I’m remided of what the French minister said about Israel: “we have to have WW3 for this shitty little country?”
Looks like we do.

Posted by: ran | Jul 14 2006 6:49 utc | 4

With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive[*], which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle.

~Randolph Bourne, War is the Health of the State
[*]
What that says to me is that we are going to WAR…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2006 7:18 utc | 6

Uncle I hope you are wrong on the ‘we’ part but war is brewing so the first responsibility we have as human beings is to hold back the crowds of spectators and wanna-be participants from outside the ME.
There are far too many variables coming into play for anyone to have any certainty about what’s coming next (aka politico speak “the situation going forward”).
Issues that I have considered highly relevant that Billmon didn’t articulate (everyone will have their own list of these and the point of this post is not to start a “but this is more important than . . . ” thread but to try and consider as many relevancies as we can) include:
The effect the loss of Sharon has had on Israeli strategy. From over here what was once a particularly nasty bunch of Machiavellian plotters has become a particularly nasty bunch of knee jerk reactors. This Olmert germ goes for the most vicious and unreasonable option every time as Sharon did, the difference is that Sharon could predict where that fell deed would take the conflict and have the next evil deed ready and waiting. Olmert doesn’t seem to grasp that the strategy isn’t just to be evil, it is to be evil with a future purpose in mind. It seems as though Sharon had followed the strongman 101 playbook and surrounded himself with incompetents.
The effect of this blatant genocide on people throughout the ME. As long as it appeared that Israel would ‘follow a roadmap’ stick to peace accords or whatever other cliche of marketing fluffery would come out of US Israel Egypt ‘summits’, the sock puppets running Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia could keep sufficient members of their bourgeoisie and players in their security organs self deluded enough to keep the lid on the rest of the population’s anger.
The events of the past two weeks demonstrate all bets are off as far as Israel is concerned the only good Palestinian is a dead one.
The degree of self deception required to convince oneself that ‘everything will turn out OK for our Palestinian brothers and sisters’ is just too much for any thinking person. This in turn means that even if the sock-puppets can bring themselves to stay on the it’s none of our business’ road, they will be unable to find many security organs willing to repress the outpouring of rage that will be all over the Mid East by the end of the weekend. My guess would be that the shit will really begin to hit the fan after Friday prayers in a few short hours.
The sock-puppets rate their gigs a long way ahead of any favour to USuk. If the attempt at exterminating Palestinians doesn’t stop like yesterday, those fat and sleek old creeps are gonna have to be seen to be moving against Israel pronto.
Lastly Olmert’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon may achieve something that no one else has ever been able. That is to unite the xtian and Islamic populations together against the common enemy. Sharon’s careless attempt to offload all responsibility for the Shatila and Sabra war crimes on to the Lebanese xtian militias, combined with the assassination of Elie Hobeika, cost Israel what support the Xtians still had for it.
Billmon is dead on the money when he says that there is no long term upside for Israel out of any of this. This isn’t a cause for celebration however considering the numbers lives that will be lost before Palestine becomes a sovereign nation.
I spit upon every greed headed, main chancing, money making scum sucker, who has contributed to this horror show.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 14 2006 8:56 utc | 8

Billmon didn’t mention it but the UN veto anchors the USofA at one pole of the Axis of Evil. Israel is at the other of course.
It’d be hard to argue, with the AP carrying Bush’s strong support for Israel’s acts of war against Lebanon, that the USofA is anything other than the supporter of the neocon axle that spins between the pillowblocks of that Evil Axis.
I never thought I’d see such a vacuum at the top in the USofA.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 14 2006 12:23 utc | 10

On the mass media today, U.S. trying to get 25,000 Americans out of Lebanon. Wayne Madsen, in his report yesterday, scolded Bush for his disregard for American lives in Lebanon. Madsen made a valid point. Sometimes Americans should ask, who comes first in our priorities, Isreal or America?

Posted by: Rick Happ | Jul 14 2006 14:33 utc | 12

That’s easy Rick. I think it was Condi who said: “Nothing’s more important than the security of Israel”.

Posted by: ran | Jul 14 2006 14:50 utc | 14

This guy, Ray Close, a former CIA analyst in the Near East division gives a decent perspective: U.S. Policy in Lebanon

One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this this, it has backfired. Every single time. The national philosophy (it is really deeper and more significant that just a military tactic) that underlies this devotion to massive over-reaction, and particularly its corollary, collective punishment, is obviously and demonstrably foolish and futile. It does not intimidate or deter the Palestinians, and it never will. It hardens their determination to resist and to defy. I don’t care whether you consider the Palestinians to be terrorists or common criminals or freedom fighters or national resistance heroes. If you are an intelligent and sensitive human being, you learn from your past mistakes and you make a rational decision to try something different. The Israeli leadership for all these many generations has been incapable of performing that really rather simple mental and moral exercise.
…

Posted by: b | Jul 14 2006 15:09 utc | 16

Start
Today
Finish (top left picture)

Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 14 2006 15:31 utc | 18

Watch your back Olmert.

Hundreds of people poured into the Gaza Strip from Egypt on Friday after Palestinians blew a hole in the border wall separating the two places, an Associated Press reporter at the scene said.
People carrying suitcases crossed into Gaza through the hole. Some walked through on crutches, others ran and walked.

You know, I got that sinking feeling that Iran might announce a successful test of a nuclear weapon any day soon.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 14 2006 16:31 utc | 20

“Hundreds of people poured into the Gaza Strip from Egypt on Friday after Palestinians blew a hole in the border wall separating the two places, an Associated Press reporter at the scene said.
People carrying suitcases crossed into Gaza through the hole. Some walked through on crutches, others ran and walked.”
Egypt might not be the People’s Paradise, but why would anyone – particularly the disabled – want to cross into the hellhole that is Gaza? What don’t I get?

Posted by: NickM | Jul 14 2006 17:23 utc | 22

some questions:
how many here support the right of Lebanon to exist?
I do, even tho Lebanon was created in the 1920s, reconfigured in 1943, and came about as a result of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (as did other now-current states in the middle east) when it was a French puppet. I support its right to claims of sovereignty, as well, from an Islamic empire.
how many here support Israel’s right to exist?
if you don’t support both, what’s the difference?
–also, this is a simplified history…if anyone has data that disputes this history, I’d appreciate some imput. information here comes from various online sites.
Anyway, the area of Palestine/Israel has had Jewish inhabitants for 3000 years, and in the late 1800s had majority populations in some cities that are now part of Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was created as a result of Britain’s colonial control, and was part of an effort to win European zionist support in WWI by the British against the Germans (who also sought zionist support but didn’t create a declaration) …both Palestinian Arabs and Jews were supposed to be considered equally in this declaration, but the consideration for Palestinians was not equal.
When the Ottoman Empire fell, nations took the place of empire, as was the case in western europe, too, in the move from monarchies to national identities, and these nations in the middle east were most often the making of French or British (or other country with colonies) imperial decrees (i.e. Iraq) which, like Rwanda and Belgium, drew boundaries that included groups that were not always at peace with one another (sort of like France and Germany in history). Many times these same countries had a ruling group, say, Hutus or Sunnis, etc. that were not always the majority population, but, seemingly, made deals to protect their existence (and then went on to oppress and threaten the existence of their competitors for power.)
presently, east of Turkey, only Iraq, Syria and Lebanon continue to exist as three of the four sections that resulted from the British and French defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
After WW2, Britain declared it was withdrawing from Palestine after the UN’s 1947 partition plan called for the creation of two states. One state was absent for the vote, ten counties abstained, 33 states voted for the partition and 13 voted against. The 13 that voted against were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
the wiki quote says: Following the adoption of the plan, Arab countries proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants. This was narrowly defeated.
…Meeting in Cairo in November and December of 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.
…The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) argued [the resolution] violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000).
(which, again, reminds me of the sunni-shia and Iraq, which was “lower Iran,” in turn, during the Persian, or, excuse me Iranian Empire.)
back to my attempts to capsulize some history…
The day after the UN adopted the partition resolution, Arab Palestinians attacked and killed seven Jewish Palestinians, including two bus attacks.
when the British said they were leaving, with the 13 Arab nations that did not recognize the partition, ben Gurion declared a state of Israel and made deals to acquire arms for self-defense. (whether you agree it was justified self-defense or not.) ben Gurion’s declaration of independence was recognized by the Soviet Union, China and the United States, among others.
Days after, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and “transjordan” troops invaded Israel, along with volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.
The Arab League Secretary General said: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
The goal was not a two-state solution. The goal was not a more equitable partition. The goal was elimination, once the partition was voted in.
Anyway, the Arab League lost this fight and Israel ended up with 50% more territory than the original UN partition as its cease-fire lines, while Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Transjordan occupied the west bank. This initial conflict also resulted in massive population movements of both Arab Palestinians and Jewish members of other Arab nations. (Borders changed again in 1967 for these areas.)
Israel and Lebanon specifically fought again in the Lebanese War of 1982, tho there have been other conflicts, such as the Yom Kippur War, tho these have mostly involved either Egypt or Syria.
I’ve read posts here that appear to support the total removal of the state of Israel. Is that the common consensus, or do some ppl support the 1967 borders, or the 1948 borders, or a 70/30 split, based upon population at the time the partition was created…or what?
does anyone other than me think that eliminationist rhetoric (and beliefs) from either side make peace impossible? –does anyone other than me think that elimination is an unrealistic and counterproductive belief?

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 15 2006 2:08 utc | 24

I support the elimination of all US funding for the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian lands and lives.
If it were not for the massive sums The Lobby has managed to funnel directly from the US Treasury to Israel since 1967 a settlement of the war, rather than more American financed and subsidized settlements of Israelis and New Yorkers in Palestine, would have taken place years ago.
The US enables the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and now their rabid attacks against Lebanon and who knows whom else tomorrow, at no cost to themselves.
The US is the enabler of Israel’s drunken, greedy binge in the Middle East.
It is clear that the present American administration is in the thrall of the neocons in America and in Israel and that the far-right in Israel has the green light to do as it wishes, the effects on American interests and Americans be damned.
The Europeans, Africans and Asians in the USofA are not about to pack up and give the land back to the “Indians”. Neither are the Israelis going to pack up and leave Palestine.
But the people who met at Geneva, Israelis and Palestinians, were able to begin to rough out a plan enabling separtate states in the area. It was quashed by the neocons in Israel and in America. Israel does not want peace. It wants Palestine.
It is up to Americans. If we continue to allow The Lobby to run our foreign policy and to fund Israel’s perpetual defense of injustice then we and the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Iraqis and the Syrians and the Iranians and everyone else on earth will continue to pay the price for our inaction.
All we have to do is “just say no” to The Lobby.
Cut off every penny of “aid” to Israel until there is a contiguous sovereign Palsetinian state in Palestine.
The sky will not fall. It will be the end of Death As A Way Of Life and the beginning of an alternative.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jul 15 2006 2:38 utc | 26

If it were not for the massive sums The Lobby has managed to funnel directly from the US Treasury to Israel since 1967 a settlement of the war, rather than more American financed and subsidized settlements of Israelis and New Yorkers in Palestine, would have taken place years ago.
Do you really believe this idiocy? The world is full of ethnic conflicts that never end until one side is able to murder all the others or both sides are destroyed.

Posted by: citizen k | Jul 15 2006 3:17 utc | 28

What exactly was wrong with the ethnically/religiously mixed Palestine state, pre-1947? And has it been worth the long forgotten divide and conquer strategy of its former colonial masters? And is this where the partition talk in Iraq will enevitably lead — to 60 years (or more) of misery?

Posted by: anna missed | Jul 15 2006 4:34 utc | 30

skip to the end … fauxreal thanks for the synopsis. Will try to read again, in the meantime, as John Lennon said, and Yoko, Love is the Answer, you’ve gotta let it, you’ve gotta let it flow ow ow.

Posted by: jonku | Jul 16 2006 10:42 utc | 32