tag : bright yellow-green apples: unshakable follies

"I see little point in persisting in a discussion with one so obstinate as you" Martin White

Friday, July 28, 2006

unshakable follies


Hurrah! for the special relationship. Our Prime Minister flew to meet with the President of the USA - a man who he apparently has some persuasive position with, due to our government's acquiescence over pretty much everything. Yes Blair flew there to persuade Bush about the need for a ceasefire, and then agreed with everything he said. Well done, Tony!

Cos obviously what the region doesn't need is an end to the war. So there was no talk of telling Israel to stop it's bombardment, and no talk of trying to get diplomatic with Hezbollah. There's this curious phrase that keeps coming up, "lasting peace". Given the current USA administrations fondness for euphemisms like collateral damage (killing innocents along the way) and freedom (neo-liberal free-market economics), it makes me very suspicious. And sure enough:

"our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region"

Along with Condoleezza Rice's talk of these being birth pangs of a new middle east, we can only summise that the administration sees this as a useful turn of events. There certainly seems to be little enthusiasm for stopping it, but rather shaping the forces into whatever warped vision they've dreamed up this week. Last time I looked, Lebanon was that rare and delicate flower; a truly middle eastern democratic country with a popular progressive movement forging it. But now it's merely a battlefield once more, as the wheel turns against Islamicist hate figures. So there'll be lots of talk, and lots of prevaricating. Meanwhile ordinary people continue to die, and their country burns, and innocents in Israel are hit by random missile attacks. All to serve the fantasies of Olmert's warped Kadima party, the neo-cons, and insane terrorist groups. Cease fire, please.


Blogger Martin said...

Hello, your only commenter here.

What puzzles me more than anything is the mutual exclusivity that Bush and Blair seem to be presuming there is between calling for an immediate ceasefire and coming up with the "lasting peace". Why can there not be an immediate ceasefire and then a "lasting peace" developed afterwards?

10:56 AM  
Blogger postliberal said...

For now, yes - and your reward will be great when it comes to the time.

From the post-meeting justifications, it seems that the reasoning is that Hezbollah would use the interim to prepare and continue more attacks. Which is quite bizarre cos if they're so minded then they're going to do it anyway whether under attack or not. (It seems increasingly likely that the IDF offensive will never fully achieve its objectives of destroying the group. Such a renegade group is unlikely to be fair, but we might expect a 'democratic state' to have to sanity and thoughtfulness).

It's quite amazing that The British and USA administrations are contradicting the UN - which is calling for a three day ceasefire - when they've so often claimed to be supporting its statements, resolutions, and wishes.

It's good to see Jack Straw re-finding his principles, now he's not got a job to hold, though.

12:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home