They in Congress see this or any conflict/war as a way to make money. I don't know what our largest exports are now; I would guess technology, foodstuffs, and weapons. The technology is more and more geared to the surveillance and anti-terrorism part of the spectrum, and the food products are declining as we have more droughts and floods in the farming areas. No-one wants our cars and we don't make clothing much any more. The Pentagon gets the lion's share of the budget and the weapons manufacturers the biggest share of governmental contracts.

In this financial crisis, Congress probably just thinks a war, anywhere, is good economics. What else have we got? Promote the "war on terror", egg on a few countries, and sell them weapons. Pretty soon, we'll start bidding out our mercenaries and soldiers, which I notice we now call "warriors", too. Won't even matter what side - hell, we always pick the wrong side to back anyway.

Obama spoke one time (that I heard) about cutting the defense budget. Then someone must have "corrected" his thinking, because he sure isn't making any noise about THAT any longer, although he is going to look closely at "entitlement spending". We'll cut unemployment benefits, but not reduce the spending on armaments.

Now we're going to send more "warriors" into Afghanistan, aren't talking about too quick a withdrawal from Iraq, don't seem too worried about pissing off Pakistan, Iran, or Russia, for that matter. War seems to be what we are good at and our top export.

Creates jobs and all that.

I just read that Obama has named William Lynn to be the deputy secretary of defense under Gates. Lynn worked in that department under Clinton, but has spent the last couple of years as a lobbyist and VP at Raytheon, which makes most of its money manufacturing weapons under contract with the DoD.

They make the Patriot and Tomahawk missile systems. Sounds sort of like a conflict of interest, considering military budgeting will be part of his new job, and, yeah, Obama said no lobbyists, but what is one to do? Unfortunately, the most qualified guy "just happens" to BE a lobbyist, but we doubt he'll still hold that job while he works for the DoD, or at least, not so's you could tell.

Whoever said, earlier in the comments, that it's all about the money is right.

No, what's truly sad is that people seem to think if Israel only "gives peace a chance," it will result in more security and safety for the people of Israel than the current outbreak of destruction.

Glenn actually argues that since Israel made peace with Egypt and Syria, it can do so with a Hamas-led Palestine.

It's as if the 1990s didn't happen around here. As if Israel didn't bend over backwards to give the Palestinians sovereignty, a police force, land, infrastructure and money.

It's as if the Second Intifada didn't happen to Israel for nearly two years as a result of offering the Palestinians a path to peace.

But now, when Israel commits aggressive violence, some of it deplorable, people on this board decry how dare Israel not "give peace a chance.

Were you people f-cking sleeping through the 1990s?

Which makes Israel safer, lowering checkpoints and offering Palestinians land and resources (1990s)? Or blowing the crap out of them?

I'm not defending the morality of this invasion of Gaza, in many ways it's morally indefensible, but what I am defending are the basic facts of the past 15 years -- when Israel tries to negotiate and offer peace to the Palestinians, they're greeted with nailbombs on their busses.

This tragic war on Hamas is disgusting. But it will also likely work, in the strict national sense of preventing more attacks. Given how Palestinians have made their decisions the past twenty years, I'm not sure what options Israel has left.

Oh right, the United Nations. Glenn cites them as a Sober, Serious objective source. I forgot about the United Nations. Good thing they've always been fair towards Israel.

Maybe we can see if Mel Gibson's father could chair a committee.

Sovereignty over what?

After stealing 92 percent of Palestine, murdering generations of natives, and running an apartheid society: exactly what did they "give" to the natives?

I'm really amazed by all of this. The majority of the world and the majority of Jews and the majority of USians are against the slaughter of Palestinians. How come, when our representatives do something like this, no one is out in the streets making their voices heard?

Hey Glenn: Read this article from Haaretz and you'll see the the government of Israel is intentionally allowing those Hamas rockets through.

That, coupled with the expansion of the settlements, shows that they don't really want to end the conflict at all. Though they did want to profit off of the conflict.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/956859.html

Please stop trashing U.N. relief workers. It isn't the General Assembly passing resolutions, it's UNRWA and UNWFP workers on the ground that are making allegations. It's also the ICRC making allegations. It's B'Tselem making allegations. It's PRCS and ICRC workers pulling people out of rubble. Real people, who are going to real hospitals, by donkey cart and ambulance and real corpses being uncovered. It's dead UNRWA relief workers in trucks.

Like I asked yesterday, if you have access or clout in Israel, people you can talk to or write that would help to stop this, please do something. Nobody deserves this.

I agree with you, there appears to be serious war crimes on the part of Israel's recklessness. But when Glenn unleashes his rants, he obscures so many legitimate points of critique that the entire issue devolves into anti-Israel rants and Jewish conspiracy theories involving AIPAC and the "money-lenders."

The legitimate points are this:

Israel should be roundly criticized for not letting journalists into Gaza. Israel should also be held accountable for apparently reckless bombing campaigns that have slaughtered innocent Palestinians and children. Israel must provide evidence for these bombings as Hamas targets.

What gets lost in the rants on this board are the following basic facts:

* Israel does have the right to defend itself. The question here is one of proportionality and response.

* Hamas does use civilians and schools as human shields for their mortar fire. To automatically assume Israel is just "targeting civilians" without waiting to learn more about whether Hamas was firing mortars and rockets from these locations is wilfully ignorant.

* Hamas is a terrorist organization.

The United States accidentally slaughtered innocents targeting Al Qaeda and other terrorists long before George W. Bush drove us off a cliff in Iraq. Bill Clinton killed innocents in Yemen and Afghanistan trying to get Bin Laden. But when America does it, it's a "necessary cost in pursuing terrorism." When Israel does it, it's "TEH WAR CRIMES!"

Our actions in Iraq 2003-2009 are about 50,000 times more egregious in terms of human rights violations, slaughtering innocents and unjustifiably starting a war than anything Israel is doing in Gaza responding to mortar fire.

Yet the outrage discrepancy is unbelievable.

If Glenn posts a diary on American war crimes in Iraq, it gets maybe 50-100 posts. If he posts on Israel, there's a freaking meltdown of Americans frothing with rage at the *temerity* of the Israelis.

This is the embodiment of pathology. There's a reason I/P discussions turn into emotional tornadoes, and it has to do with the uniqueness of Jewry in the world as pariah, demon, pathological "other."

Glenn wants to treat Israel "just like every other country," showing the cognitive inability to perceive his own biases and passions, which bleed through every one of his rants.

The "love" for the suffering Palestinians is as much a fraud here as it is in Egypt, Syria or in an Osama Bin Laden tape. You people excoriating Israel on this board care as much about the Palestinians as does the Arab world, which is to say you don't. They're just the convenient pawns to hang your pre-determined philosophies on.