If the Pakistani state can’t control parts of its territory 100 km from the capital, then how can it be safely relied upon to keep its nuclear arsenal out of the Taliban’s reach?

I’m not trying to denigrate the protesters’ motives, and there are good reasons to demand more of Israel, a democracy, than of a military junta in Burma, but sometimes it seems like people are only too eager to lash out at Israel, but then fail to muster the same level of indignation when other countries commit atrocities. Maybe I’m guilty of this too.

Of course, this observation does nothing to undercut the fact that the Israeli government’s bombing for votes in Gaza is disgraceful, and I find their wanton disregard for Gaza’s civilian population appalling, but I find it a little peculiar that so much opprobrium gets heaped on Israel while the vile behaviour other, arguably far more dastardly, states goes unremarked upon.

Obviously, there have been victims on the Israeli side too (the current death toll stands at something like 800 Palestinians and 12 Israelis; most of the Palestinian dead are civilian, I’m not sure about the Israeli side), and it’s foolish to draw sweeping conclusion based on emotive images. However, the picture hasn’t made me see the conflict in a new light; it’s just brought home to me how devastating it is for ordinary people caught up in it, and the impact that these kind of pictures can have on a viewer. I’ve no favourite side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but upon seeing the picture of the girl with no legs my second reaction (after, ‘damn, that sucks’) was ‘fuck the IDF’. I imagine that my sentiments would have been somewhat stronger again were I a Palestinian, and similarly I imagine that Israelis react with sentiments along the lines of ‘fuck Hamas’ every time they see pictures of the victims of rocket attacks. Needless to say, such sentiments are not conducive to reconciliation, peace or even stable ceasefires.

As usual, the whole situation is a mess and neither side can stake much of a claim to the high moral ground. I’m just glad that I don’t live there and that my government doesn’t having any role in funding this madness.

WASHINGTON — The North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is seriously ill and might have suffered a stroke weeks ago, an American intelligence official in Washington said Tuesday, after Mr. Kim failed to attend an unexpectedly small-scale celebration of his country’s 60th anniversary.

However, given that Kim Jong-Il is vile despot who presides over a despicable, oppressive and dangerous regime, I think I can be forgiven for reacting to the story with a smile. Let’s hope that what’s left of the country (not the government/state) doesn’t fall apart after he dies; if it does there will be one hell of a humanitarian crisis.

Mr Cheney said the US would never put any pressure on Israel over issues he said would threaten its security.

Speaking in a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, he described America’s commitment to Israel’s security as “unshakeable”.

Mr Cheney will visit the West Bank town of Ramallah on Sunday for talks with Palestinian leaders.

“America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself – always – against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction,” Mr Cheney said.

“The United States will never pressure Israel to take steps to threaten its security.”

To be clear, I don’t have a problem with the US underwriting Israel’s security (although if I was a US tax-payer I might have something negative to say about this one-way arrangement). What I object to is the language Cheney uses here. If there’s ever going to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians then there has to be a fair compromise, and Israel will never agree to such a compromise unless the US holds its feet to the fire and strong-arms it into painful but necessary (and entirely fair) concessions. Flying into Israel and saying “we’ll back you up, no matter what” doesn’t bring peace nearer; it pushes it further away. You know that America is doing something seriously stupid when Hamas start sounding reasonable:

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called Mr Cheney’s comments “completely biased in favour of the Israeli occupation”.

He said they confirmed that the US “is a partner to Israel in its war against our people and against the Gaza Strip”.

Given Cheney’s asinine remarks, it’s hard to argue with the guy.

From The Economist. It seems to be uglier that I at first thought:

Within a couple of hours, fires were blazing in the streets across much of the city. Some buildings caught fire too. A pall of smoke blanketed Lhasa, obscuring the ancient Potala—the city’s most famous monument, which covers a hillside overlooking the city. It is the traditional winter palace of the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, who fled into exile in India after an abortive uprising in 1959. Some of the demonstrators shouted slogans like “long live Tibet” and “long live the Dalai Lama”. One group trampled on a Chinese flag in the middle of a main road.

The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred. Immigrants have been flocking into Lhasa in recent years from the rest of China and now run many of its shops, small businesses and tourist facilities. Tourism is the mainstay of Lhasa’s economy and has been booming in recent years, not least thanks to Tibet’s first railway link with the rest of China, opened two years ago. The visitors are mainly Chinese.

While this behaviour is understandable to some degree, coming as it is on the back of 50 years of oppression by another ethnic group, I’d like to take this opportunity to back away from my gung-ho ‘let ‘em have it!’ attitude of few posts back. Yes, China is very much the brute of this story, but that doesn’t excuse Tibetans taking out their frustrations on Han Chinese living in Tibet.

I kind of knew much of the background to this sorry chapter in world history already, but reading up on it really drives home the absolutely off-the-scales levels of injustice involved in this case. The initially proposed borders were unfairly devised to begin with as they apportioned most of the fertile and economically important land to the Jewish state, and the subsequent grand fraud of land and ethnic cleansing (in the sense of forced, and it most certainly was forced, displacement) of the 1948 war is unconscionable.

I ought to spare my enthusiasm for the essay, so that’s all I’ll rant about for now. Better to vent my anger here than in an essay conclusion.

True to form, Israel is in the news again for throwing its weight around at the Palestinians’ expense.

Slightly related: just look at this wanker that John McCain is “very honoured” to be endorsed by:

Obama caught hell over Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement, despite Obama emphatically rejecting it and denouncing Farrakhan, and yet it look as though McCain’s going to get a pass on this.

And while we’re on the subject of Obama’s opponents getting passes, where the hell are the Clintons’ goddamn tax returns?

US President George W Bush has said Israel must end occupation of Arab land taken in 1967 so that a viable Palestinian state can be created.

He also urged a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue which would involve paying compensation.

Source: BBC News.

Sounds like a marked departure from previous US statements on the matter. As the Economist has long maintained, the solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is obvious enough: Israel retreats to territory approximating the pre-1967 border; Palestinians accept that they are not going to be able to return to land they previously held in Israel, perhaps with Israel providing some form of compensation to those most affected; and a shared capital is established for both states in Jerusalem. The prospects for such agreement aren’t great at the moment however, given that the Palestinians are divided between Fatah and Hamas supporters, Ehud Olmert’s Israeli government is unpopular at home, and George Bush’s political capital is at an all-time low.

Still, at least Bush is breaking new ground for US policy on the matter.

The Venezuelan electorate has voted against a raft of autocratic proposals in a referendum that president Hugo Chavez had hoped would clear the way for his assumption of indefinite control of the petro-state. In fairness to Mr Chavez, he accepted the defeat graciously enough, saying:

“To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them,” he said. “I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory.”

The last part sounds a little sinister, but as strongman presidents go he’s not the worst. Not as long as election-rigging Vladimir Putin is around anyway, which will be probably be for some time yet.