A couple of questions for you:

1)Why are you so upset that the United States did not provide Israel with an "opt out" clause just after the start of the invasion? Have you forgotten that Israel only exists because of the United States? Moreover, has it never occurred to you that most of the Arab world's hatred for the U.S. comes not necessarily because of its coercive oil policies but because of its undying support of Israel? Expecting, as you do, the United States to solve all of Israel's problems (i.e. negotiating a peace on its behalf) is akin to a 50 year old millionaire asking his 230 year old grandmother to wipe his ass.

2)Why are you so convinced that diplomatic negotiations will work with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and even Hezbollah? You cannot provide one single instance where anything truly substantive with regard to lasting peace has occurred between Israel and any of its neighbors. Unless, of course, you mention the brief periods of 'low hostility' that typically follow military clashes. Indeed, when this current situation ends in Lebanon it is likely that there will be some months of low hostility to follow.

And then there will be another war. Just like there is EVERY time. History neither lies nor fails to repeat itself.

In my opinion, Neocons in the Bush administration are trying to widen the Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria, not stop it. The Bush administration is laying the conditions for regional conflagration so we will be “in wartime” during the November Congressional elections. Consider this speculation on the Internet a couple of months ago: Karl Rove’s agenda is to keep the Republicans in power in Congress and thus assure no significant action is instituted against President Bush for his past or present actions or policies by having an “October Surprise.” Karl Rove needs some real meat to work with, considering Bush’s very low approval rating, so at the least we will see some dangerous saber rattling against Iran and Syria for political purposes. We should expect plenty of time-tested fear-mongering from Rove. I fear it may go beyond just rattling the sabers. Will Congress block any Administration move to go to war ?

Have you forgotten that Israel only exists because of the United States?

I'm not sure this statement can be justified. As I understand it, America had no role in Israel's early formation, circa 1920 - 1948. Thereafter, Israel's principal western sponsor was France until around 1967.

By the time the United States became Israel's patron, it had already won its critical wars. In the early 70's prior to the Yom Kippur war, it was believed to have developed its own nuclear deterrent.

In short, Israel does not owe its existence to the United States.

True, America has provided massive amounts of aid and financing to Israel, and without that aid and financing, Israel would likely have to (a) Accept a reduced standard of living; (b) Find some other western patron, either France or the USSR/Russia; (c) Perhaps stop oppressing the Palestinians and be more motivated to make peace with its opponents on more even terms.

But existence? Nah.

You cannot provide one single instance where anything truly substantive with regard to lasting peace has occurred between Israel and any of its neighbors.

Hmmm well, Jordan and Israel have not had military conflict for almost 40 years and have signed a peace treaty. That's actually pretty good.

And Egypt, Israel's largest and most powerful neighbor (and lets be serious, the only real threat on its immediate borders) signed a peace treaty and has been on good relations with Israel for thirty years.

You have to admit, that's not bad.

An I right in deducing you believe that , to some extent , Olmert attacked Lebanon to store up credit with the Israeli public which he could later employ to sell them on a substantial withdrawal from the West Bank ?

Do you think we Israelis enjoy being the cannon-fodder for the Cheney-neocon-Christian Right concoction of regional make-over with a touch of Rapture readiness.

I suspect not. De you think we Americans enjoy being the targets of terror attacks launched against us by Arabs who are angry over our decades of unflinching military and diplomatic support for Israel?

Mr. Levy, I read your earlier attack when it appeared in Ha'aretz and strongly agree. I have been trying to make the same arguments (through the prism of my own political optic) here as well. First, I think the dimensions of the problems created by the neocons tactic both here (US-Iraq) and in Israel-Lebanon are much greater and deeper than we can presently foresee. I do not know how to tiptoe around the assessment that the Israeli response has been nearly a total failure. Not as bad as Iraq, certainly, but horrific. And the military problems of an unrealistic cease-fire resolution such as the one Bush has "generously" given Israel, will be less effective in the end than a less friendly one, that is more rooted in the geo-political reality and less on the fantasies in the Bush-neocon brain. There has been a shift in the Arab world since 1967 and 1973. The newer lightweight long distance rocketry puts a very potent weapon in the hands of a rag-tag Army. This problem (for Israel) will get worse, not better, as time progresses and no overall peace agreement is signed. I remember Arab (PLA) negotiators regretting the missed opportunity of leaving the Clinton-brokered agreement on the table; I think the Israeli side will now regret their deliberate embrace of an exclusively military attempt to impose its will on the key problems in the Middle East.
If there is a strong anti-neocon counterweight both here and in Israel we may have a political way out. But it really seems to require more visible opposition in Israel to the neocon ideas that are so self-destructive; this would help provide some ability here to question the present mindless support (of both political parties)for neocon Middle East politics regarding Israel. A refashioned politics here and in Israel might have some hope of actually negotiating a broad peace agreement.

The Administration’s 3-week unwillingness to back a ceasefire removed Israel’s only real exit strategy.

I don't understand this. Israel is not exactly tied down to an occupation in Lebanon. So far, it has only launched air strikes and incursions. It can announce a cessation of its military operations at any time. There is every reason to believe that when it does, Hizbollah will stop firing rockets. So far, Nasrallah has done exactly what he has said he would do.

Your whole essay is based on the premise that Israel is not responsible for its own actions.

You seem to hypothesize (a) that Israeli leaders and military planners "gamed out" this war with an expectation that they would be permitted to degrade Hizbollah for a few days, and "knock them off balance," until the US fairly rapidly stepped step in to force a cease-fire, (b) that this exit strategy was developed without consultation and coordination with US leaders and planners, who apparently had other plans (c) that when Israeli leaders asked for more time to smash Hezbollah, this was only "an understandable part of their sales pitch for domestic consumption and of their military psych-ops", and (d) that American leaders should have grasped this reality and are "AWOL" for failing to provide a ladder for Israel to climb down from its own bloody military campaign, and its "understandable" psy-ops and domestic propaganda needs!

Aside from the fact that I think your theory rests on the assumption of a level of miscommunication and misinterpretation of intentions between the incestuous American and Israeli leadership that is laughably implausible, I am also struck by the breathtaking, spoiled arrogance of the suggestion that it is Israel's role to act out with whatever ruthlessness and misinformation it chooses, and America's role to force them to stop.

You sound like a teenager who says, "it is my role as rebellious adolescent to get drunk at parties and then race cars at 120 MPH down Main Street. It is your job as responsible dad to call me on my cell phone and force me to come home, and give me a face-saving way out of the life-threatening situation I have put myself in. And when I swear and scream at you to let me stay, your job is to grasp that the screaming is all an act designed to impress my friends, and is quite understandable after all."

Well, as a matter of fact, I do have several bones to pick with the neocon jackasses who are running ny country. But I also have a suggestion. Why don't you let us Americans take care of changing our own stupid leadership, while you pay attention to your own country and your own leadership. And instead of passing the buck, and whining about the negligent failure of Americans to bail you out of your reckless adventures, why don't you take responsibility for your own damn country and its actions.

You may have noticed that there is a sizeable contingent of American soldiers in Iraq, who were most likely sent there as part of a grand plan to remake the Middle East into a more Israel-friendly place. I am sure they will be delighted to learn that well-placed Israelies think America is "AWOL".

So Olmert launched the war to undermine the chances for the sort of peace he had just campaigned for in his election and also left the Likud for? That makes a lot of sense.

And then there will be another war. Just like there is EVERY time. History neither lies nor fails to repeat itself.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

More than that. Maintaining a tough image as credit to sell a substantial withdrawal could have been achieved by a short sharp collective punishment campaign followed by prisoner exchange as usual.

Instead Israel has now committed itself to keeping thousands of troops in south Lebanon until replaced by an international force.

That's exactly where most Israelis don't want to be after defeat in a similar occupation for 18 years.

There won't be an international force without a comprehensive settlement and the Israeli government has just made Israel hostage to achieving a comprehensive settlement.

Introducing an international force implies much more than a "substantial" withdrawal from the West Bank.

The fact that Israel is in a strategic impasse that cannot be resolved without making real peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians, is being driven home to every Israeli simultaneously with demonstrating that real peace is achievable when arrogant demands like holding prisoners, and keeping territorial conquests like the Chebaa farms in Lebanon and the settlements on the West Bank are abandoned and replaced with more reasonable demands like "please stop bombarding us when we stop bombarding you".

The Iranians are the guys with the cunning plans.

I agree.  Iran is already bankrolling Shi'a militia (Mahdi ) in Iraq, just waiting for this administration to look cross-eyed at them. Things could get even worse in Iraq for the U.S. military not to mention the region. It's not that Bush lacks cunning; it's just that his vision is clouded by his Call to Greatness in Israel - So sayeth the Lord.

As I understand it, America had no role in Israel's early formation, circa 1920 - 1948. Thereafter, Israel's principal western sponsor was France until around 1967.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yep, it's a typo. But in this case, perhaps there was a subconscious neural transfer, since there might have been a root reference to 'machismo' and/or 'masochism', given the heroic Bush regime's obsessions with manliness and pain and suffering (by other people).

Mayberry Machists denying an objective reality behind complexes of sensations?

Al Rashid made an observation about the Taliban which was striking. He noted how shockingly ignorant they were. Not necessarily stupid, but ignorant and ill informed. They knew nothing of governing, they knew nothing of the world beyond them, they knew nothing of culture, art, literature, agriculture, economics, mechanics, etc. They were even ignorant of the Koran and of Islamic faith, though they professed otherwise.

All they really knew was their own prejudices, though they knew those very well. The Taliban had the belief that this was all they needed to know to run a country.

When we come to George W. Bush and his key braintrust, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice et al... we come to an American Taliban.

And what is remarkable about them is their shocking ignorance. They are not stupid men, necessarily (actually... yes, they are stupid). They are not necessarily poorly informed.

But like the Taliban, this is a group of men who have fallen in love with their own prejudices, and have concluded that all they need to know to rule the world is their own prejudices.

They are not sophisticated maneuverers on the international scene. Rather, they're brutal, petty, narrowminded thugs who concoct vast master plans, and who are so offended when reality does not cater to these plans, that they simply blot it out.

Oh I get it, the typo refers to the Italian cousin of Gomer Pyle's smart uncle Leo (Strauss).

The most damning indictment of Strauss is this: "He was an amoral elitist, cynical and arrogant, and when he looked at the classics, he found... his own reflection."

The man was a minor footnote in scholarship, at best.

Of course some of you believe that you are really clever and your opponents are blundering incompetents. No way smart fellows like you could misunderestimate anybody.

For the record, I really am clever. I am as smart as six cats and two german shepherds, one of whom had border collie ancestry. That's very smart indeed.

George W. Bush, in comparison, is as smart as a gerbil's anal cyst. Not extremely clever, but they both drool in similar ways.

Sadly, Bush is not my opponent, though he is a blundering incompetent. I'm just a regular Canadian, looking after my little corner of the world.

Bush's opponents are in Tehran, and Moscow, and Beijing, among other places.

That's why you'll all just wait and see while others decide and rule.

Nice one, I can imagine maniacal cackles and a bolt of thunder as you type that.

Of course, those who ultimately will decide and rule will be in China, in India, in Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo and even Tehran.

Washington, sadly, will sink beneath the waves of its own incompetence. America, once the paragon of the world, will join the long list of empires... Britain, Austria, Ottoman, Imperial China, sinking slowly into irrelevance, stumbling in economic doldrums, out of date, out of touch, its possessions slowly escaping or wrested from its grasp.

And those left behind in the wreckage will spend a large part of their lives, or perhaps their childrens and grandchildrens lives, trying to undo the damage.

But lissen up, Arthur, I think we've got what they call a fundamental disagreement here.

You feel that your boys are a bunch of sophisticated Machiavellians inspired by the non-ideals of Richard Strauss, cooly manipulating an essentially unconscious world by virtue of their deeper understandings of reality, and moving us all towards a stable resolution.

I think your boys don't have the sense to take down their pants when they decide to have a shit, and whose mean and stupid biootry and a few historical accidents have propelled them into rule of the most powerful nation on the planet, from which they are inevitably pissing away their every advantage.

I see my view as being rooted in hard edged assessment of their actual history and actions. I see your view as being based in desperate wishful thinking and utter terror of the consequences of my being correct.

Now, I think our respective views have received a full and frank airing. I'm content with that. I don't expect to change your mind, such as it is, and I don't think you've got any expectation that you'll get anywhere with me. At this point, we can play to the audience, but I think they've heard enough to form their own opinions.

All I've got to say is, let's sit back, open up a cool one, and we'll find out.

Worth reiterating is that no one claims Israel should not defend itself; it is the matter of how that is contentious.

IDF members are getting cold feet over targeting data, according to the Guardian.

At least two pilots have deliberately missed targets, the article says.

Gwynne Dyer, who is a seriously underrated thinker, notes that every few decades, there is usually a 'world war'.

The notion is that the geopolitical balance is a sort of snapshot of nations and states at a particular nexus point. The arrangement of borders and relationships reflects the balances of power existing at a particular point of time.

The reality is, however, that although borders and relationships often freeze into place, the world doesn't stop moving. Rather, some economies rise, other economies decline, some populations increase while others hold steady, some populations age demographically, while others are youthful, new technologies supplant old ones, trade and trading arrangements, internal politics, all of these cause the frozen world map to become more and more distorted.

Tensions in the distortions of the map arise, as declining powers try to hold on to their map, and new powers try to adjust it. Eventually, the distortions grow so powerful or massive that the map is forced to be rewritten, usually by a world-spanning conflict which involves most of the great powers.

So, working our way backwards, the world we live in was produced in 1945. It in turn arose out of the gathering pressures in response to a rewriting of the map in 1918. In turn, that map represented stresses which had accumulated from the period 1860-1870, and the series of small worlds that resulted in the unifications of Italy and Germany and Germany's supplanting of France as the principal European power. Which takes us back to the Napoleanic wars. And before that, to the series of wars in the 18th century largely between Britan and France, and then the series of wars in the 17th century between Britain and France against Spain.

The corollary to Dwyer's thesis is that the world is about to be reshaped yet again, peacefully or otherwise. The United States, one of the two victors from WWII, is due for a marked reduction in influence as other actors take their place on a world stage.

The question for the United States is can it hold back the forces of change and remain the sole hyperpower indefinitely?

Or should it adapt to change and concentrate on being the first among equals in helping to reshape this newer world.

The option chosen by the Bush administration is to strive for world domination. That's what Project For A New American Century is all about.

Unfortunately, the game is already decided. Demographics and economics have already made the outcome clear.

The only question is how messy it is going to be.