Whose World?

Netanyahu: 'Future of world at stake over Iran'...


It seems simple enough to me.
If Israel wants to potentially disarm their rivals in the region, they ought to offer themselves up first.

When one state skirts the "rules" of nuclear proliferation, surely we can't be too surprised when others want the same special privileges. The Mommy UN ought to let the kids work this one out themselves.

Because really?
The whole world isn't at stake. Some of us have learned, over time, to disagree peacefully with our neighbors, without having to threaten violence or arm ourselves out of fear of that hatred.

I'm confident there's nothing in the Israelis' DNA to prevent such growth from happening there too. But first, you really do have to respect your enemies and neighbors, and understand you can't bully your way to a "win". (and then go whining about how we're all at risk/the old all-in-this-together line, when your strongarming tactics fail, and you're looking to the UN... of all places, to protect you from the results of your own actions.)

Hope the lesson is learned sooner, rather than later.
(You'd hate to see another costly world war lift us out of this economic depression/recession, wouldn't you? )
------------

PLUS: You know what the video of the unconscious/perhaps already dead Ambassadon Stevens being hustled through the streets by the mob reminded me of?

The last minutes of Ghaddafy's life*. We cheered the quick justice. Remember?

We engineered that show, then we're surprised when such violent tactics backfire on our "diplomacy" efforts? The only difference is which team the soon-to-be dead man was playing for...

If he was one of ours, a horrible crime. Tragedy. Senseless death.
Thing is: to the other team? We're just getting back some, what we done to others in meddling in their country's internal revolution, and then thinking our dollars could somehow buy back peace, trust and true diplomacy.

I think Ms. Hillary and Ms. Rice and the gals might be new to this game. Unexpected? Hardly...

That's why -- once the media gets done with the fluffy political coverage and eventually gets into truly covering this PR fiasco of a story** (exactly what happened over there and when, not swallowing the initial "blame it on the movie" spin), we might learn which strategic genius underestimated the risk and left the embassy essentially unsecured.

Sounds like the ambassador had concerns.
Truth will tell, in time...

---------------------------

* "The mission was strictly to protect civilians, but it turned out that there was a hunt, a brutal hunt, of Gaddafi and his family," Mugabe said. "In a very dishonest manner we saw ... Chapter 7 being used now as a weapon to rout a whole family."

Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter allows the U.N. Security Council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.

"Bombs were ... thrown about in a callous manner and quite a good many civilians died. Was that the protection that they had sought under Chapter 7 of the Charter?

"So the death of Gaddafi must be seen in the same tragic manner as the death of Chris Stevens. We condemn both of them."


** Any other readers missing Anthony Shadid these days?