麻豆社

"What puzzles me is that if we are at the "trying to get Syria to do something" stage at the end of the summit, where were they at the beginning of the summit?"

In the darkness is where they were, and that's where they still are, it seems to me. There is little doubt that Syria supports Hezbollah. To what extent it controls it, is another question. Additionally, even if Syria was in control, it doesn't necessarily mean that Assad has much say. Bush "telling Kofi to get on the phone to Assad" sounds like another way of saying, "There is nothing I can do about it folks and I'm not even sure if I care".

Let's not forget that things began to get seriously out of hands when the infamous "Quartet" annulled the Palestinian elections and imposed a policy of, in effect, collective punishment on population of Gaza. Kofi Anan figured prominently there, and I don't think that he has much credit in the Middle East right now. It is also true that UN was never a particularly strong player in the region. The UN troops are in fact stationed in Lebanon right now, and they've been there for a very long time indeed. What difference does it make? To my mind, neither Bush Syrian chew, nor Blair-Anan "international force [to impose peace]" proposition, would do nothing else but ensure that precious time gets wasted.

It seems then that further escalation is inevitable. Now, one thing I can agree on with most commentators, left, center, or right, is that Hezbollah doesn't look like it's responding to Israeli destruction of life in Gaza, but this is rather a broader campaign on their part. That's what their leaders are saying too, and they seem to be better prepared, and better equipped than most people apparently thought. The question of Iraq's WMDs creeps to mind here, not the virtual WMDs that were ready to be fired our way within minutes of Saddam's "Go get 'em!". The ones I have in mind are field ammunitions that late Robin Cook talked about, piles of rotting chemicals, things we can reasonably assume were there, but were not accounted for following the invasion. Nobody should be surprised if some of it is in Hezbollah's possession. Or if they have means of employing it, their only objective being to wreck havoc and get as many peoples and countries as possible involved. For Hezbollah know they can't defeat Israel militarily, they can only create chaos and set a on itself feeding cycle of ever escalating violence in motion, circumstances which may in the end result in serious damage done to Israel. This may sound like a long shot to some, but Israel is very vulnerable. A key word is water; water and control of it is why the Golan Heights are of such strategic importance to Israel, to give just one example.
see for more on this most underreported key issue

One force that can stop this is the state of Israel itself. But they would have to do more than just stop bombing Lebanon. The only political entity Israel that has a degree of international recognition sufficient to give it legitimacy, is the 1967 borders Israel. Before Israel recognizes itself, so to speak, and looks at the wider circumstances and deeper truths of its existence in the Middle East, there is little chance of peace, security, normality, for anyone involved. This option is valid if one assumes that Israel is a seriously sovereign state.

Ironically, I just Googled "little chance of peace" to check if it's a proper expression, and this is the very first return listed: Israel Defense Minister Sees 'Little Chance of Peace'

and the second hit was an article titled "Life after Arafat".
Now you tell me was it a good choice of words or what...

Another group of people, other than Israeli government, that could stop this, but they won't, are the people behind the War On Terror paradigm. This entity can be called "The Power Elite" with C. Wright Mills in mind - - or the good old "Military Industrial Complex" - - though it grew international, and it grew in complexity since Ike's times. Note that neither Mills nor Eisenhower were in any way radical individuals; they were both very much a part of mainstream in American political and social life, and culture in general.

The problem is that this entity represents a blank area on our (general public) geopolitical map, and I think it's journalists' job too, to explore, research and investigate that area, and to report from there. 麻豆社 is reporting from the Amazon, reporting from Antarctica, how about looking into heart of darkness? In the meantime, and for the time being, the only light will be fires burning across Lebanon today, and beyond Lebanon tomorrow, what can stop it in this dry heat?