could be all of them, for all we know.

So is it perfectly acceptable to get your arm or face blown off as long as you don't embarrass war hawks by showing up in the "death" column?

And how many of the "active enemies of Israel" joined Hamas because their family members had fallen to just such an attack in the past, and/or were rotting in poverty and wanted revenge, or just needed a reason to live? A good number of them, I'm willing to bet, which illustrates the insanity of this cycle of violence.

What purpose would it serve for Bush to travel to Washington?

As everyone knows, to put public political pressure on the Israelis to end this massacre, which would be the human thing to do. Having in common with Bush an utter lack of true human feeling, you fail to realize this is an option.

The Israelis did not need to respond to property damage with hundreds of tons of bombs that will accrue thousands of casualties within a week. They are only strengthening Hamas and the other militant elements.

In other news, we've been bombing the shit out of Afghanistan for five years now and it is making the Taliban stronger than ever by bringing civilians to their cause as the casualties mount. Karzai testifies to truth of this dynamic on a regular basis.

This whole thing just puts an exclamation point on Bush's spectacular foreign policy failures. The grand narrative of the neocon's argument for invading and occupying Iraq was that it would send a rippling democratic affect throughout the Middle East, just like the wave of democracy in Eastern Europe in 1989. Democratic nations are peaceful nations (remember that old line from '04?) Israel would finally acheive stability as grateful Arabs secured their blessings of liberty and accepted their sidekick status in the Levant.

I just wonder if certain Israeli leaders might decide that now is the time to launch airstrikes against Iran?

Their neo-con Republican pals in the Bush administration are about to lose their jobs and all those preparations the Bush administration made in the Persian Gulf for an attack on Iran might come to naught...especially if President Barack Obama decides that attacking Iran would not be in the best interests of the United States, even if Israel starts it.

So, some Israeli leaders might decide to strike while the Iran is hot. Hee, hee. (Sorry. Couldn't help myself, even though anyone getting our country involved in another conflict overseas would definitely be crazy, and the consequences even more disastrous than what Bush and Cheney have already caused).

Trex,

I enjoy reading your comments!!

This is interesting, they want to rid the Middle East of terrorist!

Okay, then why aren't they focusing attention on Osama Bin Laden?

How about A.Q. Khan, the nuclear weapons expert, last known to be in Pakistan. It's been said, they don't know who Mr. Khan sold/traded info or even given nuclear materials/know how to - is it Iran, is it the group Hamas, Hezbollah....

And yes, Mr. Khan was trained here in the Western world!

trex: In other news, we've been bombing the shit out of Afghanistan for five years now and it is making the Taliban stronger than ever by bringing civilians to their cause as the casualties mount.

Taliban strength peaked before the U.S. ever invaded. But not to worry about details! Bush/Gates/Obama are redeploying tens of thousands of American ground troops to Afghanistan in the upcoming months. This move has long been advocated by liberal critics of the Iraq War.

The Oracleespecially if President Barack Obama decides that attacking Iran would not be in the best interests of the United States, even if Israel starts it

Obama has spoken in favor of attacking Iran if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Inasmuch as the Israeli government has quoted Obama in support of the current attacks against Hamas, they might also quote Obama in support of their attacks on Iran. This would be the ideal time for such an attack, since Obama is not yet president, and his silence in response to the present attacks signals consent (this is from a saying quoted by Woodward during the Watergate Era: "Silence gives consent".) No one knows what Israel plans, but they probably do not want to wait until after they have been hit by a nuclear weapon launched from Iran.

For Obama supporters and others, like me, who want to see Obama be successful: Now might be a good time to review Obama's stated policies on matters of war, in general and with respect to specific countries and situations.

Steve Benen, why do you continue to quote Politico. Politico was a good idea gone bad fast.

It is just another site that shills for the Reich-wingers, Bush and Cheney in particular.

And to all of you who want PE Obama to say something, do something, whatever, call your local news stations and the national talking-heads gasbag shows to insist that instead of talking about the PE eating ice cream on the beach, call the PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH to task for hiding out in TX.

Obama is not the president. If you don't know the obligations of the president vs the president-elect, the learn to use the google.

And while you are at it, write to Politoco and ask that they stop shilling for Bush and the republicans.

Personally, I think all of this is unwarranted.

I'm going to say something that will have some people on this post that will probably anger some people, but I will say it.

No I am not pro-Israel, neither am I pro-Palestinian.

Yes, I do believe the Israelis have a right to protect themselves. However, this was more than an eye for an eye. This was mass murder, genocide at its best.

Now, here in America, if someone slaps me, does that give me the right to shoot them? Or lets say my significant other is over at anothers woman's house, does that mean I can burn the house down?

This attack on Palestine was and is over the top. Seems like someone flew over the coo coo's nest.

Israel has the best Spies, Mercenaries in the world. No other can compare. In fact, they have technology and cameras that monitor every move the Palestinians make.

Palestinians are in refugee camps that mirror concentration camps. (don't take offense to my use of comparison of the camps).

Because the Israeli soldiers can go into Gaza whenever they want, couldn't they have just snatched up the Hamas leaders/members and brought them to justice - prison?

Here's another ting I want to say without causing tempers to flare, if that was done here in America, it would look like a mass murder, murderous rampage....

So, I just want to say, I do believe Israel have a right to be free of the rockets, suicidal bombers...but I also believe the Palestinians should be able to fend for themselves and not have to be rationed necessities as if they were lock up in prison, or if they are being punished.

I am not siding with anyone, I tink both have done wrong. But to kill so many people at once, including babies & children, to me is just wrong. It makes me feel like any and everyone in the way risk being injured or killed in order to get the ones they really want. To me, it's no different than the police chases where the criminal driving can or will crash into any car (innocent victim) that gets in the way.

Taliban strength peaked before the U.S. ever invaded.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the time since the invasion since I actually specified "in the last five years" and referenced the non-Taliban leader of the country who currently resides in Kabul, but apparently those still weren't enough clues for you to get it.

Bush/Gates/Obama are redeploying tens of thousands of American ground troops to Afghanistan in the upcoming months. This move has long been advocated by liberal critics of the Iraq War.

Just one more item in a string of many that we liberals were correct about. Go figure. It's almost like we're on to something.

No one knows what Israel plans, but they probably do not want to wait until after they have been hit by a nuclear weapon launched from Iran.

You're in fourth grade, aren't you? I mean, you must be, with puerile, fatuous reasoning like this. This will never, EVER happen. Why not?

Firstly, because Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims as well as Christians and Jews. Iran isn't going to be responsible for damaging it any more than they are Mecca or Medina. It was designated as the original qiblah by the Prophet and contains the Dome of the Rock. It is a sacred place of pilgrimage for Muslims.

Secondly, Israel has a large Muslim and Christian population whom no Iranian leader would kill in cold blood. They are fellow people of the Book, and it is unthinkable to them.

And thirdly -- and most importantly -- if the Iranian government ever dis lose their collective minds and execute such an act, it would mean the end of their country in an instant in the form of a nuclear armageddon raining down on their heads from one if not two or more nations.

Nobody in Iran says to themselves, "Yeah, we've had a pretty good run. I guess it's time to bomb Israel and end it all forever."

Such a thing is not even a remote possibility for these reasons and others. Only wingnuts think it is. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability as a deterrent to protect themselves from what they see as a U.S. and Israeli menace and to be taken seriously as an actor on the world stage - and not a cypher to be dispensed with when the U.S. sees fit. We armed their neighbor in a proxy war that caused hundreds of thousands of casualties. Over what? We rebuffed their overtures to restore normal diplomatic relations in 2002. Bush designated them as "evil" to the world despite their offer to assist in the fight against the Taliban and then overthrew the government of the country to their West for what were transparently selfish geostrategic reasons.

Thinking of these issues as little cartoons in your head is entirely unhelpful to actually understanding them, particularly when you rob them of any context.

I enjoy reading your comments!!
Posted by: annjell on December 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you annjell, I enjoy reading yours as well. In fact I think your comments at 1:06 are excellent and I find myself in strong agreement with almost all of them.

Thanks Trex,

I learn from you, at the same time I enjoy the debate. I guess we can all agree to disagree - it's all good.

" There hasn't been this much bloodshed AMONG Israelis and Palestinians, in such a short period of time"
Please, let's cease this endless nauseating bullshit. this should read: There hasn't been this much slaughter and destruction visited on Gaza by Israel in such a short time, ....
This war - and it is yet another undeclared war on the people of Gaza by Israel - is about a truly mammoth military machine allegedly matched with a bunch of guys with hand weapons. What a joke. The poor Israelis, strapped with one of the most modern armies in the world are defending themselves against these arab vermin. I sure hope the Israelis can prevail in their mammoth undertaking ! And what the hell, maybe they can kill a bunch of kids along the way. I'm still recommending gas chambers, much more environmentally friendly.

just visited the website WWW.FreeGaza.org

***unless you can handle it, do not pull up the link for "Slowly Dying Is Useless Listening In Gaza" as soon as you pull up the link it has 5 dead little ones on a pix before you can read the editors notes.

but, do look at "Israeli Navy Attack and Wound Dignity in International Waters." **there's also a link for video given to CNN **former U.S. Rep Cynthia McKinney is on this boat.

I loathe both wings of the Israeli government and their slavering, unquestioning toadies in the democratic party. The individuals conducting this bloodbath are war criminals. Full Stop. To the extent that Obama supports this insanity, he has lost all my admiration and support. I'm looking for someone in the democratic party who is not a snivelling coward, someone who objects to the wholesale slaughter of women and children.

Dennis Kuchinich has condemned the attacks. He continues to be guided by conscience. Too bad no one listens

re: "Dennis Kuchinich has condemned the attacks. He continues to be guided by conscience. Too bad no one listens"

Thanks. It seems to me that the leaders of the democratic hierarchy have zero moral compass. They just parrot the Zionist line. Sickening. Israel becomes more and more evil with every passing day. Oh well what's the use ? Recently I read a line in a Stephen King book: "If there's a god, he needs to try harder." Why doesn't the pope get up off his fat ass and say something with teeth ?

trex: Secondly, Israel has a large Muslim and Christian population whom no Iranian leader would kill in cold blood. They are fellow people of the Book, and it is unthinkable to them.

Maybe, but Ahmedinejad threatens Israel with destruction frequently. He may not have the power to order an attack, but those who do have such power usually do not force him to stop the threats. It isn't that unusual for Muslims to kill other Muslims, Christians and Jews out of political motives. Even Iranians have done so, and do so.

You do not know what is "unthinkable" to other people. The portions of the Koran that specifically advocate killing Christians, Jews, and "infidel" Muslims are quoted by Muslim leaders and scholars every day, and at least some leaders find it thinkable.

It's a strange world, but there you have it. I've been talking to friends of mine, former Palestinian Authority intelligence officials (ejected from power by the Hamas coup), and they tell me that not only are they rooting for the Israelis to decimate Hamas, but that Fatah has actually been assisting the Israelis with targeting information. One of my friends -- if you want to know why they're my friends, read this book -- told me that one of his comrades was thrown off a high-rise building in Gaza City last year by Hamas, and so he sheds no tears for the Hamas dead. "Let the Israelis kill them," he said. "They've brought only rouble for my people."

There are other reports of Gazans helping the Isrealis in the current attacks. Of course Fatah would root against their political opponents. The irony, if you will, is that Hamas won the elections. It was no secret at election time that Hamas advocated the destruction of Israel, so presumably that was a popular view among the Palestinians at election time.

Maybe, but Ahmedinejad threatens Israel with destruction frequently.

No, in fact he has NEVER threatened Israel with destruction. Not once. Ever.

He has predicted that the Zionist government will fade away (quoting Khomeini), he has called it "satanic" and said it does deserve to exist, but he has never threatened it.

In other news, worse things have been said about the Iranian government about a bazillion times.

He may not have the power to order an attack, but those who do have such power usually do not force him to stop the threats.

Given that their haven't been any threats, there really isn't anything for them to stop. However, certain condemnations of Israel are useful for domestic political consumption.

You know, like when Bush and Cheney say that an unprovoked attack on Iran is not off the table or when former government officials and media figures say it "must" happen.

There are valid criticisms of Israel and they are no less valid coming from Ahmadinejad, no matter what a kook he may be.

The portions of the Koran that specifically advocate killing Christians, Jews, and "infidel" Muslims are quoted by Muslim leaders and scholars every day

Are they now? I'd love to see your cites on those daily quotes.

Being connected to people who do interfaith outreach in the Middle East between Christians and Muslims, I can tell you this statement is not representative of the realities. Living in one of the largest communities of Muslims outside of the Middle East, I can tell you this statement is not representative of the realities.

Crazies, radicals, and extremists who propose war as a solution to every problem exist in every religion and culture. You are one of them.

Likewise, crazy mullah Rick Warren and presidential nominee Pat Robertson have both advocated assassinating Muslim leaders and preemptively bombing their countries.

I wonder what effect this has on the perceptions of the people in Iran about the U.S. and Americans?

You do not know what is "unthinkable" to other people.

I know that a country faced with certain annihilation from an act will not commit that act as it gains them nothing but their own destruction. That is basic human nature.

Having to do with the fundamentals of being human, I can see why the concept might be an enigma to you.

Maybe, but Ahmedinejad threatens Israel with destruction frequently.

I might just add that curiously, in a move that puts him closer to Pat Robertson than Adolph Hitler, Ahmadinejad believes that God and specifically Jesus will return and help remove the "tyrannies" that exist in the form of the Israeli and U.S. governments.

Like Khomeini, he believes that the "Zionists" are "satanic" and therefore will be removed by Divine agency.