The fact is that the recent conflict is not about any "kidnapped" soldiers or Israel's "right to exist" -- this is about Israel preparing the ground for launching an attack on Iran, and launching a war that will inevitably suck in the US of A.

Accusing Israeli officials of using the Lebanon crisis to find new reasons to attack Iran, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies writes that "There is no evidence that [Iran] dominates the Hezbollah or has more control than Syria... Until there are hard facts, Iran's role in all of this is a matter of speculation, and conspiracy theories are not facts or news."

Attractively simple and if my mother had wheels she'd be a Mack truck. Heaven only knows what strategies lurk in the mind of Bush but countries don't have strategies , they have leaders and ours will change in two years , praise be. Who knows what that president will want.

America's strategy has been consistent in the Middle East for 5 decades and has not changed under any administration...AIPAC made sure of that. American Presidents are not the ones setting ME foreign policy.

BTW does whiterose refer

No. A white rose is the symbolizes friendship.

These are very constructive comments Daniel. Just two initial observations.

You say:

A wider regional conflagration is not the game plan of any of the protagonists right now, messages have even been exchanged between Jerusalem and Damascus to that effect, but when a high tech and intensity shooting match is in progress, unpredicted and unintended things may happen – and that is a real danger in letting this continue.

Whether or not anyone seeks a "conflagration", I don't think you should exclude the hypotheis that powerful decision-makers in the US, or Israel, or both have concluded that an escalating chain reaction of crisis and conflict in the Middle East, one that eventually sweeps up Iran and Syria, and in the end redraws the maps and alignments in the region, is indeed the best path toward the achievement of their overall strategic goals - diplomatic communiques notwithstanding.

You might find this unrealistic from an Israeli standpoint, since Israelis would actually face the military brunt of such an expanded conflcit. But chickenhawk American neocons are more or less safely ensconced behind their editorial desks in New York and Washington, on the other side of a wide ocean, and these are the kinds of games they play.

As for why Bush hasn't visited you, it's simple. He's a coward. Just look at his quickie, covert, Speedy Gonzalez visits to Iraq. As Rabin's death shows, Israel can't even guarantee the security of its own chief executive. There's no way Bush is going to put himself at the same sort of risk. They can't invent enough helmets and flak jackets for him.

DanK, you wrote: "You might find this unrealistic from an Israeli standpoint, since Israelis would actually face the military brunt of such an expanded conflcit. But chickenhawk American neocons are more or less safely ensconced behind their editorial desks in New York and Washington, on the other side of a wide ocean, and these are the kinds of games they play."

Yes, I agree these kinds of scenarios can't be ruled out so long as Bush and Cheney are in office. A view of the Middle East that perhaps it's as good a time as ever to "take out the trash" (letting the violence escalate and spread, in order to create a situation which could lead to the fall of as many as possible regimes of ME Arab states and Iran), is not at all inconsistent with what people like Perle and Kristol have been saying publicly for years.

I don't find it implausible that Cheney privately shares a similar mindset and ideal aims, although, as someone in a governing position he has to find some way to act on such views. He's shown himself to be pretty adept at doing just that.

Specifically, if permanent military bases in Iraq do not seem to be a "given" from the perspective of this Administration, then upsetting the applecart, or passively watching as it is upset, throughout the ME might be seen as maximizing the chances that the US would have a long-term military presence *somewhere* in the ME.

Per whiterosebuddy's comments, I would be very surprised if even this Administration would want to "take over"--even if they actually could do that at some acceptable cost--what is now Israel in the wake of some hypothetical widespread regional war that left Israel devastated. If they thought they could establish a long-term military presence in the ME outside of Israel, why would they want to accept the headaches that go along with trying to govern that land?

Cheney's private aims and views may prove to be pivotal. None of us is likely to know what those views are for 20 years, if then.

I have only one quarrel with Daniel Levy (the fact that he is not the Prime Minister is a sad commentary on the state of Israeli politics :-) ): Israel has to stand alone. No counting on US as helping in negotiations.

Bush did not visit Israel yet? Count your blessings.

If there is a political will in Israel to engage in diplomacy in the manner suggested by Daniel, USA most probably would not sabotage it, but it is absolutely not in the realm of possibilities that USA would influence Israeli politics in this direction. Note that I wrote "USA would most probably not sabotage diplomatic initiatives" and "USA absolutely will not promote meaningful diplomatic initiatives".

With another President here, who knows.

Re whiterose , thanks. BTW I admire those
students

Who knows what in the bloody hell the objectives really are?

The politicians say one thing, the military another.

Dan Halutz says that "it's impossible to crush a movement" and the commander of the Golani brigade in Gaza says the actions on the north en front are strengthening the will of the terror groups.

Of course the military will proceed as if the realities they see are irrelevent and insignificent in the face of risings in the blood.

One wonders if indeed the conflagration will be contained if PM Erdogan (as threatened) finally makes moves into northern Iraq to take on the PKK after 3 years of far more Turkish deaths-by-terrorists than than Israeli deaths caused by Hezbollah.

Perhaps though, the deaths of Turks fall into the collateral side of John Bolton's equation regarding the respective value of corpses depending on whether they can be catergorized as collaterals or shahids. Washington appears to think so.

Unless there is a regime change in Turkey, Israel's ties to Turkey have been severely compromised by the war on Lebanon. Erdogan has been very clear who he blames. Who thinks that the Turkish military will heed the voices of their former allies in DC think tanks if Erdogan unleashes them against the PKK at long last?

Israel's tissue allies in the ME may not be able to able to contain their populations if they continue their slaughter and pull more bonehead moves such as destroying UAE trucks bringing medical assistance into Lebanon.

Then there's the little matter of the estimated 500,000 Lebanese refugees.

AmericanDreamer,

I don't at all think the US wants to take over Israel, or views Israel as some sort of lost cause that it will now watch commit national suicide. They still want to win. So what does winning consist in for them? My best guess about the administration's overall strategic plan is this:

1. The US allows Israel to begin the operation of crushing Hizbollah and eliminating it as a military factor in the region. The US will stay out of direct participation in the Israel-Hizbollah conflict, but back up Israel's effort by intimidating Hizbollah's friends, Syria and Iran, and applying military force to those two countries if necessary.

2. They will also allow Israel to crush and marginalize Hamas by isolating Hamas and punishing the Palestinians until the latter choose new leadership.

3. The US will assist in both of these local efforts mainly by its diplomatic stance: preventing intervention or sanctions from other parts of the world, and giving Israel a free hand. They will assist with covert military and intelligence support, but will be reluctant to intervene directly in the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon neighborhood, which they see as Israel's sphere of influence and chief responsibility.

4. Both Israel and the US further hope to cement these local changes into place by bringing about regime change of some kind in Syria and Iran, with more west-friendly, US-friendly governments - governments willing to recognize Israel in exchange for good commercial relations with the West, security guarantees, etc. Maybe the regime change will be accomplished by unrelenting diplomatic and military pressure leading to a change in policies by the existing rulers (probably the preferred course of action for Syria); or maybe it will be accomplished by fomenting popular insurrection; or maybe by direct military means.

5. The point is to eliminate, whether gradually or suddenly, the entire regional support network for the Palestinians, to produce a situation in which the Palestinians are out of friends and options, and are forced to accept a settlement on terms preferred by Israel. With no arms, money or global diplomatic support flowing into Palestine, the national movement will, they assume, sputter and eventually die entirely.

6. Once they have been reduced to begging for whatever they can get, the Palestinians in the end get some sort of demilitarized "state" or homeland on the remaining chunks of the West Bank. Israel gets Jerusalem, and gets to keep more or less all the settlements. Israel gets total security responsibility for the entire region of Israel+Palestinian homeland. They get bases and security zones scattered among the Palestinian territories, including along the Jordan river. In effect they get control of everything, with the Palestinians exercising some rather limited form of home rule.

7. Once it is clear to all that the Palestinian casue is a lost one, people in the region will, they assume, adjust to the new reality. The Sunni Arab states, for example, are already lining up with the US (and indirectly Israel) because they fear rising Iranian and Shiite influence in the region. They want Israel to take out Hizbollah, and they want the US to tighten the screws and roll back Iran.

8. Iraq will remain a somewhat unsettled basket case, but with the eventual decline of the emotional Palestinian cause as a factor in the region, and a consequent decline in the global jihadist movement, and with a chastened Iran across the border, the hope is that the insugency dwindles, the Sadrists decline as a factor, more traditional strong hands assert their authority, and some rough settlement based on division of territories emerges.

I think it is a mistake to assume, as many commentators do, that the Bush administration would not dare to take on larger foes before "finishing" in Iraq. The Bushies do not share the quagmire-disaster view of Iraq, which they view as just the typical whining defeatism of the left. Where many people see failure and ruin, they see opportunities. I believe they see taking on other foes as the way to fix Iraq. That's how these guys think. When they have a problem, they approach the problem indirectly by escalating and seeking new battlefields. They moved on to Iraq before Afghanistan was "finished," and they believed the road to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ran through Baghdad. Now they no doubt believe the road to Baghdad runs through Tehran.

If the Israel-Hizbollah conflict quickly sparks wider conflict in the region, and races out of control, then that means that the big battle comes sooner rather than later, like a premature baby. But this is a battle they are determined to have one way or another, so that is not a top concern for them.

Keep in mind that these guys have rather grand views of themselves, and believe they live in dramatic, world historical times, calling for big, bold moves on the global board. Bush thinks he is Roosevelt in 1940 or 1941.

Remember that line about the administration'c contempt for the "reality-based community"? That line is often misinterpreted. The speaker was not contrasing a reality-based vs. a faith-based approach. What he was saying is that the administration's critics are small, unimaginative people and limited thinkers. They are trapped inside the narrow frameworks created by business-as-usual global "realities". However, the Bushies think they are energetic and imaginative dynamos, acting boldly and exerting titanic power to change existing realities and remake the world.

So: realistic plan or delusional, megalomaniacal, murderous lunacy? You tell me. But I do sincerely believe the plan still consists of something along these lines. And the Bushies have only a couple of years left to write out the epochal legacy they want to leave.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I think that framing the crisis as Israel defending itself negates any calls for negotiations. I agree that Israel’s cause here is not just two soldiers. Israel routinely kidnaps people. I imagine that Hezbollah was thinking about a prisoner exchange (and Gaza) when they captured the soldiers. Hamas military and whoever else took Gilad Shilat were probably doing it as a response to one of the Israeli errant attacks but has nothing to do with civilians in Gaza or the elected government, most of whom were renditioned to Israel.It is not just a few people who think it is all about Israel-Palestine. And it’s not just a few that think Israel does not want to end this. Israel has admitted as much and admitted that they want to destroy Hezbollah.

Israel is hypocritical to bring up Hezbollah ignoring UN resolutions. They, too, ignore resolutions and then try to use them later to justify actions. Israel has had dozens of UN resolutions passed against it for violating human rights among other things. They just stuff them n the glove box. They would have had dozens and dozens of more severe resolutions passed against them if not for sole U.S. veto. Syria’s repeated offers to facilitate negotiations have been rebuffed, as has the deployment of international forces. Israel’s goal seems to be regime change in Lebanon.

I watch broadcast news in dismay. That Iran and Syria are “behind this” is reported as gospel. Over 200 Lebanese have been slaughtered (and it doesn’t wash that IDF thinks Hezbollah fighters are sitting in apartments in South Beirut). Yet, watching broadcast news or reading headlines, it is the attack on Israel that is highlighted. IDF attacks are reported; they are just buried behind the Israel-as-injured-party stories. Yesterday while dozens of Lebanese were killed by IDF, the only video that I saw (on several channels) was that of an empty apartment getting hit in Haifa. Fair and balanced? Truthful?

One CBS analyst, Col. Mitch Mitchell, spoke of the reach of Hezbollah as being greater and more powerful than al Qaeda and how they arrested two Hezbollah last month in America plotting a big attack. Conflating localized rebel groups who use terror with global terror groups like al Qaeda is something the administration has been chipping away at for five years now. Of course, it means we may have to go fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here pretty soon.

I heard from two separate broadcasts that the U.S. is moving as fast as they can on evacuations but have to protect against attacks, even though they don’t think Hezbollah would attack evacuees. Please. Israel is shelling Lebanon, not Hezbollah, but we can’t even admit that it is Israel’s bombs that we are evacuating from. They are using the same “collective punishment” in Gaza. These are atrocities and war crimes. But the international community will never say so or demand an immediate cessation.

I doubt that, if things were to play out along the lines you surmise, the cause of the Palestinians would peter out. To the contrary, I think such a "solution" as you imagine would continue to fuel the rage.

You may very well be right, but as you go on to recognize, that never stops the wishful thinking in Washington and Israel: if only the Syrians were not allowing Hamas and Hexbollah operatives to use headquarters in Syria; if only the Iranians were not arming Hexbollah; if only Nasser or Arafat or Palestinian or Arab leader so-and-so was out of the picture, etc.

As I see it, permanent bases in Iraq are meant to pressure and intimidate Iran and Syria, and make the possibility of forward basing of US ground forces in the event of war with one or both of those countries, and supply lines running into the heart of the Middle East, a fact to be reckoned with. That's one reason Bush won't leave, although the mission may change.

Several US moves since 9/11 can be seen as ways of tightening the noose around Iran, by creating the opportunity for multiple fronts against them in a future war. Consider some key neighboring states, and US moves and relations with these states in the last few years: Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar.

True - but that doesn't mean the US won't TRY.

Now whoever rated this post zero is just being an idiot.

This post was a simple statement of opinion and included a link to an article which included a quote by a respected international military strategy expert, Anthony Cordesman. In my view, he is clearly correct, but regardless of his viewpoint, his viewpoint is certainly worth more than a zero rating.

I rated this post a 4, but unfortunately, 0 + 4 divided by 2 only gives it a 2.

Useful links to offsite materials should be rated according to their value, not the opinion. An exception might be when the links are repeated too many times.

UPDATE: And the article points out exactly what I've been saying here for some time, as follows:

"Through Hamas and the Hezbollah, Iran could bring the war to Israeli territory, a scenario that has further accentuated Israel's vulnerability to asymmetric warfare. By preemptively attacking Hamas and the Hezbollah now, Israel can significantly deprive Iran of its capabilities to retaliate against the Jewish State in the event of a U.S. assault on Iran. Once Iran obtains a nuclear capability, however, this option may no longer be available to Israel."

Exactly - except that the point of attacking Hizballah now is not to deprive Iran of the ability to use Hizballah, it is in fact to remove one of the reasons cited by Western observers for the US NOT attacking Iran - namely, that Iran could use Hizballah to retaliate. If Hizballah is ALREADY at war with Israel, Israel obviously feels that the US might as well attack Iran, since the damage is already done.

Where Israel may miscalculate is that the US might not be happy about the damage already being done, especially with 25,000 US citizens in harms war from Israeli bombs.

The reality is that Israel wants to attack Iran now because if Iran ever does get nuclear weapons, Israel's and the US's policy of regime change for Iran will have to be taken off the table.

Thus, Israel, irritated that the US has been dragging its feet toward the war in Iran as it hems and haws over the possible impact on the US elections, has widened the ME war in order to force the US into a war with Iran.

Whether this will work at this time is unclear. What is clear is thst a war between the US and Iran is virtually inevitable - at least under the Bush administration or any likely Republican administration to follow - and probably under the most likely Democratic administration, should one arise in 2008.

NBC did a good job tonight. They lead the news from the Lebanese perspective. They made very clear that 250 Lebanese civilians had been killed and 25 Israelis. They focused on Americans in Lebanon and our goverments late response to evacuate them. They made clear that the largest number of Lebanese outside Lebanon are in Michigan. They broadcast a story about a Michigan family whose elderly parents had to take a scary trip to get stranded in Syria. They broadcast a protest march in Michigan by Lebanese against the war. Good job. Nice to see some balance.

Israel Lobby Watch

The Merkavas of Freedom have entered the refugee camps of Gaza

Israel Lobby Watch

We're witnessing nothing less than the last desperate roll of the dice by a dying Bush administration and its Likudnik allies in Israel.

Underwritten in dollars by the US taxpayer and in blood by US servicemen and women.

 The conclusion is inescapable and it is is irrefutable

Hello again Mary of RI and Zionista
Shalom

I agree.

Both Israel and the US are sowing the seeds for a certain defeat. The problem is how many people will die in the process, and how much this will cost the US taxpayer.

Amen to that.  It doesn't matter a whit whether Israel is right or wrong.  It matters who can control the map.  The US can't control the map of Afghanistan or Iraq.  The US government can't control our own borders let alone the borders of whatever kind of colony it wants in the Mideast.  It doesn't matter if it defeats Iran, it can't control Iran.  It already proved that once with the Shah. 

Reading here and in the Bogging from Beirut post, I found my mind returning to a poem by Wilfred Owen, written during the last "Gentleman's War," and set to music by Benjamin Britten in his War Requiem.  

The poem is Strange Meeting:

I won't quote it all, but maybe these few lines encapsule what the whole Middle East Fiasco means to me.

"Strange friend," I said, "here is no cause to mourn."
"None," said the other, "save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something had been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled,
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.

Read it, and while you're at it, read more of Owen's' poetry.  He needs rediscovery.  We need that he never be forgotten.

Mike

Wow. Thanks for the link Mike. That's spine-tinglingly good.

An important essay. Mr Levy, have you thought of writing a shorter version for the New York Times? Americans need to hear your thoughts.

It should be evident just how insane is the mindset of the ME Grand Planners from the point of view of those who understand what the US military's true capabilities are for engaging in conflict on multiple fronts.

Another way to look at George Will's column this week blasting the neocons is as a reflection of some concern that, as between a) a Republican party in the grip of leaders who have no sense of the limitations of US military capability and grossly overcommit, with inevitable disasters the result; and b) a Democratic party, which, while it has a squishy identity on national security issues, does not exhibit any such tendencies, the Republican party is at some risk of erosion of its support among military personnel who make and carry out war plans, as distinct from the contractors who stand to rake in big dough (an emerging wedge issue there between different "military" constituencies?).

Will's aim is to reassure anxious national security Republicans that neoconservatism does not represent the "real" Republican party on national security issues.

What he might have difficulty explaining--if someone asked him to do so--is how, if this is the case, key goals and tactics of some of the neoconservatives such as Kristol and Perle have somehow managed to be reflected in decisions this Republican Administration has made.

If Kristol & Co.'s ideas have no influence in this Administration, why bother blasting him? If those ideas have had influence, then are Bush and Cheney just helpless pawns in the face of Kristol's evidently beguiling and too-difficult-to-resist advice? Have they simply been brainwashed? Does Condi Rice say or do anything Bush doesn't want her to?

One of the tensions/contradictions in his writings over the years is between his love of the grandiose, clearcut and pure vision, and his rhetorical insistence on "facing facts", seeing the world the way it is even where that is not the way we'd like it to be, and not putting the government to work at doing grand things it just cannot pull off (old fashioned conservatism).

He wants national greatness. He just doesn't think the actions of government are a way to get there.

He loved Reagan precisely for the boldness of his vision (well, ok, it was the access, but he liked the high rhetoric, too), the audacity of his rhetoric, his willingness to see and state the world in good and evil terms vis a vis the Soviets. With regard to Iraq and the current situation, it appears he thinks his party has gone at least a bridge too far, that the canyon between the grand rhetoric and professed aims, and the strategies being used to achieve them (at least as implemented) has become too wide for his taste. This Republican government--at the moment anyway--needs to stifle itself.

I agree, except one would hope that the Gray Lady would have enough sense to publish the whole thing, and the readers of her (who, after all, are supposed to be the elite) would have enough sense to read it all.

Mike

I agree with you. I don't think he's correct about there not being a wider gameplan. Everything the Israelis have said so far about Syria and Iran pretty clearly shows their intent is wider than just Hizballah - and a number of analysts have said so.

I also don't see how he squares "messages between Tel Aviv and Damascus" with the Israeli demand that Syria restrain Hizballah within 72 hours or Israel will attack Syria.

Howard writes.

Rough translation: it is sweet and proper to die for one's fatherland.

Meaning of course "The Old Lie" not the poem proper. Not that I think even the dullest and most perverse of readers could misinterpret the poem entire. Paradoxically, it's hard to project what kind of poetry might have come from Owen's pen had he survived the War to End all Wars. Maybe without the desperate inspiration of his service on the front he might have written polite verse for ladies in lavender to recite to each other at lawn parties.

I read this one last a couple of years ago.  Thanks for reminding me of it.

Mike

Israel Lobby Watch

Larry Johnson wrote that Israel had swallowed a "stupid pill". The Bush Administration needed no such pill and they've a nastier one to swallow.

The contrast between the Bush UnderSecty of State and Brzezinski/Kissinger this evening on NewsHour could not have been more striking.

On the one hand, Bush continues to enable the Israeli aggression apparently believing that international pressure (ie everyone but the US) can bring Syria, Iran and Hizbollah to heel. In short, the stupid pill people are delusional. They want the US supported autocrats in Saudi and Jordan to commit hara kiri for Israel and somehow pressure Israel's antagonists to give up.

Amazing isn't it???

B/K have a different plan.{ Brzezinski, Kissinger Debate U.S. Role in Mideast Crisis} This is not going to stop until Bush negotiates directly with Hizbollah, Syria and Iran.  WOW. That's just what Josh Landis has been saying

If Washington and Israel do have to settle this by going to Damascus, then Bashar will have sent his message loud and clear: I am here. I demand respect. Cut out all the silliness about isolation and the blind eye doctor. Syria is an important player. Anyone who wants to do business in the region will have to address me politely and be ready to trade in kind. Syria is not a charitable organization.

 

I just received an email from Bill Powers of the National Journal on an entirely different subject. "Come to Jesus Time" is a favorite of his and one I hadn't heard in years - not since my political daze in the South.

It is Come To Jesus Time for Israel and their NeoCon allies in Washington

PS Mary

Sorry I ddn't please you ..will try harder next time. Can't do anything about Landis, Brzezinski or Kissinger..Afraidd I can't do much about Israel, its Lobby or the neocons either but I'll try

Israel Lobby Watch

Believe Bush War Party/IsraelLobby  or the Prime Minister of Lebanon?

Address to the Diplomatic Corps

By the Prime Minister
H.E. Mr. Fuad Siniora
Grand Serail, Beirut, July 19, 2006

Syria expert Josh Landis of the Univesity of Oklahoma provides this comment from a former US ambassador to an Arab country revealing how pitifully weak the Bush-Lobby-War Party line is

First, the US is in a weaker position to influence the outcome of this crisis than any time in the last three decades. Our influence in the region couldn't be lower.

Second, I do not see how Hezbullah can be defeated, much less dismantled.

I fear that our policy has become so misguided that we will end up only making matters worse. We don't know what the situation will look like in a month, but it is liable to be very bad for Arab moderates and for the US

All Hat .No Cattle...Come to Jesus Time

Gee Mary..You are hell on wheels today. God bless you!

No pleasing you is there..But it dawned on me..Perhaps it isn't Europeans, Arabs, the Ambassador or the PM of Lebanon that bothers you so.

Perhaps it is jsut the substance of what we all have to tell you. That right?

Let those who have ears, hear, eyes-see.

See ya

Circumstances rule.

Today is not the same as yesterday.

In other words, without being privy to the counsel going on between Washington and Israel, how do I know FOR CERTAIN why the TIMING is chosen as it is?

One can easily suggest any number of reasons, including the fact that this year is election year in the US, and the fact that the US has been slow in setting up the war on Iran that Israel desires.

A certain amount of coordination between the US and Israel is also necessary if the goal is to actually start a war, right?

Olmert's visit some months ago was specific in that while the media talked about the Palestinian situation, Olmert talked about Iran. It's very likely that the current situation was planned at that meeting.

If you have the minutes of those meetings, I'd like to see them - assuming anything was written down, of course.

Finally, the same question could be asked in the other direction: if Hamas and Hibzallah are such "bad guys", why didn't Israel attack them last year - when in fact the plan was, according to Israeli analysts, precisely that - or the previous year - or before the last 18 months when Hizballah was in fact restraining itself from attacking Israel?

Why did Israel not finish off Hibzallah when they were in fact occupying Lebanon?

Like I said - circumstances rule.

Have stopped trying to make sense of madness - it takes its toll.

Nothing that the Israelis are doing makes any sense. They cannot bomb Hizbollah out of S. Lebanon. That is impossible short of heavy bombers which they do not have or nuclear weapons which would wipe out at least 1/2 of Israel at the same time.

Nothing makes sense TH..not even the apparent goal of sucking the US into fighting Iran and Syria..that is not going to happend - period. And apparently Billy Kristol's crowd are beside themselves that Bush hasn't sent in the Marines

Madness takes its toll TH. All San Franciscanws know this

Voters for Peace

Now that Bush told them to drop dead

Lebanon turns to Vatican for help

How many troops does the Vatican have? Well Bush has given Olmert a week to kill as many Lebanese as he can. After that, I guess Israel wll become a rogue state and Bush in a move to enforce the scores of UN resolutions this criminal enterprise has violated with impunity over the years, will send in the 82d Airborne and carrier battlegroup to clear Northern Israel of IDf

Right???? 

Voters for Peace

the neocon, Israeli and oil/military-industrial complex game plan

Holy cow!  Now the Israel Lobby includes OPEC states?  Is there anyone left out anymore?