I know this is OT, but I have been thinking about the Israel/Lebanon thing

[rockymountaindem]

I want to post some thoughts of mine, but I'm sure I'd be swarmed with replies. I don't have the time nor the energy to reply in GD right now, nor do I want to put up with the flames. Does anybody mind if I post it in this thread? I'd like to appeal to the above-average level of wisdom and sanity in this forum.

[JI7]

1. go ahead, i post it here

we will be able to discuss it and even with disagreements keep it civil.

[ray of light]

2. go for it! we're all worried and scared and unsure what to think.

[rockymountaindem]

3. Ok, here goes...

Here is what I want: a strong, secure Israel which is at peace with its neighbors.

Now, a lot of people on DU are calling this particular episode of the ongoing conflict "collective punishment" by Israel against Lebanon. Many are also bringing up what I consider to be ill-conceived hypotheticals and what they see as parallels. I'd like to say how I see things, and you can let me know if I sound like a total nut (please ;) )

Now, I'll admit right now that I support Israel. I support it's right to exist, and I support it's right to defend itself as it sees fit so long as it does not violate international law. Now, the opening act of this play featured the abduction/capture/kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of more (three initially, I think) in a Hezbollah attack on the Israeli side of the border. As an international relations major, I have what I think is a vague understanding of the international laws concerning this. What has occurred here is an attack on a sovereign state (Israel) by a militia (Hezbollah) based in another sovereign state (Lebanon). It is the obligation of states to exercise a "monopoly of power" within their borders. Lebanon has not done this, turning over control of it's border with Israel to Hezbollah, a group which is basically beyond the control of the Lebanese government. Forget the fact that Hezbollah has seats in the Lebanese parliament, I think that is irrelevant here. It is the responsibility of Lebanon to control any armed groups which are within its borders. It has not done this. Israel, as a sovereign state, has an obligation to protect its citizens from threats. These citizens include the two which were taken by Hezbollah, as well as its civilian population. *Since Lebanon cannot or will not restrain Hezbollah, Israel has no other choice but to protect its citizens by force*. For those who say "it's just two soldiers", that is not the point. If Hezbollah can do it once, it is a threat to all of Israel's citizens. Furthermore, an attack on a state's territory is a challenge to its integrity and it's very means and justification to exist. I do not see how else Israel is supposed to react to these events.

Now I would like to move on to the actual means of Israel's reaction. Here is what I understand from watching the US media and reading linked articles around the net. Israel would expect Hezbollah to try and move its captured soldiers away from the border area from which they might be more easily liberated by the IDF. Thus, Israel bombed many of the road links and bridges in the border region; to hamper this movement. Israel also bombed the gas stations along the main north-south road in the region for this purpose. Once the rocket attacks on Israel began, Israel bombed the road to Lebanon to prevent fresh supplies from being moved in from Syria. Everyone knows Syria backs and supplies Hezbollah, so this does not seem unreasonable to me. Israel blockaded Beirut and bombed the airport runways for this same reason.

Sadly, amidst all this, Lebanese civilians are being killed. This is a tragedy. These people do not deserve to die, and I hope that the innocent people of Lebanon will come through this safely. However, it is impossible to develop a weapon which will just kill terrorists. If Israel wants to bomb, say, Hezbollah's TV station, how would Israel go about this? Well, with bombs. If you want to avoid civilian causalities, you would use a small bomb. However, small bombs would be unlikely to knock out the TV station, which is in a modern building. Israel might use multiple small bombs, but this increases the likelihood of an errant strike. Thus, it makes the most sense to use one or two large bombs. This will destroy the TV station, but it will also kill blameless bystanders.The same is true for command bunkers, supply depots, etc. But, if Israel is to carry out its campaign against Hezbollah, it cannot avoid this. This is especially true since Hezbollah has situated itself among the people which it claims to represent. Thus, when people say "Israel is bombing the Beirut suburbs" (for no good reason, they would claim), what else are they supposed to do if critical Hezbollah targets are located in the Beirut suburbs. If Israel wanted to inflict *no* Lebanese civilian causalities, it would be unable to react, and thus would completely discredit its own raison d'etre (or that of any state), to protect its territory and more importantly, its citizens.

Is this "collective punishment" of the Lebanese people? The government? Many have said so. Perhaps this is collective punishment, after all, many people are dying because of the actions of the few. But then, what is war besides collective punishment? Surely during the Civil War, the Union killed many southerners who were not sympathetic to the Confederate cause. This was done through the means of an indiscriminate blockade of Confederate ports, as well as incidentally in the heat of battle, or in the aftermath. Does this make the entire cause of the Union unjust? Does the death of someone pure of heart during a raid on a Nazi aircraft factory undermine the morality of attacking Hitler's production capabilities? I think not. Surely in war, innocent people will die. This is why war is *supposed* to be a last resort. The definition of "collective punishment" in the military sense is reserved for specific acts of brutality, such as the massacre at Lidice in WWII (wikipedia that if you want, it was a horrifying incident). The acts of Israel, in my mind, meet the definition of war, which is tragic in its essence, not the definition of "collective punishment", which is a crime.

Like it or not, the right to make war in self defense is accorded to states, and not stateless militias or organizations such as Hezbollah. There is no international legal justification for Hezbollah's actions. There is one for Israel's actions. It is a state. Just because we don't like the law doesn't mean we aren't all bound by it.

Am I nuts or something?

(p.s. Thanks for letting me post this here. I didn't want to post it in GD where I'd just be swarmed with yells of how Israel is a terrorist state, doesn't deserve to exist etc. I'm talking about the law here, as the majority of world governments see it. Despite all the passion on both sides, that's what matters in situations like this, and that's what I wanted to discuss)

[ProSense]

4. The response was inappropriate

Israel has a right to defend itself, but bombing Lebanon in the way they did was not appropriate.

Remember this started with two kidnapped soldiers. Israel is a state and Lebanon is a state. The Lebanese government didn't initiate the action. This reaction leaves open the notion that any country can bomb another country because of the acts of terrorist groups within its borders.

Now a government can be held accountable for disarming terrorist inside its borders, but one thing everyone recognizes here is that the Lebanese government is too weak to do this.

It all comes down to this: military might cannot be used as an effective deterrence against acts of terrorism. There are others ways to deal with this, including:

1976: Israelis rescue Entebbe hostages

Israeli commandos have rescued 100 hostages, mostly Israelis or Jews, held by pro-Palestinian hijackers at Entebbe airport in Uganda.

At about 0100 local time (2200GMT), Ugandan soldiers and the hijackers were taken completely by surprise when three Hercules transport planes landed after a 2,500-mile trip from Israel.

About 200 elite troops ran out and stormed the airport building.

During a 35-minute battle, 20 Ugandan soldiers and all seven hijackers died along with three hostages.

more....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_2786000/2786967.stm

There is a really cool timeline at the link!

[sandnsea]

5. March 2003 - New Hezbollah rockets threaten Israeli cities

No, this did not start with two kidnapped soldiers. Hezbollah has been bombing Israeli cities for years. I'm actually amazed they've tolerated it for so long. We wouldn't, not for one second. Hezbollah and Hamaz need to end, just like our religious nuts need to end. I feel bad for the Lebanese people, they don't seem any more able to direct their government than we can ours. But I don't blame Israel either, I would be outraged if rockets were dropping on my town and nothing was done about it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/12/edlarry_ed3_.php

[Mass]

6. The problem is that the answer is totally disproportionate with the

problem and will not solve it anyway. I understand the need of Israeli people to defend themselves, but by now, Israel should know that this type of force does not work. It just alienate them from reasonnable arab people and create more terrorism.

Here is an editiorial of Henry Siegman, former head of the AJC, not exactly a panarabic organization, that states the problem in its complexity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1821605,00.html

Israel's response risks its security

Henry Siegman
Sunday July 16, 2006
The Observer

In Lebanon as in Gaza, it is not Israel's right to protect its civilian population from terrorist aggression that is at issue. It is the way Israel goes about exercising that right.

Despite bitter lessons from the past, Israel's political and military leaders remain addicted to the notion that, whatever they have a right to do, they have a right to overdo, to the point where they lose what international support they had when they began their retaliatory measures.

...

[sandnsea]

8. 3+ years of rockets is too much

If this is what it takes to root out Hezbollah and really draw attention to what they've been doing from Lebanon, then fine. There will never be I/P peace until these groups know they can't win with violence. Israel has withdrawn from both Lebanon and Gaza, it's done no good. Lebanon can't even govern their own country because there's so much influence from these Hezbollah militias. It is similar to the power right wing groups in our country have over our administration. If our own Minutemen started lobbing rockets into Mexico and our government didn't stop them, I wouldn't be surprised if Mexico started shooting back. We can't have these groups operating outside the government.

People are right when they say this doesn't have anything to do with those two soldiers taken. It doesn't. It is a full out military assault on Hezbollah. ME countries need to take responsibility for these terrorist groups or expect the same. I really don't blame Israel a bit. Like I said, with years of rocketing of Israeli cities, I'm surprised they didn't do it before.

[Mass]

9. OK, let's Mexico bomb Houston or Los Angeles and we will talk.

Or should the Lebanese bomb Tel Aviv in reprisal?

[sandnsea]

10. We haven't had cross-border incidents yet

If we did, maybe we'd have a clue what Israel has been living with. And if our Minutemen started shooting immigrants and lobbing rockets in under some misguided notion of stopping illegal immigrants, I wouldn't blame Mexico for responding militarily either.

In any event, I posted the rocket article because I don't see many people mentioning the fact that this rocketing has been going on for a long time and is not just about Israel responding over two captured soldiers.

[ProSense]

15. The problem is

there are two sides:

Published on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 by the Guardian / UK
If Israel Has the Right to Use Force In Self-Defense, So Do Its Neighbors
The west appears to insist that only one side in the conflict is able to intervene militarily across borders. That will never be accepted

by Ahmad Samih Khalidi

Much has been made in recent days - at the G8 summit and elsewhere - of Israel's right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognize that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel's "disproportionate use of force" rather than its basic right to take military action.

But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defense, but symmetry and equivalence. Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own "right to self-defense" as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel's stance on both counts.

From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap, and eliminate its perceived foes - repeatedly, with impunity, and without restraint - while the Arab side cannot do the same. And if the Arab states are unable or unwilling to do so then the job should fall to those who can.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0718-24.htm

And the argument goes on and on:

Israel has a right to defend itself!
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization!
Israel used disproportionate force!
Innocent Lebanese are being killed!

[sandnsea]

17. This is not retaliation over soldiers

If that were the case, I'd agree Israel went way over board. This is military action to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon completely so the Lebanese govt and UN peacekeepers can take over the way they were supposed to years ago. Rockets were coming into Israel from Lebanon, Israel went into Lebanon to stop it. That's self-defense. There isn't any two sides to it unless one believes Hezbollah terrorists have a side and I don't. If they want a side, they need to put down their arms and work through the governments in given countries, just like the rest of the non-militant world does.

[ProSense]

19. The capture of the soldiers provoked

the disproportionate response. The reason there are two sides to the story is not because Hezbollah has a side, but that the Lebanese government has a side and there are enough conflicting reports about the Iraeli government's intentions.

WEDNESDAY 12 JULY

Hezbollah fighters based in southern Lebanon launch Katyusha rockets across the border with Israel, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area.


Israeli tank fire against Hezbollah positions

In pictures: Border clashes
In a cross-border raid, guerrillas seize two Israeli soldiers before retreating back into Lebanon, insisting on a prisoner exchange and warning against confrontation. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert describes the capture of the soldiers as "an act of war".

In response Israeli planes bomb Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and troops cross into southern Lebanon for the first time since the military withdrawal of 2000.

However, the troops encounter heavy resistance - eight are killed and two others are injured during fighting with Hezbollah. Israel calls up reserve troops as it pledges a swift and large-scale response to the Hezbollah attack.

THURSDAY 13 JULY

After a night of Israeli air raids across southern Lebanon, Israeli jets strike the runways at Beirut's international airport in the morning, forcing the airport to close. Reports emerge of significant numbers of civilian casualties in Lebanese towns and villages close to Israeli targets, with at least 35 people reported killed.


Lebanese soldiers carrying away a victim of the raids

In pictures: Lebanon strikes
As Israel announces an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah will not be allowed to return to its former position along the international border, world powers react to the escalating crisis.

The US president defends Israel's right to defend itself from attack, but France, Russia and the EU are all critical of a "disproportionate" use of force.

As night falls a rocket hits Israel's third-largest city, Haifa, although Hezbollah denies responsibility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm

Jul. 16, 2006 2:07 | Updated Jul. 16, 2006 8:19
Israel wary of toppling Lebanese gov't
By ORLY HALPERN

Israel has yet to hit Lebanon as hard as it could because it fears that doing so would cause the fledgling government to fall, a high-ranking military official said Saturday, adding that if necessary, it would take such action.

Snip...

The officer said Israel needs to be "very careful that we only put enough pressure on the Lebanese government to change the situation but not enough to make it fall."

Israel holds the Lebanese government responsible for Hizbullah's actions and has been attacking civilian infrastructure, both to prevent its use by Hizbullah and to "send a message to the Lebanese that they will pay a high price" for Hizbullah's attacks on Israel.

The high-ranking military official rejected US President George W. Bush's statement that Syria could and should influence Hizbullah to stop its rocket attacks and release the two soldiers who were kidnapped last week.

Snip...

"We wanted to send him a message that he is not immune and we can get him anywhere," he said. He added that the army's goal was not to dismantle Hizbullah.

"It's not realistic to dismantle Hizbullah," he said, "or to chase them out of Lebanon until there are no Hizbullah gunmen there." The goal was rather to weaken Hizbullah and to distance it from the Israeli border where it had built up an infrastructure, he said.

more...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886010029&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[sandnsea]

20. The soldiers were the excuse

I honestly don't care how many articles you post saying whatever the official line is. I'm not blind. This has nothing to do with those soldiers, the soldiers are an excuse for Israel to deal with southern Lebanon and Hezbollah. If Israel hadn't removed their troops from Lebanon and tried to make peace, I would be critical of this attack. But Israel has taken enormous steps and has proven they can get along with neighbors. They returned the Sinai to Egypt and have gotten along relatively well since. They pulled out of southern Lebanon and the shelling into Israel increased, it didn't work which is exactly why Israel occupies the Golan Heights as well. I hope Israel doesn't think it's going to occupy southern Lebanon again, that would be horrible. But I do hope they clear the way for a large and effective peacekeeping force so Israel is free from Hezbollah attacks and the southern part of Lebanon is free from this Hezbollah mentality.

[ProSense]

21. I'm not disagreeing with you, but

as the claims go that Israel used the incident as an excuse, others claim Hezbollah used it to provoked them. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Israel's neighbor is Lebanon, not Hezbollah. If there is no distinction between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah, then Israel may just as well be at war with Lebanon.

[sandnsea]

22. That's right

Generally, a country that won't stop its citizens from launching rockets into another country would considered to be tacitly supporting the attacks, and would be the legitimate target of retaliation. In this case, because Lebanon truly doesn't have control over Hezbollah, Israel is focused on Hezbollah instead. If I were Israel, I'd demand Lebanon develop a strategy to take over the south with a joint UN force before I even considered a cease fire. I don't like that they're at war and innocent people are dying and I hope it ends reasonably and quickly. But this has all gone on long enough and the reality is hatred of Jews is at the bottom of it.

[ProSense]

23. And it has gone on because of

the continued appearance of siding with Israel (and this is not as oppose to Hezbollah):

Whereas the Government of Lebanon, which includes representatives of Hezbollah, has done little to dismantle Hezbollah forces or to exert its authority and control throughout all geographic regions of Lebanon;

Snip...

(8) calls on the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in its territory, and to fulfill its responsibility under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (adopted September 2, 2004) to disband and disarm Hezbollah;

This is sad because after all the hype last year about driving Syria out of Lebanon and all the hype about liberating the people and all the hype against Hezbollah (all warranted), the Lebanese must believe they were set up!

I think everyone should focus on Hezbollah. This would be a perfect opportunity to assist the Lebanese government in disarming the group. This text reads like they are in agreement with Israel to attack Lebanon.


So be it, war on! I'm no Mideast expert, but this is Sad! Maybe there is a little Arab hate in some of these people too!

[sandnsea]

24. I hope everyone focuses on Hezbollah

I think showing the powerlessness of Lebanon to control Hezbollah helps the government because it keeps Israel from being able to blame them. It stops it from being a county to country war and opens the possibility for more UN assistance. I see that wording as having the exact opposite affect of creating country tensions.

There's undoubtedly Arab hatred on the part of Israelis as well. That's another reason to try to end this stuff once and for all so that the next generation can grow up without rockets pounding down on their heads.

[sandnsea]

25. French proposal

This sounds good to me, although some sort of commitment by Lebanon to permanently ending Hezbollah militias would be good to add too.

"The mission is expected to propose creating a buffer zone on the Israeli-Lebanese border, a beefed-up international force, deployment of the Lebanese army into the south and a pullback by Hizbullah as well as the release of captured Israeli soldiers as part of possible prisoner exchange."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1824599,00.html

[Mass]

26. Thanks for posting that. I had not seen it.

These are measures like that that will help. Unfortunately, Bush is totally unwilling to propose something.

[ProSense]

27. That could work:

a buffer zone. I see Bolton is dismissing a solution.

[rockymountaindem]

28. A buffer zone would be a great idea

It would secure Israel, and it would contain Hezbollah and Syria. Not to mention provide security for Lebanon.

People piss all over the French, but sometimes they have a good idea, you know?

[karynnj]

29. This proposal sounds like a great idea

This seems reasonably close to what Blair and Koffi Annan wanted as well (I think). I hate our government's approach that we should do nothing for a while to let Israel weaken Hezzbollah - which seems to have only caused Israel to intensify its action because they know they'll be stopped.

The NYT article on the condemnation of Israel shows how completely wrong Bush's view of the ME is.
One paragraph really bothered me, because it states another reason for invading Iraq that had nothing to do with WMD.

"The resentment of the Iraqi government toward Israel calls into question one of the rationales among some conservatives for the American invasion of Iraq — that an American-backed democratic state here would inevitably become an ally of Israel and, by doing so, catalyze a change of attitude across the rest of the Arab world."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/world/middleeast/20shiites.html

[karynnj]

7. This is very well reasoned and I agree to a degree

I also support Israel's right to exist. In Lebanon, Hezzbollah appears to co-exist with the government, which they even have members in. When the current government was formed and they were represented, Lebanon and the world should have insisted that as part of becoming part of the legitimate government, they had to give up their militia and any illegal goals. You can't be both part of a legitimate government and a terrorist organization. Other "terrorist" groups have made this switch - Prime Minister Begin was a member of what was clearly a terrorist group when Britain controlled Palestine.

Instead, the Prime Minister of Lebanon is pleading that he cannot control Hezzbollah without causing the fall of his government. In a rational world, if Hezzbollah continued to be a terrorist group (which it did), Lebanon should have requested outside (UN, US etc) assistance if they could not internally control them. Lebanon would then have been part of the "civilized world" against the criminals.

Many people have given as a parallel situation a hypothetical example of people shooting missiles across the US border from Mexico. I'm sure our first response would be to demand Mexico take action. If Mexico said they couldn't control them, I'm sure we would offer to work with them to arrest those involved. I seriously doubt our first response would be to bomb Mexico City.

Although more may have happened than was disclosed, Israel should have tried diplomacy with Lebanon and internationally before an immediate military response. The Blair/Annan suggestion to station an international force on the border could have created a buffer to keep Hezbollah out of Israel. (It might have deterred the missiles as well.) I understand that Israel has for decades felt that the fact that it was a given that they would respond disproportionately was a deterrent - and that may be the only reason it still survives in a region which hates it.

It is possible that Israel's response was designed to either eliminate Hezzbolla or to make the cost to Lebanon too high for them to ignore the actions of Hezzbollah. Their actions do increase the hatred of Israel in the Middle east. It may be they feel the level of hatred was already saturated, so they increase the fear and respect for their strength and there is no real increase in hatred.

I think Israel is in a more moral position vis a vis Hezbollah than against the Palestinians. That situation is far more complex and far less one sided.

[rockymountaindem]

11. As far as the Mexico-US analogy

I would like to point out that this military operation was not Israel's first response. As was pointed out upthread, these rocket attacks have been ongoing for three years. Recently the UN passed a resolution demanding that Lebanon disarm or expel Hezbollah, and aid was offered to that effect. In addition, the UN also passed a resolution officialy recognizing the border between Israel and Lebanon, which Israel sought to undercut Hezbollah's claims to the Sheba Farms. Again, this was diplomacy, not violence. The US media is reporting that Israel has had these plans to attack Hezbollah in place for five years. If the military option was going to be Israel's "first reaction" was going to be this, we'd have seen it happen in 2001 or 2002, long before now. That alone, as well as the action in the UN, proves that Israel's first response was not military action.

On edit:
Also, as far as bombing Mexico City/Beirut goes, again I think Israel has an actual plan. Your analogy makes it seem like Israeli leaders simply decided, "well, if we get attacked, we'll just bomb the crap out of Beirut in retaliation". That isn't what is happening. As I said in my post, it appears that Israel is attacking legitimate targets, some of which unfortunately happen to be located in Beirut's crowded neighborhoods of poor Shiite Muslims. These, of course, are the people Hezbollah claims to represent, so it is logical that they would build their offices and headquarters there. Israel isn't bombing Beirut as a form of retaliation, but bombing specific targets in Beirut which are linked to Hezbollah. That's a big difference. This isn't just bombing for the sake of bombing, IMHO.

[karynnj]

13. I agree they aren't bombing indiscriminantly

and that Hezzbolla's reason to be is to atack Israel. I also understand why, though it will set Lebanon back for years, there were valid strategic reasons to destroy the roads, bridges, and airport. The sad thing is that the US has good connections to both governments. I can't imagine that Kerry, Gore or any previous president of either party couldn't have played a key role in defusing the situation. (From Kerry's comments on terrorism, he would likely have been proactive in working with Lebanon to help them control Hezzbollah.)

My concern is that the destruction of Lebanon's infastructure with a terrorist group sitting nearby sounds like the same scenario that created the mess in Iraq. I completely sympathize with Israel's situation. My comments were more frustration that Lebanon and the international community aren't dealing with the core issues and that pictures of the destruction can further inflame the situation.

[rockymountaindem]

14. Well, I agree with you

If we had a responsible President in the White House, things never would have gotten to this level because we would have remained engaged in peace talks since 2001. Alas...

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. I agree

I think Bush is much to blame. He and his corrupt administration has sat on their hands for 5 and half years and let things boil up in the Mideast. To make matters even worse he attacked Iraq, and that brought extremist to a boiling point.

This administration loves WAR, I have no doubt about that at all. We have complete fools (Iran, N. Korea, Syria etc.)with their fingers on the trigger of a total catastrophe.

This administration is Incompetent in everything they do. This would not be happening if Dems were in control, we would have been at a table getting this under control.

A year and a half ago when Lebanon needed help we looked the other way as did other nations, why? Lebanon is not just Muslims half the country is christian.

What has the last 8 days accomplished ? Is it just how many more each side can kill? I have watched these past days and the stories of death are made personal when it comes to Israel and just a number when it comes to Lebanon, that is not right, there are innocents being killed on both sides, and Condilieza is sitting on her hands waiting to see, I'm just mortified by this administration's complete incompetence, everyone is suffering because of it.

In the midst of all this madness Bush vetoes a bill that could bring HOPE to millions, he doesn't give a damn about real living people , my mother died due to complications of juvenile diabetes which she got at age 32, I grew up with her pain, I went to a friend's wedding one year and the next year I was at his funeral he went into a diabetic shock while driving and crashed, and my cousin who contracted juvenile diabetes at age 14 is still hoping to prolong her life.

Sorry I got carried away but I'm just so damn sad, I'm sad for all the innocents who are dying because power means more than real living human beings.

[whometense]

12. A very interesting and encouraging

interview here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11724 by Laura Rozen.

[Mass]

18. Thank you. This is excellent.

[ProSense]

30. Here's a good sign!

Lebanese PM: Hezbollah must be disarmed
21 minutes ago

ROME - Hezbollah has created a "state within a state" in Lebanon and must be disarmed, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in an interview published Thursday in an Italian daily.

Saniora told Milan-based newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Shiite militia has been doing the bidding of Syria and Iran, and that it can only be disarmed with the help of the international community and once a cease-fire has been achieved in the current Middle East fighting.

"Hezbollah has become a state within a state. We know it well," said Saniora, leveling for the first time such an accusation against the Syria- and Iran-backed guerillas that effectively control southern Lebanon.

"It's not a mystery that Hezbollah answers to the political agendas of Tehran and Damascus," Saniora was quoted as saying by Corriere. "The entire world must help us disarm Hezbollah. But first we need to reach a cease-fire."

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_hezbollah_2