Instahoglets 17th July 06

It seems like there is only one news story right now.

Lots of bloggers have different reasons for wanting to steer shy of writing about the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon furball. Kos says he won't because he grew up in a war zone and knows that "when two sides are dead set on killing each other, very little can get in the way" - and bloviating pundits aren't one of those things. He says that he has "no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation". Its funny, because he has no problem bogging about Iraq, or Afghanistan - but those topics are reasonably unproblematic for the Militant Left. I've a sneaking suspicion its more about fear of alienating either his Israel Lobby Lefty readers or his Pro-Palestine Leftie readers. Either way, he takes a hit in readers and thus ad revenue. In the dictionary, under "cynic" it has my picture.

Kevin Drum calls Kos on it, saying "It's one thing for an individual blogger to feel inadequate to the task of commenting on any particular subject, but I don't think that means it's OK to throw in the towel entirely and give everyone else a pass at the same time." To be honest, Drum's own reasons have more integrity and even Drum admits he's feeling sheepish about them. As for myself, I feel that the big blogs will cover most of the ground. After all, it is topic number one and will continue to be so. Newshog has a select readership that comes to read "news less travelled" and opinions that, I hope, are a bit more than endless regurgitation of partisan talking points. When I don't think I can provide those on a topic I don't blog. When I can, I will.

If, like me, you aren't already a partisan "expert" on the conflict, try reading AP's "brief history of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict", which will give you the bare-bones events in a timeline. You can then follow all the major stories on Yahoo! which now as a section devoted to full coverage of the conflict.

For myself, the definitive position for the non-partisan observer was described in an astoundingly good post by Billmon a couple of days ago.

I'm not passing moral judgments here. I’ve never been able to turn a blind eye to the war crimes of one side or the other – rationalizing the suicide bomb that blows a bus full of Israeli civilians to bloody bits while crying tears of outrage over the destruction of a power plant that provides clean water to tens of thousands of Palestinian mothers and infants, or vice versa. To me, the conflict has long since come to resemble a war between lunatics, and one doesn’t pass moral judgments on the behavior of the insane, not even the criminally insane.

Read the whole thing.

In the U.S. you are, unfortunately, more likely to find accounts of Palestinians or Lebanese who disagree with what Hamas and Hizboullah are doing than of Israelis who disagree with their own nation's course. That's because Israel's media is dominated by rightwing outlets and journalists who inflame public opinion. The Glasgow Sunday Herald, did manage to find writings by own contrary voice though. Gideon Levy is a frequent visitor to the the occupied territories – a rare thing for a mainstream Israeli journalist to do – and writes "we are amazed by the violence and hatred that we sowed with our own hands.”

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has a very intruiging viewpoint - that at least one of the Israeli government's motives is to curb American deal-making with Arabs. He points to three "potential policy courses for the U.S. -- a broad deal with the Arab Middle East (esp.over Iraq), a new push on final status negotiations with the Palestinians, and a deal to negotiate directly with Iran" - and points out that all three could be seen by Israel as negative moves.

James Joyner wonders if the Militant Right are correct in their rush to label this conflict as the first shots of "World War III". He also says that, although his "sympathies are mostly with Israel" he feels that the Israelis are doing now is foolish but don’t have any better suggestions." (In comments to this post, I run up against some members of the Militant Right who think concepts like 'all men are created equal" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are "moral relativism". They don't seem to get that universal truths that apply only when you like them to are the sine qua non of moral realtivism. Ah, the intellectual integrity of radical conservatism...)

Here's a conservative who knows how to think - William S. Lind, father of "assymetric warfare" studies. He takes on the options for Hamas now that they are leaders of a state ("a 'state' that bears a state’s burdens with none of a state’s assets"} and says their best bet is to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. "Ending the PA would dump the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants’ right back in Israel’s lap. Under international law, as the occupying power, Israel would be responsible for everything in the territories: security, human services, utilities and infrastructure, the economy, the whole megillah (oy!)." Worth a ponder and a great background article too.

Of course, there could be another reason why America is taking a back seat in the region. It simply can't afford to be in the driving seat. Baghdad has deteriotated to where even the pro-neocon Daily telegraph says the front lines in Iraq's civil war have already been drawn. US generals are planning to be in Iraq until at least 2016 and probably Afghanistan for at least as long; The U.S. will spend around $437 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan this year and that is expected to soar to over $500 billion one year from now. Meanwhile the budget deficit is expected to soar again next year to $339 billion and be accompanied by sharply lower tax revenues. Wall Street is looking like it may end the year in negative growth.

No wonder some experts think the U.S. may be about to go bankrupt.