Sunday, July 16, 2006

"Israel, Israel Uber Alles"

Happy Sunday, American citizens Imperial subjects. Just read here as your supervisors formally consign a random number of you to be future domestic terrorism victims:
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.

"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."
How much clearer can our supervisors make it that anything like an American "national interest" is unambiguously renounced in favor of the Israeli national interest? Every bomb, artillery shell, and bullet flying into the miserable remains of Lebanon and Gaza now has a perfectly-official "Greetings from the USA!" painted on its nose.

Ah, but we're also standing up for those "key Arab leaders:" meaning the long-term doomed. You know, the house of Saud, the Egyptian torturers, the emirs of this and the sultans of that ... in years past we could well have added the Shah of Iran and our former employee Saddam Hussein. The folks whose petro-involvement with the global corporate structure outweighs any ties they have with "the Arab streets."

When the next 9-11 happens, please remember this week. I know that essentially no one will, but I have to ask anyway. We're allowing ourselves to be represented by a true "axis of evil," defined (as all lines in geometry are) by two points: DC and Jerusalem. It won't matter to our supervisors how much American blood might be spilled; after all, they personally have those secure undisclosed locations, and they have "broader goals:" the strangling of rival axes.

I guess that's just life -- and death -- in Murderville.


Bartleby said...

I just deleted a "comment" from this thread that was an unrelated advertisement for Islam. I do not wish to be misunderstood. My opinion (and thus, the editorial position of this tiny little blog) is:

1. Islam is a false religious system.

2. So is Judaism. So are atheism, agnosticism, Wicca, Shintoism, paganism, et non-Christian cetera.

3. People's adherence to false religious systems is no reason for them to be invaded, killed, assaulted, insulted, or treated other than with politeness and respect. People are created in the image of God, whether they think they are or not, and Christ died for each and every one.

Accordingly, if the commenter wants to comment on the substance of the post --agreeing, disagreeing, etc. -- he is quite welcome to do so. The comment threads are not, however, available for unrelated propaganda or advertising.

And now, we return you to your regularly-schedule programming ...

John Good said...

I've been trying (okay not so hard, maybe) to come up with a decent post about this situation. Thank you for saving me the time; I will now move on to something else.

Craig said...

I have a solution, and my apologies to Mr. Carlin for stealing his ideas/material.

We evacuate Nebraska, and fence it off. Then we rent it out to any feuding factions, the IRA and the British Empire, Hamas and the IDF, Hutus and Tutsis, Sunnis and Shites. You get the point.

We charge them a reasonable rent, and allow them to fight, kill, and destroy 'till their heart is content. When they're done, they leave, and we send them a bill for the cleanup.

No more refugees, capitalism rules the day, and we can push the excess cash towards our deficit.

Problem solved

Bartleby said...

Thank you, John, for your kind words.

Craig, I like the idea ... but I wonder if we shouldn't pick a different state. Nebraska may be a little dull, but corn and wheat are useful things. I'd rather look at one of those semi-empty desert-ish places where the FedGov already owns half the area anyway, like a Nevada or a Utah.

Or maybe, in the interest of simple justice, Texas?

itsmecissy said...

TEXAS would be perfect!

TW said...

I guess I've always had a hard time understanding your overall philosophy as pertaining to national defense policies. Maybe you could write a concise paragraph or 2 explaining them. Heck, write a chapter if you're up to it on when you do become concerned about national defense, what sort of worldly events or actions would motivate you to action? Precisely at what point do you take action and what type of action is permissable in your view?

If not I guess I'll just have to continue to be puzzled by your blog's main subject matter these days.


Bartleby said...

Cissy: The "ayes" have it ...Texas it is!

TW: please see "Command Performance," above. If it does not answer your questions, let me know and I'll bloviate further -- something I'm always all too happy to do.

itsmecissy said...

WOW, "bloviate," now that's a great word - even tho it's not in the dictionary.

How ya doin TW? Hope you are well.

Bartleby said...

Cissy! Sure, bloviate's in the dictionary. Tailor-made for me, too, as I'm sure you'll agree.

itsmecissy said...

Oops, guess my dictionary is a tad out of date (1994). Imagine that, an online version - what'll they think of next? LOL

P.S. I'd use Shakespeare as an example of one who "bloviates" but never you!