Blue line blues

The clash between the Lebanese army and the IDF yesterday sparked a flurry of commentary and accusations about which side was at fault.

UNIFIL soldier impotently waving a UN flag

Some claimed that Israel was responsible because they crossed the security fence to cut down the tree, an act constituting a violation of UN resolution 1701. It was therefore within the rights of the Lebanese army to fire at the Israelis. Others claimed that the tree was in Israeli territory and therefore there was no violation of resolution 1701 by Israel.

This brings up a few questions:

1) What is the relationship between the blue line and the security fence? Is the security fence located along the exact same path of the blue line?
2) If the two diverge, is the entirety of the security fence within Israeli territory? Are some parts of it in Lebanese territory?
3) Who built the security fence and when did they build it?
4) Again, if the two are not perfectly aligned, are there markings (posts, flags, etc.) to indicate where the blue line runs? If not, then how is the Lebanese army/IDF/UNIFIL able to tell with certainty if a given tree is one one side or the other of the blue line at a glance without using sophisticated technology?
5) Is the space between the fence and the blue line (assuming there is such a space) some sort of demilitarized zone? If so, what are the rules governing the rights of either party if the opposing party enters this zone?

All reports I've seen on this incident have been very vague on the issue of the blue line/security fence. Those blaming Israel seem to be claiming that the fence IS the blue line, and the those defending Israel seem to be claiming that the blue line (at least in the area of the fighting yesterday) is farther north of the fence.

Unless the questions above are addressed, and unless there is a consensus on the answers, the accusations will continue to fly with none bearing any weight.

The series of events that lead to the fighting are, for the most part, not in dispute. So what remains is for the UN to declare that the IDF either crossed into Lebanese territory or it didn't (or, in the case of the demilitarized zone theory, was it within Israel's rights to cross into the zone), which would decide the whole thing.

Hillary 'Shlomo' Clinton for prez!

I caught the last few minutes of Hillary Clinton's speech at AIPAC today.

Wow.

She may not have made it as the Democratic presidential candidate, but she sure did a good job of convincing the rest of the world (and any marginally intelligent Americans) that she can kiss the Israeli lobby's ass with the best of 'em.

Unfortunately, I missed Obama's speech at AIPAC. I wonder how thick he laid it on.

Your national security or my national security?

One is left wondering, after reading this: What, exactly, is this threat that Hezbollah poses to US national security? Is it the same threat that Saddam posed? Are Hezbollah operatives poised to attack the United States from across the southern border in Mexico? Are Nasrallah's elite fighters camped out in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, waiting for the perfect opportunity to eliminate American freedoms in Wisconsin and North Dakota?

Oh...wait...is he talking about Israel's national security? This is so confusing!

The country whose national security is most threatened by Hezbollah is Lebanon. And no, I don't mean when they decide to flex their muscles and take over Hamra. I'm referring to events such as Operation Grapes of Wrath and the July 2006 war.

The fact is, Hezbollah is a threat to Lebanon's national security just as Saddam was a threat to Iraq's national security just as Bin Laden was a threat to Afghanistan's national security just as Noriega was a threat to Panama's national security just as Hamas is a threat to the occupied Palestinian territories' national (territorial?) security just as Ahmadinejad is a threat to Iran's national security just as communism was a threat to the U.S.S.R.'s and China's national security just as Castro is a threat to Cuba's national security...and so on and so on ad infinitum.

These people, groups, or socio-political concepts are/were a threat to the national securities of their relative host countries/territories/unions for one reason and one reason alone: the United States and/or Israel and their allies saw an opportunity to exploit the situation to gain something out of attacking them. So, ironically, Washington labels them 'threats to OUR national security' thereby creating an excuse to move against them militarily, leading to the host country/territory/union's national security being trampled under US soldiers' bootheels. And all the while, Americans feel warm and fuzzy as they eat their supersized meals in their giant SUVs, thinking that their national security is in safe hands.

Chertoff's title should be changed to US and Israeli Homeland Security Chief. Or maybe the USA should be renamed the United States of America and Israel. Either one works for me.

Incidentally, I saw an interview with Chertoff yesterday on Al Jazeera. I have to hand it to the guy, he's good at answering difficult and potentially embarrassing questions by not answering them at all, while seeming to do his best to answer them honestly.

But at one point, the host asked Chertoff what his comment was on the Al Jazeera cameraman who is currently being released from Guantanamo Bay after being held there for over six years. Chertoff's answer: "I have never heard of that. I obviously don't know every detail about every detainee in Guantanamo Bay." or something to that effect, to which the host replied, laughing: (again, paraphrased) "One would be justified in thinking that you should fire your aides for allowing you to come on this show without giving you that particular piece of information..."

I'm sure heads rolled at the department of homeland security that day. Or maybe promotions were handed out. It's hard to say.

As history repeats itself, Lebanese rejoice.

MPs are coming out of the woodwork to nominate Fouad Sanioura as our next prime minister, or as I will call the post if Sanioura gets it, Minister Prime (for some reason, it sounds more sinister that way).

Didn't the guy just say a few days ago that he absolutely positively wasn't interested in the job anymore? What changed his mind?

I really don't get it. Don't they want to forget the nightmare they put the country through over the past few years? Don't they want to put the past behind them and start with a clean slate? How is naming the same guy who headed the last fiasco going to solve anything?? This isn't the beginning of a new era. It's the beginning of a new fiasco.

While we're at it, why don't we invite Syrian troops back on our soil? Let's go all out and ask the Israelis to occupy the south again. We can change South Lebanon's name to Northern Israel. Hezbollah should move back into downtown Beirut, the green line should be reinstated and they should change the new identity cards to include the holder's religion. This country doesn't make any sense.

So while our sinister prime minister gets ready to pucker his lips for America's ass and the opposition prepares for another hand amputation operation, let's hang up more posters of Suleiman and pretend anything in this country is ever going to change.

What a farce.