Unrealistic expectations

Bring on the champagne! As of today Morialekafa has been blogging for two years. I cannot believe I have been doing this almost daily for two years. In those still relatively halycon days when I still had a sense of humor, I believe my very first blog had to do with an essay on deodorant (the full horror of the Nighmare Years was not yet so obvious). I'm sure you all missed it as no one even knew about Morialekafa at such an early date. I'm not sure much of anyone knows about it now. But small loss. It's my blog and I like it.

After encouraging Israel to murder as many Lebanese as possible within a finite time it is now apparently time for Bush/Cheney to solve the problems of the Middle East (problems they have ignored for the past six years). Their solution is a "permanent" one that involves first of all disarming Hezbollah (which of course is what Israel desires). This is not going to happen. As Hezbollah is now the only thing that keeps Israel from completely destroying Lebanon it does not seem likely they are going to agree to disarm. Remember, Hezbollah only exists because of Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 1982 (after 18 years of Israeli occupation of parts of Lebanon Hezollah finally forced them to leave). There is simply no way they will disarm, and, short of killing everyone in Lebanon (the citizens of there now almost wholeheartedly support Hezbollah), it will not happen. This does raise an interesting question: why should Hezbollah be expected to disarm in the first place? This is a battle between Israel and Hezbollah. Both sides have legitimate interests in what they are doing. So where does the U.S. get off saying Hezbollah should disarm? Why shouldn't Israel disarm as well? After all, Israel is the aggressor (don't give me this crap about Hezbollah having started it) and still occupies Lebanese land that doesn't belong to them and would occupy more of it if they could get away with it. Hezbollah disarmament is a complete non starter so the U.S. plan is doomed before it even begins.

Furthermore, does anyone believe, even for a moment, that Israel is simply defending itself? They had this plan to invade Lebanon at least a year before this recent outbreak occurred and simply used the capture of their soldiers as an excuse. And why does defending themselves include the mass slaughter of children and other innocent Lebanese? This is not a question of merely defending themselves, it is a matter of destroying Lebanon as a nation, just as they want to prevent Palestine from ever becoming a nation. As long as Israel continues its illegal occupation of Palestinian and Lebanese territory there can never be peace in the Middle East. That is very simple. But, of course, the U.S. is totally under the influence of the Israeli lobby to the point where they cannot even understand there are two sides to the issue. All we hear is that Hezbollah is a terrorist group maliciously attacking Israel at every opportunity. It is as if they have no interest in anything other than just killing Israelis (like trying to defend themselves from Israeli aggression and keeping their land to themselves).

This ridiculous uncritical support of Israel can be seen in the overwhelming vote of the House to support Israel in this latest attack on Lebanon. It can also be seen in Schumer's current (and new) support for Bolton, because he is an all out supporter of Israel (never mind whatever else he stands for and does, like trying to undermine the U.N.).

The absurdity of the Israeli position can also be seen in their latest murder of Lebanese innocents, mostly children. The Israeli spokesman at the U.N. actually said the reason the 60 or so Lebanese were murdered is because Hezbollah had probably forced them to stay where they were (these were mostly children and poor people with not enough resources to get away). This explanation was in addition to their claim that rockets were being fired from that area, so that if you were unfortunate enough to live anywhere near where rockets were being fired you deserved to die. The Israelis even outdo Bush/Cheney when it comes to baldfaced lying.

In 1996 the House and Senate passed a war crimes act that said if anyone violated the Geneva Convention it would be considered a war crime. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and others have clearly violated this act. They have clearly committed war crimes. Even so, our Attorney General is working behind the scenes to convince Republicans to retroactively change this act so Bush/Cheney and others could not be held responsible. If this were to be successful the only conclusion one could possibly draw from it is that Republicans think war crimes are fine. If people have violated such an act why should they not be held responsible for it? Commit a heinous crime, go to jail - but not if you're a Republican.

Impeach a president for a sex act between consenting adults but not for the murder of thousands of innocent people. It's the Republican way.