Qana

The recent airstrike on Qana, bringing about the bloodiest day of fighting in this conflict, bothers me on a number of levels. It's not that it's any different in kind than what Israel has been doing thus far. In fact, it's more of the same. The problem is the way in which it seems to cross a certain line, to overflow its levee.
For some reason, the international community is beginning to make the movements, motions, and act like they've had too much. Condoleezza Rice is attempting to put together a ceasefire and the UN is hoping to get in on the action (although more than likely reluctanly). At the least Annan is going through the motions.
The problem is that Israel, in the wake of the Qana attacks, has agreed to a 48 hour ceasefire in order to investigate into whether or not the attack on Qana was justified, whether Hizbollah was targeted, or whether something terrible had gone wrong to bring about the death of so many civilians. And it is these civilians which Israel repeats that Hizbollah is using as shields. Thus something like Qana is bound to happen as a result of the way in which Hizbollah 'hides' amongst its civilian population. "So see," Israel seems to be saying to the Lebanese,"they don't care about you any more than they care about us. Come with us, we'll take care of you".
For this brief moment, let's pretend that this is exactly what Hizbollah are doing. Then why only civilians killed and no Hizbollah? Curious. One day into the ceasefire, however, Israel has continued launching attacks under the guise that they "were in support of ground forces and so not covered by the 48-hour halt" (NYTimes, "Israel Says No Halt to Strikes in Support of Ground Forces,"7-31-06). Clearly this leaves the door wide open. They seem to be saying "We'll quit striking on the grounds that we may or may not have done something gravely wrong, but in the meantime, we won't stop while we stop". Israel's defense minister is even quoted as saying, "We must not agree to a cease-fire that would be implemented immediately. If an immediate cease-fire is declared, the extremists will rear their heads anew" (NYTimes, ibid). There is an obvious blurring of the term 'cease-fire' and 'halting attacks' going on. The problem is that Israel agrees to halt attacks, but since no formal cease-fire has been put into place, continues to attack. A halting without halt.
But let's not forget why this halting/continuance is going on in the first place, Qana. With what the UN Security Council tagged a situation that causes "great shock and distress" one would expect some form of an international outcry over and above the mimetic cease-fire proceedings carried out by the US, Britain, and others. For after all, the 48-hour non-halt is being put into effect to investigate, right? Is it these members of the international community that are participating in the investigation of this horrific attack on civilians and young? No. Israel is the conducter of the inquiry.

I'm interested to see what they come up with.

British Petroleum

So the figures just came in. It turns out that BP made $55,000 per minute in the second quarter.


Hm.

Death Toll

As of 7-24-06:

Lebanese: 380 dead
Israeli: 36 dead


The question is, "Who is the biggest threat?"

Suppliers

The New York Times today published an article in which it makes clear the United State's stance. Not only is the US supplying Israel with their weapons, and subsequently supporting the "disproportianate" use of force in Lebanon, but they plan to speed up their delivery at the request of Israel. At a time when Condolleeza Rice is planning to make a trip over there and the world is silently watching, the US decides to not only aid, but aid more quickly the Israeli war machine.

If only we could vote on what to do concerning specific issues.

It would be amazing if every day issues came up to be voted on; like if we could vote on whether or not to verbally denounce what Israel is doing; or if we could vote on whether or not to put forth some type of sanction, etc.

If we had a say...

Foreign Policy, of a different variety

Steven Erlanger of the New York Times recently wrote an article (7/19/06, "With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion") addressing the use of force employed by the Israeli military in proportion to both the perceived threats of both Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as both national and international sentiment concerning such threats/actions. The article brought to light, at least for me, some pressing issues concerning not just the Middle East in and of itself, but the United States' behaviour to the Middle East, specifically, and to the international community more generally.
Factically, or as much as can be claimed, at the time of the printing of the article there were "some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians". And the scales tip one way. So this is how many have died as a result of this and point intrinsically to the nature of war. Over and above this, however, is the case made by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.” The problem with this is the degree to which threats can be editorialized, skewed, perceived, and misperceived. It's a problem when you act militarily on perceived threats. Why? Because you can be wrong. Or you can be perceived right. But in the end it's how you perceive them. Livni is also quoted as saying, in response to the killing of civillians in and around the headquarters of Hezbollah in Beirut, “When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.” Well maybe the threat of waking up to a kind of missile may just necessitate going to sleep with one, no?
Possibly the most infuriating point put forth in the article, though, is what Dan Gillerman, Israel's United Nations ambassador said: Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, “You’re damn right we are.” Isn't this somehow punishable under some type of international law.
If not, then the least that could happen is some type of international condemnation. How about the U.S.? Nope, we're going to wait the fighting out before we do or say anything. Maybe send Condollezza Rice over there. We'll see.

Preemption

Many made the case in both the build up to the Iraq War and in its ongoing 'wake' that the United States broke new ground with their unprecedented 'preemptive' attack. I know Chomsky makes the case that they single handedly, with this action, changed warfare, or armed combat, or whatever you choose to call it.

Israel, however, in 1967, launched a preemptive strike into Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

It seems as if the little brother picked up much more quickly than the older one.

Just began Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem".