" It has already happened. By the time a Reuters dispatch was on the web, 81 people were already dead. How many corpses will there be by the time you read this?"

So where are the so called human right groups? Their silence is  deafening. Imagine the outcry if Israel had been involved in the fighting.

When Arabs kill other Arabs human right groups couldn't care less. When Arab kill Jews human right groups blame the Jews. When Jews fight back they call for crimes against humanity charges.

Lebanon has been dead for a long time. I recall being depressed in 1978 at the carnage of the civil war, which was then just three years under way and still had a dozen years to run. I have been continually amazed at the anti - Israeli voices who have blamed Israel substantially for Lebanon's plight. Syria disfigured and occupied Lebanon for many, many years. The late, unlamented Hafez al - Assad has been dead for some years now but his evil lives after him.

"Lebanon is dead. It was killed by Condi Rice's righteous cease fire."

Lebanon wasn't much alive even before the 2006 war, so let's not exaggerate  Ms. Rice's powers.  While she made quite a few of truly bad calls in the American ME policy (the Annapolis empty "peace process" is one of the latest), the 2006 cease fire that ended the Israeli-Hezbollah war, and left Hezbollah not sufficiently destroyed, was mostly Israel's failure.

When Israel under Olmert-Livni-Peres-Halutz  leadership hastily decided to go to war against Hezbollah, Bush and Rice initially gave it an unprecendented (by the ME standards of warfare)  amount of time to do the job.  Also unprecedented was the initial criticism of Hezbollah by the Saudis and the Egyptians.  And the Europeans too were uncharacteristically silent at first.

But after  a couple of weeks of fierce Israeli airstrikes and pointless skirmishes along the border, it became obvious that the Israel under Olmert didn't have any realistic plan of how to defeat Hezbollah.   That was actually quite a stunning display of Israeli incompetence, later well documented by the Winograd commission.

So,  predictably, the Bushies had no choice but to pull the plug on Israel's little misadventure.  There were even reports that the Israeli government itself  behind the scenes was lobbying the UNSC for a cease fire resolution.  And cease fire they got, with the French, Spaniards, Italians making sure that Hezbollah does not rearm and threaten ME stability yet one more time.  Olmert and Livni later claimed that it was a great victory for Israel.  Some victory,  as the current Hezbollah power play shows.

Marty don't be naive.

Yes, Obama is pro Israel. But is this really the issue.

Did you notice what he said about the current crises in Lebanon? He said pretty much what Egypt and the Saudis said which you thought was a joke:

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../5491

"Obama Stares Down Hezbollah

Noah Pollak - 05.11.2008 - 2:19 PM

Yesterday Barack Obama released a statement about the crisis in Lebanon that surely must be cause for celebration in Tehran, Damascus, and Bint Jbeil. First of all, there is the alternate-reality feel to it:

“This effort to undermine Lebanon’s elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately.”

Does Obama understand that the people who “have influence with Hezbollah” happen to be the same people on whose behalf Hezbollah is rampaging through Lebanon?"

You have yourself on previous occasions quoted Noah Pollak's blog.

I wonder what your view about this is?

Real support for Israel will include fighting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations like Hamas  and not saying you are against them.

The "International Community's" (a term I detest) policy, in cahoots with the quartet of idiots at Israel's helm during the 2nd Lebanese War is a wonderful example of how not to deal with terrorist organizations.

It's also a manifestation of the bitter lesson that Israel has been taught over and over since 1993, that naivete kills.

Another article worth reading about Lebanon, Hezbollah and Obama's nostrums for dealing with same, is Prof. Barry Rubin's piece in the Jerusalem Post, "As Lebanon turns into Gaza", here:

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

Without going into identify8ing details, a resident of Lebanon acquaintance of mine (who has visited Israel, including Gush Etzion) told me that Barry Rubin's columns are read avidly by the anti-Syria & anti-Hezbollah sector (at least those fluent enough in English) .  They feel he is the only one who really understands the Lebanon mess and the unholy alliance between Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran 9with North Korea is a Oscar winning supporting role).  The other pooh-bahs of punditry are widely regarded as useful idiots in the fullest sense of the term.

Those of you  who see Obama as the messiah should think again and think very hard about having a certified naif at the helm of the US foreign policy.   Read Rubin's column very carefully.

Hershel G

(with horns and a pointed tail)

Jerusalem /  Efrata

Jacksondyer and Ginzy: I think that you are both prescient in your comments. I posted a comment on Mr. Peretz's piece concerning his phone conversation with Barack Obama that if an Obama administration were to transpire, he likely would soon be issuing dissents on this forum from Obama's policies on Israel and the Palestinians.

I second gynzy's opinion re Prof.Rubin's op-ed -- Rubin's one of the few commentators who really knows what he's talking about.  While Rice and her boss lately became obsessed with solving the I-P conflict by producing a "shelf agreement" between two political giants, Olmert and Abbas, Lebanon's (so-called US-backed) government was left to its own devices, and the results are plain to see.  And while I don't think that Bush & Rice could've saved Lebanon from itself, they at least could've done something.  Instead, they chose to focus on entirely fictitious I-P "peace process", with nothing to show for it.  Their incompetence is hard to overstate.

Obama's take on the crisis in Lenanon shows that he simply doesn't get the ME, and probably a few other hot spots as well, such as Iran.  IMO, that alone should disqualify him from presidency.

My wife attends art class with a Christian Lebanese woman, married to a Lebanese Sunni Muslim, whose mother lives in Beirut. Even after the 2006 war, she showed no animosity toward Israel and was still not very concerned for her mother. last week, that changed and she now appears to be deathly afraid. My wife is having lunch with her today or tomorrow and I will post if anything important comes out or that discussion.

The whole issue puts into perspective my problem with Obama. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and then Gaza. The result was Hezbollah dominance in Lebanaon and Hamas dominance in Gaza. Now he wants to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq. It does not take a genius to predict the result.  

r-ennis.  First off, Obama does not want unilateral, immediate withdrawal, but a drawing down of our troops and eventual withdrawal.  You might not like the eventual part, but don't misrepresent him.  And the drawdown is going to happen even if McCain wins- the logistics of our army demand it.  

As for Lebanon...I'm just going to throw this out here.  I think at this point in time, this moment, Iran doesn't have as much control over Hezbollah as we like to think.   Hezbollah was- and is- threatening to turn Lebanon into bloody chaos again and again, and is doing so as part of its local poliitical concerns.  Yes, their local concerns dovetail neatly with what Iran wants in Lebanon, but neither Iran nor Syria- especially not Syria- wants another civil war.  They don't want a decent Hariri-based democracy, for sure, but the kind of rippling chaos Lebanon can produce is not in their interests.  I think too often we ignore the minuitia of local politics in our search for overarching trends.  Yes, Iran trains and arms and funds Hezbollah, as part of their idea of regional dominance, but Hezbollah is still a local group with political ambitions of their own, and ambitions that don't always match Iran's grand scheme.

Any thoughts on this?  Let's talk about what is actually happening in Lebanon, not just what Obama thinks.

boneill, are you suggesting that Obama's Iraq policy and McCain's are likely to be identical? If so, Obama's campaign is largely a lie regarding Iraq and I am not the one doing the misrepresenting. Why shouldn't we want to know what Obama thinks about Lebanon? I agree with Pollak that Obama's statement must be cause for celebration in Tehran and Damascus.  

R-ennis: Very good point. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Quite a number of Obama supporters hail him as different kind of politician but when pressed on this or that issue, will say "oh he is reasonable and won't do anything precipitous, etc.".

r-ennis, I do think they are going to be largely, though not entirely identical.  And I agree with you that he has been misrepresenting things, and I wish he'd be more forthright about it.  That said, so has John McCain.   Our options are narrowing greatly, given the logistics of the military.  And our realistic choices in Iraq are very limited.  McCain's "stay the course" is absurd, because we no longer have the manpower.  But neither candidate will just pull out right away.  

But listen: Obama is right that the people who are (as is the CW, but one with which I have my doubts) telling Hezbollah to attack are the only ones who can pull them back.  Iran and Syria are bad and dangerous states, but they are states with legitimate, if unpalatable goals.  As such, they can be dealt with rationally.  Ahmadinejad doesn't hold much real power in Iran anymore.  I don't trust Khameni (who by all accounts does), but he has always strode the line between consolidating stability and continuning the revolution.  All Asad cares about his ugly little Alawite dynasty.  These are actual governments, not nihilistic madmen like Qaeda or quasi-political terrorists like Hezbollah or Hamas.   For them, terrorism is a means, not a raison d'etre.  So Obama is right that with the right inducements and the right sticks, we can wean them away.  It is foolish to believe there is any other way.  

From this end of the Mediterranean, I think you are engaged in a lot of wishful thinking boneil, and not a little naivete.

Iran has a lot of hold over Hezbollah, in part by providing weapons, training, and troops.  It was an open secret here in Israel during Lebanon 2 that Iranian soldiers were present in Lebanon during the fighting and manned all the longer range missile batteries, including the anti-ship missiles.  Intelligence picked up a lot of Persian in the radio transmissions.

BTW, Iranian trainers are known to be in Gaza now as well.  And they are not spending their time relaxing on Gaza's beaches.

Chaos in Lebanon is very much in Syria's interests, particularly if the alternative is a Lebanon that slowly but steadily slips out of their grip.  Syria controls Hezbollah very tightly.  Keep in mind that much of the weaponry getting in to Lebanon first flies non-stop from Tehran to Damascus.  From there it is either flown into Beirut or trucked in over the border into the Bekaa valley which is a Hezbollah stronghold. From a Syrian perspective they would like nothing more than Hezbollah in the government with veto power.  And that is precisely what Hezbollah is jockeying for.

Re-read (or read) the Rubin column I mentioned above.  Here, again, is the URL:

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

One other point.  The Obama phenomenon reminds me of Neville Chamberlain in 1930's Britain.  Unable or unwilling to recognize evil that can't be negotiated with (or "engaged" -- another wonderfully empty term), backed by the intelligentsia, the elites, in particular the media elites.  Through his "engagement" giving Hitler more and more time to build his forces. On his deathbed Chamberlain still couldn't figure out why Hitler lied to him.

If elected, and assuming Obama goes off to negotiate with Assad jr. and / or Mad Mahmoud Ahminajad, I half expect him to come back announcing "peace in our time".

My wife (a Dem) and I have a bet.  I bet that on July 20, 2010 (18 months post-inauguration), we will have troops in Iraq.  She bets otherwise.  For $100.

I can't wait to spend it!

You win, Butchie.   By then it will buy you a tank of gas.

That's topical humor, fellows.  Feel free to use it, or to send it to Jay Leno.

Anyway- Ginzy, I am not saying at all that Iran or Syria have no control in Lebanon.  They clearly have a lot, and, like most of the Middle East, use Lebanon as a playground for their toxic ideologies.  Much like Spain in the 1930s.

But the 1930s parallels end there.   To think of Obama as Chamberlain, or Ahmadinejad as Hitler, is also "naivete".   For one thing, Hitler had total power.  Ahmadinejad does not.  His power is rapidly slipping away, and it would not be at all surprising if Rafsanjani comes back into the picture.  Should he not be talked to either?  You are picturing the fragmented mirror-house of Iran as monolithic, when it is not.  The President has surprisingly little say on foriegn policy, anyway.  That's why it was (kind of) ok to ignore their overtures in 2003- they were meaningless, practically, coming from Khatami's office.  

Yes, Syria would love Hezbollah to have veto power, which is why they have cockblocked Lebanese democracy for two years (ok, much longer, but I am talking post-Rafik).   But do you really think incredible violence like from 1975-1990 serves Syrian interests?  To share borders of two failed states?   I don't see how that would work.   Don't you think there is any chance that maybe Kid Asad doesn't fully control his minions?  

Also, as I stated above, Syria and Iran are not irrational actors.  Iran doesn't have the means nor the real will to jackboot its way across the ME, like Hitler did with Europe.  They want to be the dominant regional player- and tha tis something that needs to be avoided.  And they use hideous methods and support terrible groups to achieve that.  But there are ways of dealing with Iran.   Obama is not negotiating with Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas.   He knows very well what evil is.  Bu the also knows that to throw around that term willy-nilly, like a child, is naive and damaging.  We've watched that movie for 8 years.  

Ginzy: Good riposte to boneill. But could we dispense with the pre - WWII analogies? Every conflict does not involve Nazi Germany, actually, only one did and analogies to Chamberlain and Churchill are vastly overdone. Could we wait till Obama is inagaurated (if such happens) to denominate him a Chamberlain (I say this as a resolute opponent of Obama's)?

I'm with you Butchie. This Democratic primary has (finally) made me - a private sector professional who has defended Cinton and the Democrats in general to my mostly Republican friends -  decide to vote Republican. Obama represents the furthest left part of the party.As a result, Bill Clinton has been vilified them as a right winger no better than Rove. And their opinion of Hillary is even worse. Typical of Democrats to turn on their most successful leader in a generation or two.

bone, say it ain't so!  You mean after 18 months in office the Chosen One will not have brought the price of gas back down to pre-W levels, simply be his own force of personality??  I'll be soooo disappointed.

r-ennis - welcome aboard.  McCain ain't great, just better than the other guy.

Boniel,

About 2 years ago TNR published an article by Matthias Kuentzel called (I think) "Ahminajad Demons" (or something like that - I take no responsibility for the spelling) in which Kuentzel explained in detail the apocalyptic "twelver" theology subscribed to Iran's ruling elite, including all the Ayatollahs as well as Mad Mahmoud himself.  If you can get a hold of the article, read it.  The "Twelvers" strive to hasten the return of the "hidden twelfth imam" by pushing the world into an Armageddon-like strife. The only difference (according to Kuentzel) between Mad Mahmoud on the one hand and the Ayatollahs on the other hand is that MM speaks openly of it and indeed belongs to a "Twelver" sub-cult that is preparing the conditions and infrastructure for the Imam's "blessed" return.

Keep in mind that it was MM's ostensibly moderate (at least according to the omniscient NY Times) predecessor Rafsanjani who openly mused about the possibility of Iran absorbing a 25%-50% hit to its population as a bearable price to pay for eliminating Israel in a nuclear exchange.  After all, Allah knows his own.  Or as the doyen of Middle Eastern scholars, Bernard Lewis, has said on a number of occasions, the problem with a policy of "M.A.D." (mutually assured destruction) toward Iran is that for the Iranian leadership (not just MM) it's an inducement not a deterrent.  In other words, rationality is defined differently by the Iranian leadership.

In theory Iran probably could be forced to halt its nuclear bomb program if the economic sanctions were severe enough and if the price of oil fell back down to $30 a barrel.  But the EUniks are too keen on buying natural gas and selling goods to Iran while Russia and China think they are immune.  So at the current pace of sanctions, Iran will have uranium enrichment under control long before the sanctions hit the pain level needed to have the desired effect.

And now that Obama has effectively taken military force off of the table (see his reaction to Clinton's promise to annihilate Iran if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons), why should the Iranians care what he says.  In fact, even if Obama had not said what he said, do you really think the Iranians believe that Obama is capable of using decisive military force against them or any other threat for that matter.  It's just not credible.  He doesn't have that in him.

BTW Syria was quite happy with the situation in Lebanon, chaos and all.  They got to run the country and could make Israel bleed at will.  You are looking at this with way too Western a mind.

Hershel G.

(etc. etc. etc.)

No, butchie, I said it won't buy *you* a tank of gas.  We've been out of power for a long time.  This time we're taking names and anyone who voted Republican or even so much as watches Lou Dobbs will be strung up and marched along a road of bones.  

What?

Sorry- it's been a long primary.

Hersehl-  I'm very familiar with Twelver Theology.   And believe me, I am not looking at this with a Western mind.  I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East and have met many honest-to-god terrorists and Salafi "thinkers", and know how what Vonnegut called "the cuckoo-clock in hell" mindset works.  

I would urge you to read Karim Sadjadpour's article on the rise of Khameni.  I know it seems wierd that the Supreme Leader is rising, but his power is increasing while Ahmadinejad's is waning.  MM can't call for a nuclear strike.  

www.carnegieendowment.org/.../index.cfm

Rafsanjani isn't moderate, at all.  What he is is pragmatic.  That is how we bring them in line.  Credible threats, appealing to them, and understanding their side of history.  Not believing it, not kowtowing to it- but getting it.  

Damn, I have a lot more.  But this office chafes as 5 rolls around.  

But I do think saying that one will "annhilate" a country of 70 million people who don't have much say in what thier government does buts the "mad" back into "MAD".  We need to be smart.  Hillary is trying to show that, as Carville suggested, she is a goddamn polyorchid, but that doesn't make for smart policy.

Enjoying the horn-clashing, Ginzy.   Hope the 60th is going well, and the next 60 bring with them peace.  

Ginzy--I do appreciate your posts, even though I rarely agree with them.  However, could you stop doing the horns and tail bit?  It's starting to make me cringe.  Mostly because it's not that funny.  In fact, it's lame.  Furthermore, nobody here is accusing Jews of having horns and tails, which makes your little tag-line antagonistic.  Are you saying that if I disagree with you I'm a raving anti-Semite (or in my case, a self-hating Jew)?  

I probably should just chill, but it's been annoying me for a while.

Ginzy: Twelver Shiism has long distressed me. But I don't think the theocratic regime is fueled by apocalyptic notions. Ahminajad is a nutter but he is losing power. I don't believe that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is prepared to court the incineration of Tehran over principle. Even less, Rafsanjani. I know that they have both made bloodcurdling statements but that phenomenon was not unknown during the Cold War. At the same time, I have no illusions that the theocrats are just like us - they clearly are not. But I do believe that Iran might be contained.

bone, I do vote GOP, but I detest Lou Dobbs.  Maybe I get a pass?

Don't worry, bone, you'll be in power for awhile starting next year.  Then I can joyfully post about the utter and complete incompetence of....well, you know the drill.

It is rather startling that over here at the Grudge Report, The Grudge Meister himself give full throated support to Obama while his faithful, once in the thrall of the Man's every Grudge instinct, depart from their chief and now plan to vote McCain.

It is a crazy mixed up world...

marty and jaunty sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g, first comes love, then comes marraige, then comes Obama in the White House carraige....

hee, hee, hee...I love it...

Oh, Jaunty.

"Lebanon is dead. It was killed by Condi Rice's righteous cease fire."

Marthy,

Why didn't you ask Obama what would he do at that moment?

Why didn't ask him any specific questions?

If you don't like Condi , wait for Samantha Powers

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../2401.

"Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.” The second paragraph said, “Oh, but lots of war crimes did.” Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?"

Jee, Jacob, I don't think that Sam Powers was really on the fast-track to be NSA or Secretary of State.   And, um, did you read the Atlantic interview with Goldberg?  Or, hell, since you subscribe, Marty's article about his talk with Obama?  About Israel?

No?

OK.

boneill,

I did read both articles.

Obama, as we know, a very good spinner.  I don't think we have a clue to understand how  his NSA or Secretary of State would be different compare to Condi.