"if I were a relative of any of the 24 Israeli soldiers killed today in Lebanon, or a relative of any Lebanese civilian killed today, I would have some very sharp and hostile questions for whoever decided to continue the ground offensive through 8 am Monday.speaking of 'the psychological impact of reaching the Litani' - i heard on FauxNews today that the israelis had reached the Litani and that 'parts of the Litani reach 18 miles into Lebanon' - as though this indicated that the israelis were that deep into lebanon. lol. of course, 'parts of the Litani reach 3 miles into Lebanon' as well - and judging by the '18 miles' spin, i suspect that the israelis are at the '3 mile' part of the river, or thereabouts. (exactly where they are i have no idea)
Both Lebanon and Israel have agreed to this cease-fire. So has Hizbullah, sort of: Nasrallah is agreeing with "reservations". What, exactly, does advancing the Israeli troop lines to the Litani River do for Israel's military or political position?
Maybe the psychological impact of reaching the Litani is necessary because then Israel can say the operation was a success. One can make a good argument that Israel did achieve a lot in this war, but something so patently symbolic is absurd.
And something so patently symbolic as an excuse for losing dozens of soldiers' and civilians' lives is close to criminal.
I reluctantly supported the Israeli decision to retaliate as it did because the choices facing the Cabinet were hard ones. The choice to continue today does not seem to be one."
"Watching cable news over the last couple days, it's apparent there's a neat bifurcation when it comes to blogs and blogswarms.
The bloggers who deciphered the Reuters smoke signals: feisty, truth-driven, crackling examples of citizen journalism at its finest, and healthy for democracy.
The bloggers who championed Ned Lamont's candidacy and harried Joe Lieberman over Iraq: angry, spiteful, rabble-rousing, dangerous to democracy, and personally intimidating.
Conservative bloggers: heroic and brave.
Liberal bloggers: petty and craven."
"Only a few weeks before, Congress had almost unanimously approved a resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors" – Syria and Iran – and "supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense."
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had prepared the resolution, given it to Congress, and told them to pass it.
"The Bush administration is bad enough in tolerating measures they would not accept anywhere else but Israel," says Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the Congress, if anything, is urging the administration on and criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics.""