While Turkey was flagging down Iranian planes in its air-space this week,  Iran's leading lunatic, Ahmadinejad, was rationalizing why his country needed nukes:  'cause de Amurikans gott'em. 

"How can the Iranian nation give up its obvious right to peaceful nuclear technology, when America and some other countries test new atomic bombs each year?"

Peaceful nuclear technology?   [Sounds more like war-head envy, but I'll play along ..... ]

My goodness, Ahmadie.  Why didn't you tell us you only wanted nukes to develop alternative fuels -- to augment the oil you've pledged to Russia. 

And all this time we thought you were ..... Oh, my.  Forgive us.  How ... how ... how utterly humanitarian of you!!

Do I smell a Nobel Peace prize in someone's future?  Eh?  Eh?

And just in case you're fibbing and planning a realllllly bigggggggg surprise for everyone on August 22 ----  Just remember:

While visions of alternative fuels dance through your cluttered head, U. S.  aircraft are consuming massive quantities of jet fuel, stealthing the stratosphere 24/7 -- loaded with all those new atomic bombs we allegedly test each year. 

A conservative radio host/TV commentator/author is calling for Condi Rice's resignation as Secretary of State. 

I posted a response at the host's blog this evening:

Though disappointed in how the Lebanese have responded/shirked their obligations RE: the UN Resolution -- I certainly don't blame Condi Rice. 

Remember that Russia and China had threatened to abstain in that vote? (Remember the aside between Condi and a Russian official during the G-8 Summit?) Condi Rice is the reason the Resolution was passed unanimously.

We need Condi Rice's temperament and resolve to deal with Russia and other Middle East shadow players.  (After all --- no SoS has successfully or effectively dealt with them previously! And Russia may very well be the darkest shadow of all ....)

I, too, was disappointed in the Resolution wording, the lack of a stronger UN role and a failure to demand the disarmament of Hezbollah. I've had no expectation that Lebanon could disarm the Hezzies without Hezbollah's cooperation -- even if Lebanon wanted to.

With Lebanon totally wimping out, approx. 16 nations have now either reduced and/or reassessed their peace-keeping roles in Southern Lebanon. Does anyone actually think Condi could have averted these reactions?  Come on -- armchair quarterback the collective results if you wish, but give the woman credit for what she has actually achieved!  And how many times did she refer to this resolution as "the first phase" of the ME peace process??

In spite of my disappointment(s) -- I'm certainly not giving up on Condi Rice as being instrumental in bringing about a more united global front against terrorism and subsequent Israeli-Hezbollah/Lebanese resolutions. 

By the way -- It was a Lebanese official who first referred to Hezbollah as a militia.  Possibly Condi was diplomatically (or sarcastically?) reflecting his reference. After all, Lebanon will allow Hezzies to keep their arms -- in that context, those scum-bags are a militia!

Now more than ever, we need a person of insight and intellect -- not another bull in the global china shop -- to garner support for the battle(s) ahead.  If Lebanon allows Hezbollah to take control militarily and politically, don't be surprised if there is a civil uprising before the Hezzies regroup to attack Israel again. 

Fortunately for Israel and other allied "peace-keeping" interests, the US will send a flight of surveillance planes to monitor the Lebanese and Syrian borders.  Even France's 200 (as opposed to the 2000+ originally promised) troops should feel [a tad more] secure. 

Replace Condi Rice?  If she leaves -- there also goes the [global] neighborhood .... 

We need Condi Rice.  We may also need some new catch-words: 

"Blame Bush if you gotta, but appreciate Condi Rice."

Patience  ... patience .... patience .......

-- In spite of having a weak and self-serving idiot as Secretary General of the UN. 

-- In spite of asking a weak, ineffective government to do what is asked.

Let's assume that IF the U.N. authorized a "robust" force to disarm Hezbollah, they (the U.N.) would have to recognize Hezbollah as some type of governing entity instead of a terrorist organization.  Instead, the U.N. has authorized the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. 

Lebanon can't do it?  Then the U.N. can only impose sanctions.  Big deal.

Or the Israelis will have to -- in the name of defensive action/reaction.  Rest assured that Lebanon will never recover from the next bombardment.

So if the Israelis begin "round two" (i.e., signifying the end of the current cease fire), then Syria and Iran may become OFFICIALLY involved ..... An involvement for which the U.N. may intercede.  May.

By a similar token -- the PLO and Hamas are discussing a joint-governing structure in the Gaza Strip.  One problem, however.  Both the Israelis and the U. N. must approve recognition of such a joint venture.  Resolutions prevent such recognition. 

How much weight Resolutions carry remains to be seen.  In some cases, we've already seen their ineffectiveness.

So we head back to square one.  Or was that round one?

Make that round two.

Patience .... Patience .... Patience .......

What an absolute, power-grubbing, pro-Hezbollah idiot.

You have to read the authority this oil-stained sack of unmentionable stuff has bestowed upon himself:

If Hizb’allah breaks the ceasefire – as they already have – and shoots at Israeli citizens or population centers, territory or forces, the IDF may in most cases not respond before informing the United Nations Secretary General of the violation, and obtaining his permission to shoot back.

This is the expectation of Kofi Annan, as spelled out in a letter from him to the sovereign government of the State of Israel earlier this week.

Annan said Israel and Lebanon must immediately inform him if either side has been fired upon, giving as much detail as possible, but "refraining from responding except where clearly required in immediate self-defense."

Under the terms of the ceasefire, when Israel is firing on Hizb’allah Israel is firing on Lebanon.

Annan is an openly pro-Arab world leader who has on more than one occasion accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians and UN peacekeepers, but has never been heard to unequivocally and passionately denounce acts of Arab terrorism against Jews.

While the Hizb’allah’s invasion of sovereign Israeli territory on July 12 – when it killed eight IDF soldiers and kidnapped two – and its raining down of nearly 4,000 missiles deliberately on Israeli civilians in their homes constitute war crimes, Annan’s United Nations at no time during the 33-day long conflict discussed indicting Hizb’allah or condemning the Lebanese government for permitting these war crimes to take place.

Annan’s letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert contains an additional list of “requirements” from this man, who seeks to establish himself as the impartial ceasefire supervisor, according to a report in The Jerusalem Post Tuesday.

Thus he also demands of Israel that its forces no longer occupy, or seek to occupy, any additional territory on the Lebanese side. Should Israel observe Hizb’allah forces restocking their rocket supplies north of the Litani River, for example, IDF forces may not cross that boundary to deal with the threat.

According to a report in Ha’aretz Tuesday, a compromise agreement is currently “being hammered out between Hizb’allah and the Lebanese government [that] would allow the Shi'ite guerillas to keep hidden weapons in south Lebanon.”

Israel must furthermore give Annan a detailed description of precisely where all its armor and soldiers were deployed at the moment the ceasefire came into effect. Israel may not change the number or location of its troops without informing the UN chief.

In this way Annan believes he will be able to closely police Israel to ensure its compliance.

He plans to watch Israel like a hawk.

Precisely what he plans to do about infractions on the other side is not clear.

Should any firing occur, Annan said in his letter, “the UN undertakes to bring, in an impartial manner, such incidents to the attention of the Security Council as quickly as possible.”

Since the ceasefire went into effect early Monday, at least two Hizb’allah terrorists have been killed after firing on IDF forces in southern Lebanon.

Overnight Monday Hizb’allah fired 10 Katyusha rockets and at least four mortars at Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

This is in line with Hizb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s vow to keep attacking Israeli forces as long as a single IDF soldier remains in Lebanese territory.

And it has been and will continue to be made possible by the refusal of Lebanese Prime Minister Hannah Siniora, as spelled out by him Monday, to in any way try to disarm the Hizb’allah.

Annan has thus far not indicated whether or when he will bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council.

Don't hold your breath, Kofi. 

Better still --- 

Hold that vile breath as you await Israel's request to take defensive action to protect itself.

I read this apt reference (subject line) to Hezbollah and Lebanon somewhere tonight.

Coupled with the U.N. Secretary's un-response to Lebanon's refusal to disarm Hezbollah (don't show; don't tell), Kofi Annan's bias appears more and more obvious.  While browsing blogs who reacted to the current scenario (see previous post), I found this group

and joined.  (See link at bottom of sidebar.)

I'll post more of my sentiments on the ineffectiveness of the UN later.   This archaic (incompetent?) organization has evolved into a "legalized" haven for global graft and corruption.  If there were to be any wonder why Kofi Annan is biased against the US and our allies -- review his role in the oil-for-food scandal. 

Meanwhile back in the Middle East:

Looks as if Lebanon intends to shirk even the onus for abiding by the recent U.N. resolution.  Will the Security Council allow Lebanon to refuse to meet one condition of its resolution? 

Will the peace-keeping force be made "robust" to compensate for Lebanon's cowardice? 

If Israel initiates a "second round" and does (in self-defense) what the Lebanese refuse to do -- will the Israelis be sanctioned for breaching the resolution?

A state within a Non-State?   Hezbollah controls Lebanon.  Iran and Syria control Hezbollah.  But we knew that, didn't we?  And look who's lining up their tanks along the Syrian-Israeli border -- in anticipation for what?  Need we really speculate?    

Could Israeli troops returning from Lebanon be in deployment to another region? 

Egypt has closed its border into Gaza ....

I have a suggestion.

Let all Sunni and Shiite militias gather somewhere (like in Syria) to settle their differences.  Liquid bombs allowed.  WMD's permitted.  Go guerrilla.  Winners get seven LIVE virgins and three camels. 

Let the Iraqi Parliament challenge the Iranian clerics to a soccer game, officiated by Jordan.   At the end of the match, tunics are NOT exchanged.  Winners receive a trophy that's shaped like a nuclear reactor and ticks.

Let Israel finish annihilating Hezbollah and Lebanon.  Let "disproportionate response" be an understatement.  Make Reuters' fauxtographs look amateurish.  Keep the man in the green helmet so busy he'll need to hire a battalion of location directors.

When the dust settles, pack up the PLO and Hamas and deposit them in what's left of Lebanon. Finally they will have their own state. 

Oh yeah -- sell the United Nations building to Donald Trump and let him turn it into low rent apartments for out-of-work NY cab drivers.   

From the JPost: 

Annan angered Israeli officials when he told Channel 2 on Tuesday that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization. Annan upset officials further when he said that deploying international forces in Lebanon would take "weeks or months," and not days as expected.

"He has been one-sided," the [Israeli] official said. "He tried to be even-handed in a situation that was clearly asymmetrical. When one side committed crimes against humanity and engaged in genocide and the other side defended itself, he cannot treat us in the same manner."

Annan rejected charges of bias, saying, "I have been very hard on Hizbullah and condemned Hizbullah for what it has done. I have condemned Israel for what I consider excessive use of force but it doesn't mean I am taking one side." 

In his opening remarks at last week's United Nations Security Council meeting -- when the resolution for a cease-fire between Israel-Hezbollah passed 15-0 -- Secretary General Kofi Annan stated his disappointment that the Council had not acted more quickly in drafting a resolution.  Notably absent from his comments have been references to Hezbollah or its role in instigating the conflict with Israel.

Why has Annan failed to publicly reference Hezbollah "for what it has done" before now? 

For even the un-objective observer -- the answer should be obvious.

Neither Annan nor the Security Council have yet to address Lebanon's arbitrary decision NOT to disarm Hezbollah -- in contradiction to the resolution passed. 

Israel has, however.

The IDF will have to resume operations in Lebanon if the expanded United Nations force being assembled does not fulfill its obligation to dismantle Hizbullah, an official in the Prime Minister's Office warned on Tuesday.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reached a deal allowing Hizbullah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public. Israeli officials called the arrangement a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed over the weekend and was approved on Sunday by the cabinet.

"The resolution is clear that Hizbullah needs to be removed from the border area, embargoed and dismantled," the official said. "If the resolution is not implemented, we will have to take action to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. I don't think backtracking will serve any useful purpose. There has to be pressure on Hizbullah to disarm or there will have to be another round."

I don't think there will be any question about the action to be taken if there is a "another round." 

Annan will have to come up with a superlative for  "disproportionate."

   Oh well.

It's not that my computer wasn't protected by some of the best products on the market.  But it happened.  Not sure how or when (problems began 3-4 days ago), but it did.  My computer (and this blog) were invaded and rendered useless.  Until I had everything "sanitized" and cleaned out this evening, it felt like a personal-type of violation.

Unless someone(s) have been offended by my pro-Israeli stance or my pro-troop support or my anti-extremist position(s) -- there is and has never been anything personally identifiable on this computer.  Except a few tears [rhymes with ears] and tears [rhymes with airs].

So I'll take up where I left off.  More secure (system guards) and cautious ..... 

Heroes of the Moment: Binyamin Netanyahu and Condi Rice. And the US basketball team with Coach K!  The IDF......

Yuckos of the Day:  Leaders of Hezbollah, Iran, Syria.  And the boyz from 18th Street. 

Favorite Links of the Day:  Lucianne.com and the Jpost.com

Told-ja-So of the Day:  Lebanon hedging.

With the onus on their backs to comply with the UN Resolution Lebanon (and Hezbollah) accepted, Lebanon is now hedging on disarming Hezbollah and deploying troops to Southern Lebanon.

It is obvious Lebanese leaders realize they cannot control Hezbollah. 

From JPost.com:

A critical Lebanese Cabinet meeting set for Sunday to discuss implementation of the cease-fire between Israel and Hizbullah was postponed, a move that was likely to delay the dispatch of the Lebanese army to the south and an end of the fighting.

A top aide to Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said the meeting had been indefinitely postponed but would give no reason. Published reports said the Cabinet, which approved the cease-fire unanimously Saturday night, had been sharply divided over demands in the cease-fire agreement that Hizbullah surrender its weapons in south Lebanon.

That disagreement was believed to have caused the postponement of the Sunday meeting that was to have taken up the dispatch of some 15,000 troops to the south.

Will UNIFIL troops be dispatched without their Lebanese counterparts? 

Good question. 

It may well be back to the drawing table for the UN Security Council -- coupled with major changes in Lebanon's government .....

Meanwhile, Israel entrenches itself along the Litani River -- awaiting movement back to its border.  Trampling Hezbollah in its way.  Uh rah. 

Cautions:

1.  Lebanon is on the verge of losing significant credibility -- among its people, in the Middle East and globally. 

(As predicted in previous posts ....)

2.  Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is not pleased to have egg in his beard.  Nor are his bosses in Syria and Iran.  Not much they can do about it, however. 

eh eh. 

Nice diplomatic work, Condi and crew.

3.  Israel now has the time, location and leverage to root Hezbollah from its ruts in Southern Lebanon. 

Lots of nay-sayers may be eating their words soon, as well. 

4.  The pressure is also on Annan to enforce the UN Resolution.   

His next display of diplomatic ineptitude will only be further tainted by his true oil-stained colors. May more responsible minds prevail.  May the Security Council look disfavorably on those who fail to comply with the recent Resolution.

5.  Will there finally be peace in the Middle East? 

When and if this Lebanon issue is resolved, the peace process will begin .... (See previous "cornerstone" posts.)   I don't doubt that those who attempt to disrupt the peace process will face sanctions that go beyond the threat.  Hezbollah included.

If Lebanon fails to act, peace between Lebanon and Israel may require intense UN intervention.   This may, however, be the last united front by this corrupt and archaic organization.   Other accords and associations will quickly form .... One of these will be to fight the GWOT.

If Iran and Syria openly enjoin their militia-arm, Hezbollah, to fight the Israelis, peace will only exist in the rumble of what was the Middle East. Israel will be left standing alone, adjacent to a radioactive dying field. 

Too harsh a prospective?  Maybe.

But not from a Jewish point of view.

Sometimes we over-politicize and -analyze situations.  For example, no one ever actually "wins" in war.   Unless you measure post-war gains .... 

So, let's measure the Israeli vs. Hezbollah gains (as of Monday morning, when the cease fire goes into effect in Southern Lebanon):

Measure 1: With a force of approximately 30,000 troops, Israel claims to have reached the Litani River (their goal) and now encircle Hezbollah fighters trapped between the River and the Israeli-Lebanon border. 

The Israeli's may have just employed an age-old military strategy to counter Hezbollah's "hit and run" technique:  encircle the enemy and move to the middle.

Measure 2:  Israel will maintain this position (defending itself if attacked, per yesterday's UN resolution) until 30,000 Lebanese forces and UN peace-keepers (with guns, this time) replace them.  

The onus for controlling Hezbollah will then be on Lebanon and the UN.

Measure 3:  The Hezbollah leader has sorta-kinda accepted the UN resolution ... Hezbollah will honor the cease fire, but will continue to fight "as long as Israeli forces remain on Lebanese soil."  

OKKKKKK. 

Fighting should be fierce with casualties on both sides, but this sounds like a death wish for the entrapped terrorists. 

Sobeit. 

-----------------------

Did Israel move too slowly in achieving one of its original goals?  Seems like it, but I don't know (and few others know either) what obstacles had to be displaced before this goal could be met. 

Has the Israeli military fared well against a combatant whom others have failed to contain?   Seems that they have.  Hezbollah has been stocking and entrenching themselves in their own backyards for over six years.  [Just as the fanatics and militants have in Iraq .....] 

Will Israel survive? 

Israel has literally "won" every battle against intrusive Arab forces -- including, but not limited to Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the PLO.  At issue has been protecting Israeli land and people -- not the acquisition of other lands. 

Don't agree?  Then debate it amongst yourselves.  I prefer not to argue with history -- Biblical or military.  Especially when it concerns the Israelis.

Godspeed.

I'm just glad they're on our side.

I certainly have no inside information or expertise on the matter, but after  watching the Security Council vote 15-0 for a cease-fire resolution, Israel may have actually "won" a significant diplomatic coup this evening.

While my expectation was and will be that Israel maintains the right to peacefully [co]exist in the Middle East, I had misgivings about anyone's ability to actually decimate, i.e., physically "defeat" an entrenched terrorist militia. 

Those who expected Israel to achieve what larger, more powerful nations have been unable to do are likely disappointed.  Those who expected Israel to fail militarily, likely  feel that Hezbollah "won." 

Both perspectives are erroneous, in my opinion.

Israel won.  Hands down.  And so did the U. S. and it's pro-Israeli allies on the Security Council.  How?

1.  Israel will be allowed to continue to defend itself. This time, with U.N. sanction.  I have little to no doubt that Israel leaders will comply with this cease-fire resolution.
2.  Lebanon (now officially responsible for Hezbollah) must ensure that no further attacks occur -- something it should have done six years ago.  If Lebanese leaders fail to accept this resolution, their U.N. support should dwindle.
3.  As for Hezbollah -- their only "recognition" is for starting this mess.  Nothing more. 

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and his benefactors in Syria and Iran must be terribly disappointed.  Not only did the west "win," via George Bush and Condi Rice -- Israel's right to defend itself has been confirmed!

They can thank Condi Rice for that.