What the fuck??? I guess that Bush thinks his Israeli surrogates have not killed enough "terrorists" yet. I guess Bush thinks the Israelis haven't dropped enough 500 pound bombs on innocent civilians yet. The current civilian death toll is about 100 in Gaza and about 100 in Lebanon.
And I did cut them some slack. Lots of it. But when I read that they were deliberately dropping 500 pound bombs on innocent civilians, that pushed me over the edge. For the first time in my life, I have both spoken and written critically about the actions of Israel.
Look. Israel has a history of prisoner exchanges with the Islamofascists. Israel also has a history of commando raids to rescue Israeli hostages. Why didn't they pursue one of these courses this time? I would fully support a commando raid to rescue the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. I would fully support the summary execution of all found to have participated in the kidnapping.
But going completely nuts??? Dropping 500 pound bombs on innocent civilians? Invading a neighboring country which had not attacked Israel, just because the Islamofascists are launching attacks from across the border in Lebanon? Look, Hizbollah is essentially autonomous in southern Lebanon. The weak central government has no control over Hizbollah. So why is Israel bombing the fuck out of Beirut?
I really don't get it. I think much more is involved than the rescue of some hostages. Israel has specifically stated that the war against Hizbollah will continue until the Lebanese government disarms Hizbollah. LMFAO! Israel, with all its military might could not defeat Hizbollah or disarm them after what? 18 years occupying southern Lebanon. Yet the Israelis expect the weak Lebanese government to do the job the mighty Israeli military couldn't accomplish?
Like I said, I don't get it. I think Israel is trying to accomplish some other goals besides rescuing their hostages and disarming Hizbollah. I really don't have a clue what these goals are. Any ideas?
Memo to nitpickers -- Yes, yes, I know. We technically didn't veto anything, since there was no formal vote. Why don't you write a letter to the editor of the Australian newspaper? It's their headline, not mine. The USA effectively vetoed a call for a ceasefire by making it clear to the other 14 members of the Security Council that we would oppose any call for a ceasefire.
US vetoes UN ceasefire call
By Irwin Arieff in the United Nations
July 16, 2006
THE UN Security Council has again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said overnight. Washington argued in closed-door talks that the focus for Middle East diplomacy for now should be on the weekend summit in St Petersburg of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, council diplomats said.
It was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, they said.
"We would expect much more from the Security Council," Lebanese Foreign Ministry official Nouhad Mahmoud told reporters after the council meeting, singling out the United States for blame.
Read the whole thing.