Gaza-a-Boom-Boom: A satisfactory conclusion to the Hamas War is in sight, but I'm not counting my chickens. After the last defensive action, I break out in hives every time I type the letters "U" and "N", and I hear the Security Council is being mustered to condemn Israel.
I continue to be amused by the soundbite war. Just heard on Fox: Israel's president says the goal of the Israeli incursion is not "regime change."
If you say so.
Then some Palestinian in Gaza, Ambassador So-and-al-So, said that, among other things, it was bad for Israel to carry out military action against the Palestinians because it would solidify public opinion, and especially Arab opinion against them.
Now there's a compelling argument. Gosh, Israel doesn't want to alienate the Arabs! That would be terrible! Why, that must be why all of the Arab States have been so vocal and forceful in protesting this action!
I've read many an interesting post/editorial on just war, proportionality, and goals for this [acute] military action. One in particular caught my eye: there is a difference between the justification for going to war, and the just implementation of that war. Israel, by all objective standards, is completely justified in defending itself to achieve a security goal, that is, the cessation of terror attacks launched from Gaza. Israel is also going to pains to warn civilians of imminent attacks, with unmeasurable success. Unmeasurable because the line between militant and civilian is pretty much non-existent in a culture where small children are taught that martyrdom in the battle against the Zionist entity is the highest form of human achievement.
Aside: I once heard from a friend that the Viet Cong would implant pressure sensitive bombs in small children, and then set the whimpering children out as lures for soft-hearted American soldiers. End aside.
Personally, I'll be very satisfied when I see about 1 million Gazanians standing waist deep in the Med, looking wistfully eastward at their former strip, now dotted with beach umbrellas, cabanas, and happy Floridians sipping umbrella drinks on Playa del Zion.
Blago-Burris-Brouhaha: I was chatting up some Federalist Society types at a party the other night, and I asked the very sincere question, "What's wrong with Governor Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris to the Senate?" One jolly fellow said, "Legally, nothing." The whole group then erupted into laughter.
I think Harry Reid just should have ignored the whole thing. It's Illinois' problem, and boy, does that state look stupid. Is the complaint that Roland Burris is a hack? I guess they don't allow hacks in the Senate now? When did that law get passed? Is the problem that Blago is [bleeping] under [bleeping] investigation? Presumed [bleeping] innocent until found [bleeping] guilty, I always say.