Today I found an article written by the neocon Max Boot of the Los Angeles Times.

Here is part of what he had to say:

“The real problem is that Israel’s response has been all too proportional. So far it has only gone after Hamas and Hezbollah. (Some collateral damage is inevitable because these groups hide among civilians.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is showing superhuman restraint by not, at the very least, ‘accidentally’ bombing the Syrian and Iranian embassies in Beirut, which serve as Hezbollah liaison offices.

It’s hard to know what accounts for this Israeli restraint, for which, of course, it gets no thanks. It may just be a matter of time before the gloves come off. Or Olmert may be afraid of upsetting the regional status quo. The American neocon agenda of regime change is not one that finds favor with most Israelis (ironic, considering how often the rest of the world has denounced neocons as Mossad agents). The Israeli attitude toward neighboring dictators is ‘better the devil you know.’ That may make sense with Jordan and Egypt, which have made peace with Israel, but not with Syria, which serves as a vital conduit between Tehran and Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex. (Now wouldn’t be a bad time.) But Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work. Our best response is exactly what Bush has done so far—reject premature calls for a cease-fire and let Israel finish the job.”

Israel, to repeat Mister Boot, should be “thanked” for not bombing, even if by “accident”, Syria and Iran. Israel, furthermore, has acted with great restraint, “too proportional” in fact!

First, let’s ditch the polite word “proportional”: It has run it’s course and really serves to tame our perception of the actions by the war criminals bombing Lebanon. I too am guilty of using it in previous posts, but no longer will be.

We can recall what George Orwell once wrote: “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So a look at the numbers: Lebanon has suffered through mass bombing, devastating cities and infrastructure, with roughly 368 deaths to Israel’s 37. Not to minimize the Israeli deaths—they too are tragic and unnecessary. These Israeli losses only reaffirm the rational judgment that Israel should not have reacted this way. Then of course we have Lebanese injuries from the assault, and here we find that, “the onslaught has wounded more than 1,550 people” according to the Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh.

He notes that: "Among the dead are pregnant women, and 30 percent of the wounded are children," and yet, “these are not bullet wounds, we are talking about serious injuries. Missiles hitting children."

So while Boot is correct that collateral damage is “inevitable”, it is only true because we are witnessing international crimes against humanity; Though Max Boot admires the Bush administration’s criminal policy of supporting Israel’s continuation of hostilites. This, while even Britain has demanded a cease-fire and an end to Israeli aggression.

Where exactly, looking at the numbers, is the benign and restrained Israel response Boot talks about? The “all too proportional”? Or is it that from a neo-conservative perspective all bets are off when we follow the national interests of Israel and the US? Let Israel do our “dirty work” and get regime change in Iran and Syria. Never mind the untold human suffering that we leave in our wake as we subjugate people to our demands and pursue “democracy”. Ignore self-determination and international law, this does not apply. High-powered missiles and explosives can recreate more favorable regimes that open up their economies to American investment, comply with Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, and ignore the vast suffering. This is what Boot is really saying.

It is only “proportional” because the neocons are determined to achieve their imperialist plans. Human suffering does not get factored in. He is making this murder of the Lebanese and Israeli people sound justifiable, even easily acceptable, because he believes broader ambitions take precedence over human lives.

But isn’t this fighting terrorism mission that the US shares, conveniently, with Israel supposed to be morally based? To free the people from repressiona and tyranny? When does this part kick in? Long after hundreds and possibly thousands of murdered civilians and the rubble from their surrounding neighborhoods litter the streets?

What about American-Israeli tryanny Mister Boot? Isn’t that possible?

Robb,