Stepanie - I agree with you 100%. I have made the same point many times on these threads. The behaviour of both (all?) sides indicates that none of the powers involved in the ME are interested in the lives and well being of their citizens or peace would have been brokered by now.

The sooner Western powers such as the USA can ween itself off fossil fuel, the sooner it can stop interferring in the ME. However that is not the entire problem and is too simplistic a solution.

There is, also, the vested interest from the Christian fundies with their belief in the 'second coming' and the spectre of the Project for the New American Century, whose aim is no less than USA style 'democracy' by force. Both of the USA based organisations are unlikely to cease their support of Israel and their pressure on the ME.

I checked out your blog, Stephanie - good to see that I am not the only person alarmed by the PNAC.

Stephanie

A nation that hangs a 16 year-old girl for "crimes against chastity" (Iran) and that ferociously persecutes religious minorities (Iran) should in any sane person's opinion be worse than the United States. And yes, there is a lot wrong with the United States. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is 100 times more barking loonie than George Bush. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm for a good example.

Stephanie,

To simply assume that because both sides have killed innocents and are biased, that both sides are therefore equivalent, is a complete cop out.

Israel, though perhaps illegitimatly born, is still an internationally recognised nation state, and a democracy, which has a right to defend itself against cross border attacks. Hizbullah, on the other hand, are a terrorist organisation, who have no political mandate to act as they do anywhere, let alone within Lebanon.

That there are people who would side with Hizbullah over Israel, I can understand, but I cannot understand how anyone can side with Hizbullah over Lebanon. Regardless of whether Israel is justified in bombing/invading Lebanon, surely even those opposed to Israel ought to be opposed to the brazen way in which Hizbullah has chosen to usurp and ignore the democratic government of Lebanon. It has, for a considerable period, effectively controlled significant Lebanese territory and started this conflict by taking unilateral military action against a neighbouring nation without Lebanese government approval. Surely this is every bit as wrong as Israel's present seizure of Lebanese territory? Indeed, the Hizbullah action made an Israeli response of some military kind inevitable, and to that extent, Hizbullah, must bear at least some responsibility for those killed by the Israelis.

The silence of the anti-Israeli lobby on this aspect of the present conflict is astounding.

A headline in today’s West Australian reports the following:

1. In waging its long war against the Israelis, the big winner might be Hizbollar leader, Hassan Nasrallah - for now. One surprise also has been the strong leadership of Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora.

2 The report goes on to say that Israel has already lost a lot in the eyes of the world, for using the capture of three Israelies by Hizbollah as an excuse to do the damage it has done to Lebanese buildings etc, as well as to its people.

3. The conflict has also proven as with the Americans in Iraq, as well as formerly in Vietnam, that democracy, where there was not democracy beforehand, is almost impossible to achieve by military means.

4. The report goes on to say that America’s image abroad could emerge badly shattered, in part because of prolonged negotiations widely perceived in the Arab world as deliberate to let Israel pursue its military agenda against any part of the Arab world that is anti-Israeli.

5. The one who has been battered the worst from the report has been Condoleeza Rice, whose comments about the Israeli structural damage and slaughter in Lebanon, as simply the “birth pangs of a new Middle East” were particularly insensitive and cruel. Certainly doesn’t say much for one who is now regarded by her American bosses as the world’s premier diplomat

Kalin,

cc: Stephanie

Do you really see Israel as "illegitimatly born"? If so, why? How are states legitimatly born? What separates the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones? And if not, why suggest that it was "perhaps illegitimatly born"?

I refuse to get caught up in a discussion on semantics.
This is basically my bottom line on the subject..My thoughts have come to one, perhaps two conclusions...and it's about the way the American government deals with things... This is but one example...