Completely agree with the point "...but should be determined on Australian national interest grounds alone: interests at that time usually defined as including a rules-based international security system that effectively deters aggressive war by one state on another state."

However, how does one adequately define national interest - does it exclude Darfur for example.

And what of the context when a state is attacked by a no-state actor such as Hezbollah; what of the point "...deters aggressive war by one state on another state".

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

There might be a number of reasons for Israel’s slow progress on the ground as it attempts to defang Hezbollah. For instance, where are the BBC journalists/war tacticians who were so helpful to the USA army as it marched towards Baghdad? Israel is using traditional tactics against an enemy using guerrilla tactics with the usual concomitant outcomes. I’d say that Mr Olmert has one eye on casualty figures as well. Mr Olmert has admitted that it won’t be easy and that victory will extract a high price. He must be frustrated with the IDF because Lebanese officials say that the Lebanese death toll so far is in excess of 1,000 civilians and not one death of a Hezbollah soldier.

If Israel thought it could win the international PR debate I’m sure Olmert would have issued PR kits to each member of the IDF long ago.

Lebanese Christian pronounce their love of Hezbollah in public but in private it’s a different story. It would be interesting to know if Hezbollah’s ranks comprise Christians. The years leading up to the present brutal conflict would indicate that diplomatic sophistry has failed so we don’t need more of that.

Mearsheimer and Walt present the Israel - United States as a camorra with the USA spending billions to prop up Israel. But consider this; Egypt is a beneficiary of USA largesse to the tune of USA$2 billion per year. As one author put it: “If the day Christ died you set out to give one million dollars every year to your favorite charity, you would not yet, April 2004, have spent two billion dollars.” Are the authors suggesting that a Pan Arab – USA alliance would be any better? I can see the headlines now: “USA funds 86,000 FGM operations in 2006 but says Pan Arab – USA alliance stronger than ever.” And just where does the canting of the mad doctor to our north fit in the mosaic? Didn’t he tell us that Israel gets other countries to fight its wars for it? If that’s the case Israel has let itself down this time

I think we should let them build their temple and then when God doesn't pop up, grind it to the ground and make them pull back to the 67 borders and disband their miltary both sides.

Israel really has not op*ssed off the majority of Lebanese Christians, the majority of whom now have had to leave Lebanon because of the terror caused to them and their families by Hizbollah in concert with the Lebanese Parliament:

http://www.clhrf.com/

Of course, groups like these should not be listened to either according to the author, perhaps the minority Shia in Lebanon now, should be given voting rights in line with their perceived importance, and allowed to dictate the way a war that they started, and which they cannot win, should end.

That is what I sincerely love about this crowd, they make arguments that sound good from a Human Rights perspective, totally ignoring the human rights of the other parties in Lebanon and of the numerous parties in Israel affected by the actions of the Shia and their protector Hizbollah.

It is in the interest of Syria and Hizbollah (the Syrian proxy) to continue the current conflict, whilst Sinoura is scared more of Hizbollah and Syria than he is of anybody. Why should the majority of Lebanese be held hostage to the insane desires of Hassan Nasrallah and his protector Assad? Why should Israel be held hostage to this insanity? Why should a group supported by 1 million people (at most) hold the whip over the other 10 million people in that region?

Human rights (particularly for the Shia minority) or democracy, one cannot protect both absolutely at the present time.

Inshallah

2bob

Australia should most certainly NOT send troops to the Middle East. Apart from our small army being overstretched now, we should look to our own region.

Tony Kevin regards our PM’s refusal to talk to Hezbollah terrorists as ‘foolish and short-sighted’, and gives his reason for that criticism the number of Jewish and Lebanese people living in Australia.

Perhaps now people will begin to see the problems caused to governments’ ability to operate foreign policy after importing people from countries totally different from their own? Probably not: there are too many wide-eyed ideologues trying to be ‘nice’.

Tony sees a diplomatic role for Australia in the Middle East, but Australia has not been appointed ‘ambassador’ to the Middle East or anywhere else; and what makes him think religion-crazed Hezbollah would listen to anything infidel Australia said? And, let’s not forget the insult to Israel, fighting for its existence.

Tony’s statement that, “Of course, for Howard, any idea of contact with Hezbollah would be anathema”, should earn the response: ‘and so it damn well should be!’ Australia would be stupid to treat with terrorists.

We would all agree with Tony that: “foreign policy should not be captured by “vigorous and vocal special interest groups”, but the Tony Kevin one-man-band is attempting to do just that.

Fortunately for we victims of Tony’s tirades, he wears his heart on his sleeve. This excerpt from his web site for 25th. July says it all:

“I still find the values and policies of the Howard Government thoroughly immoral and destructive of Australia's real national interest, which is in our rebuilding a civilised liberal society both within our country and in our country's damaged relationships with the rest of the world.”

Heaven help us all if Tony ever gets his ‘ideal’ government.

I still find the values and policies of the Howard Government thoroughly immoral and destructive of Australia's real national interest, which is in our rebuilding a civilised liberal society both within our country and in our country's damaged relationships with the rest of the world.”

Well Leigh... I for one, find the quote rather accurate.
Before there can be any commentary on the middle eastern situation, it is important to note a few key points:

The primary enemy of militant islamic groups throughout the middle east is not the US, but Israel.
Of course, the US is a close number second, but you'll find a lot of that is due to the close relationship between the two countries - well, that and the US-sponsored oil wars.

The six day war didn't help matters - okay, fair enough Israel had to defend themselves, but by trouncing so many middle eastern nations by so very much they cast an insult that still burns.

Rather than accepting this defeat, a more palatable alternative was making Israel into something more than it was - on a political level, we've once had a Malaysian prime minister launching a racist diatribe against Israel and claiming they have hoodwinked the rest of the world into assisting them.

Add to this some kind of religous debate which casts the Jewish people as in league with an evil spiritual force, and you get a decent excuse for their horrific loss.

Of course, this isn't fair or logical reasoning, but it works... many european nations haven't weighed into this debate, and they are not the target of terrorists. AIJAC and AIPAC spend huge amounts of money to convince others to aid Israel. Quite frankly, I can't blame them because they need the assistance.

Cont'd