Shi'ite Meet Fan ... again. Rockets FIRED From LEBANON!

I take it back that the Gaza mayhem would be over before Obama has to worry about it.  I should know better than get into the prediction business.

With al Sadr rousing the rabble in Iraq to retaliate against US forces and now Lebanon's Hezbollah joining the Hamas mess by launching missiles into Galilee, this crap could get completely out of hand by the time Barack gets sworn in -- cuz the C+ Augustus ain't doing a damn thing about this.  That's a prediction I feel confident in.  "aWol" will remain inept, incompetent and impotent.

In what could be a major escalation in the current crisis, Lebanon has fired 3 [4 -- no five six ...]  rockets into Israel, hitting west Galilee; several injured. [and Israel is returning fire...]
~via BNO News from their Twitter Tweets.

Israel in Gaza: An Alternate Scenario

[cross posted at E Pluribus Unum]

I was born in the Middle East and I still have family there -- on both sides of the expanded conflict.

I've written about this in a couple of diaries over the years. Here's one. Here's another.

Long story short, you'll find no greater defender of Israel than I. Which is why it pains me to say that the latest incursion into Gaza is making Israel weaker, not stronger, by repeating the mistakes of the Lebanon incursion of 2006.

Bottom line: it's time for Israel to try something new because the application of military force will not solve Israel's problems in the long run.

I'd like to sketch out an alternate scenario. But first, a recap...

Where We Stand Today

The Israelis have three explicit and implicit objectives which they hope to achieve going in to Gaza:

1. To stop the rocket attacks into Israeli territory.


2. To stop the supply of terrorist materiel into Gaza.


3. To cripple Hamas' leadership to the point that they will think twice about firing rockets again -- or to stop them from thinking altogether.

These were the same objectives that the Israelis had in striking back at Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war. And while Gaza is a smaller military objective and the application of Israeli force is greater (and with smarter more talented people running it), they're still faced with the historical fact that in 4th generation warfare, the smaller force wins by not losing and the larger force loses by not winning.

Yes, Olmert can stop the rocket attacks for a time (although that hasn't happened quite yet). Yes, the Israeli Defense Forces can destroy the tunnels and other supply lines into northern Gaza (until they are established again elsewhere).

But as for toppling Hamas (not an explicit objective but a real one just the same), for every Hamas leader killed, there will be 10 Gazans who will revere his memory and vow to seek revenge against the Israelis. It's not rational; it just is what it is.

Hatred is fungible; destroying its supply-lines by force is impossible.

Is There An Alternative?

Yes, but it requires both sides to admit that their counterparts are in the region to stay -- for good. The people of Israel and the people of Gaza (and the West Bank for that matter) must come to terms with the idea that they will be living next to each other for a long, long time to come. Neither side is going to go away. Israel will not be pushed into the sea and the Palestinians will not be going away either.

In other words, if you think this is a fight to the death -- of either Israel or of Hamas (or whoever is the next terrorist organization to spring up in their place) -- then it would be a good idea to start looking around for more alternatives.

Middle Eastern Treaty Organization

For starters, I think the US should promote a Middle East Treaty Organization (METO , like NATO) made up of Israel, the US, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. If the Saudis want to join, fine. All of these parties would be at least receptive to the idea that they could balance the power of an ascendant Iran (and its pawns, Hezbollah and Hamas).

For example, I strongly believe that Iran has no interest in nuking Israel. If they're going to nuke anyone, it's the Saudis. The Saudis have all the rest of the oil not already controlled by Iran; and they have Mecca as well; and lastly, they are Sunnis. Israel and the Saudis have a common foe. Why not ally themselves against it?

Middle East Free Trade Association

Not only that: I think the same parties should also get going with a Middle East Free Trade Association (MEFTA, like NAFTA) made up of the same parties -- Israel, the US, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Why not? Those parties must know that if the Arabs and the Jews got together they'd take over the world -- they'd have all the brains AND all the oil.

Seriously, both sides are going to have to put aside past grievances to get to a place where they can entertain these alternatives. There's nothing to be gained by the Israelis in pointing out, yet again, the inherent antisemitism in the European reaction to the latest war. And there's nothing to be gained by the Palestinians in accusing Israel, yet again, of being a colonialist subjugator of their Arab neighbors. Enough. None of this is news and none of it helps them achieve their common objective which is to live side-by-side in some semblance mutual cooperation.

The solutions have to be big and bold. And the US has to be engaged in seeing to it that both sides give a little to get a lot in return. The sooner that happens, the better off we'll all be.

Carter Take Two? No Duh!

Hmm, coming off a divisive and disastrous war that wrecked havoc with the economy with oil prices out of control, and a stand-off with Iran, and a mandate to clean up after the most corrupt administration in our history.

Sounds like exactly the situation Carter inherited. Sounds just like what we're facing now.

If you're too young to appreciate Nixon's wage and price freeze and Ford's "WIN" buttons (kinda like "Mars Bitches!" but channeled towards Whipping Inflation Now), leading up to the oil embargo faced by Carter that pretty much sank what was left of the economy and doomed his reelection chances, then you might be one of the Dead Enders like Our Lady Of Internment Camps who buy into McCain and Fox Noise telling us that Obama = Carter, who supposedly was a monster.

A second Carter term of course would have brought about energy independence had we continued all his programs that Reagan chucked; and the Nobel Lauriate certainly would have made more progress on Arab-Israeli peace, something that has been stuck in the mud since Carter left office.

For the older generation, it might be the soft on Arabs/Muslims/terrorists/Islamofascists dog-whistle the righties are blowing with the Carter comparison. Now that the "Hussein" Obama meme that Barack has some kind of whacky religious problem, be it Islam or African Nationalism (yeah, whatever), the wingnutosphere is spending a lot of energy trying to make out that the Democratic nominee will bring about the fall of Jerico, that his supporters are anti-Semetic to the core based on a completely fabricated false flag operation, and he accosted that "revered Jewish figure" Joe LIEberman.

Utterly ignoring Obama's unambiguous hard line support for Israel and the distinction he makes about dealing with rival heads of state and dealing with terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, count on wingnuttistan to go back to the "Obama hates Jews" meme again and again.

Kristol Kandor Strikes Again

First he admits his perpetual suckitude, now this.

Reporting from the AIPAC conference, Seth Colter Walls reports on Huffington Post the Alice in Wonderland remarks from "Weekly Standard editor (and New York Times op-ed page neocon) Bill Kristol," describing the lack of any significant difference between Obama and McCain on National Security:

"There are actually no disputes of that nature...with the exception of Iraq this time. Obama's not for cutting the defense budget; Obama's not for pulling troops back from our forward positions around the world, with the exception of Iraq. Obama and McCain don't actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they're arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not -- and I think that's an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn't say he would rule out the use of force. McCain certainly is committed as he said this morning to trying to increase economic pressure on Iran, which Obama has also talked about."

Good news, McCain is a lying POS for touting his position is in any way superior to Obama's when it comes to their respective Middle East approach.

Bad news, Obama doesn't represent that much of a difference than what we have now.

Real news, the major break with current perceptions of the U.S.A.'s belligerant imperialism that Obama represents means that he might be able to pull it off while McCain, representing the same old song, would be doomed to fail.