"Hezbollah and Hamas are the Problem"
-US President Bush
"Yeah? And who might you be?"
"But an American President? Ahh he can be trusted"
-GEICO Gecko (paraphrased)
When I last saw the GEICO commercial I thought the retort by the Gecko was so appropriate to the blather that I have been hearing come from both Democrats and Republicans. On the news, it's all crackers all the time. The only so called 'authoritative" voices are that of white men and women who are "middle east experts" despite not actually being from there. Exceptions are Arab poster children such as Fareed Zakaria who usually will give some kind of second opinion but failed to do so this Sunday. No, these "news organizations" cannot find a single non-white person (Fareed excepted) to represent another point of view in this situation. Do you think that is an accident? Do you think it is somehow a "co-inki-dink" that every talking head that has an elected office blames Hezbollah?
If we were to simply focus on the latest incident, it still would not excuse the lack of intelligent discourse on this matter. If the Israelis were actually concerned about their soldiers then the actions they were doing now would not have happened. Thus the clear and naked lie is front and center and not a single so called "news agency" will call the Israelis on this matter. If we keep believing this lie, then where is the so called "news reporter" question to the Israelis:
How many Arab lives is equal to an Israeli? No far it's about 200:1. Let us be clear: "sand niggers, AKA Hadjis, AKA towelheads are not worth spit to Europeans who call themselves "jews".
So the lie exploded under simple and direct questioning reveals that this military action has been planned. Question. Is it possible that the kidnapping was in fact a staged occurence? We know that Israel has infiltrated these organizations. Is it entirely possible that the military wing of Hamas was set up by an agent provocateur? Is it possible that Israel is not worried about the lives of these soldiers because it already knows where they are and they have already served their purpose? I can't say either way, but it since it is already known that the kidnappings were merely excuses for pre-meditated war, anything else is entirely possible.
If we choose to ignore the clear violation of international law that founded the current state of Israel; you know don't you? The eviction of palestinians out of their homes and being put on what in the US would be called a "reservation". If we choose to ignore that and look at the actions of Israel upon the election of Hamas, the entire innocence of Israel (and the US) falls apart. Since Bush has been in Office the mantra has been "democracy" and elected governments in the Middle East. Now Hamas was elected into office by a free and fair election. Instead of welcoming Hamas to the world of governance, Israel and the US did everything it could do to undermine the new government including economic terrorism. At the point Hamas was elected the US had a golden opportunity to show that it was for peace and "democracy" in Palestine: It could have directly engaged the Hamas leadership, welcomed it into the global government "party" and given it incentives for good governance, including a two state solution. In other words, rather than trying to strong arm Hamas into changing it's charter, the US could have "carroted" Hamas into changing it's behavior and shown the world that the US was not against Islam.
But no, strong arm tactics won the day and Israel continued with it's killing if Palestinian civilians and right before the kidnapping, bombed a beach. No doubt the kidnapping, whether done by agents or not, was a response the the beach incident. This highlights the second contradiction here: Israel has the right to "defend" itself (read: avenge itself) but Palestinians do not. Again:
How many Arab lives are worth an Israeli?
So contrary to "news reports" the kidnapping of two soldiers in northern Israel was not some random act by Syria and Iran. Instead what we saw was a response by Hezbollah to the bombing of the legitimate government of the Palestinians. Hezbollah was doing what the so called "international community"(tm) should have been doing: defending Palestine against a well armed force. Is that not what Bush Sr. used to justify the first war against Iraq? The Defenseless Kuwaitis needed protection from an aggressive Iraq? Yet not a single talking head even suggested this scenario. These experts are experts at what? Toeing the US-Israeli li(e)n of random acts of aggression on the part of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Now lets move on to the most laughable (if this whole situation was funny) part of this story thus far. There are claims that the Missiles used by Hezbollah were supplied by Iran? Ok. Duh. And? The US supplies Israel with billions in military "aid". This "aid" is used regularly to destroy Palestinian property and to kill Palestinians. Not a single word by the UN. So why is it surprising that Iran is supplying the other side? Isn't this how things work in the world of poles? So given that this is a big "duh" moment for those paying attention then the question is why Israel would go after a group that is backed by Iran. We know that the admin wants to get at Iran but needs an excuse to do so. Should Israel manage to provoke Iran into joining the conflict then the US has the opening it wants without the need to play the UN game. This is the prime reason why for all their talk, neither Syria or Iran has gotten involved as of yet.
The elephant in the room is not Hezbollah or Israel but the US. It is highly probable that Syria and/or Iran would have gotten into this already if the US was not the sole superpower on the planet willing to throw it's weight around. If for example, the Chinese were willing to step in (and it has little if any reason to) on the side of Hezbollah the entire tone of this conflict would be different. Let us be clear that this is about a projection of power. Israel has it and all other parties in the area do not. It must be the height of embarassment of the Lebanese government to be in a situation where it cannot do anything. It cannot defend it's borders and cities and all it has gotten from being an "ally" of the US is: "Israel has the right to defend itself." While I am sure that there are many in Lebanon that think that Hezbollah acted irresponsibly, they cannot also be thinking of how inept their government is in that it cannnot summon enough force to at least force a negotiation.
On another note I think this is a good time to discuss the UN. I think a lot of people should be asking: What exactly is the point of the UN? In the past six years the UN has stood by as the US invaded a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to it. It has seen a new "Berlin wall" erected in Israel which has taken Palestinian territory. It is now sitting on the sidelines as Israel metes out collective punishment on Palestinians and Lebanese during which the Israelis have taken to violating numerous UN rules, such as those against targetting civilian infastructure. Of course the excuse for this is that Hezbollah and Hamas has no strictly "military" assets since they are guerilla organizations rather than state organizations. Excuses, excuses. We've heard that from the South Africans too. You know it's the "we can't tell who the "bad guys" are so we have to strike wide and any innocents that get killed are unfortunate. Well that is innocents on their side. Well actually there really isn't really an innocent Arab (or whatever group) since they let the "bad guys" live with them and don't turn them over. Of course. Of course.
If the UN is simply going to be either a rubber stamp for the US and Britain then why even have the body. NATO does that just fine. If the UN has rules that seem to only be applied to certain nations then why should it exist? Really. What exactly is the point of the UN? I think this century may well see the end of the UN as we know it as disparate governments see that it is nothing but another tool of western nations (and those aligned with them) to dictate what is and is not acceptable on the planet. I think it will be replaced by regional bodies such as those emerging in Latin America and Africa.
So let's be clear, The invasion of Iraq was a concrete step in the direction of a new global order. The recent nuclear actions in Iran and North Korea are a direct result of the new order in which certain countries can be threatened with invasion and regime change with no international consequences. An order where it is clear that if you are not nuclear you are in danger. If you are militarily weak you are in danger.