The hold of the Israeli lobby over American politics is total and absolute. Steny Hoyer and Joe Biden are out there defending commando raids on humanitarian ships in international waters that result in death and injury to civilians. There is only way to redeem themselves and that is to get a peace agreement. Because the world is of one opinion on this, and it isn't Biden and Hoyer's opinion. You want to know why people want to kill our civilians? This is why. So, do something big to make the threat go away because you just made the threat a lot worse.

Bob Herbert's latest New York Times column, "Our Epic Foolishness," could (and perhaps should) serve as the introduction to a book about how America got into the various messes we're in — from the ongoing ecological disaster in the Gulf, to the unrepentant and un-remedied recklessness of Wall Street, and beyond. Herbert, a featured speaker at America's Future Now!, deftly puts into context the considerable crises facing the country, hitting the high (or, perhaps, low) points of a long, depressing story that still more voices would tell in greater detail.

It is the story of a great nation whose people for too long placed the reins of government in the hands of those who did not — and do not — "believe in" government, and left the public interest in the care of people whose primary interest was— and remains — profit.

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce Ellen McCarthy of the Washington Post:

Please Al and Tipper, don't do this. For our sakes -- don't.

We can't handle it.

These kinds of things stopped bothering us long ago. Name almost any famous couple, and we're happy to place under/over bets on the date they'll divorce.

But the Gores were different. We believed in them. Even if we didn't agree with their politics, we admired their marriage -- the way, after all these years, they still genuinely seemed into each other.

They're like the couple down the block with the lush garden and the annual Labor Day cookout. The pair who are always power walking together and drinking wine on the front porch, who make you nudge your husband and say, "See? I want that."

Also, what Digby said.

As you probably know, Obama for America, the president's campaign organization, morphed into Organizing for America after the election and was housed in the Democratic National Committee (DNC). They have about 13 million contacts and they're learning how to transfer their talents for winning elections into effective issues advocacy. In an interview with Tom Schaller over at 538.com, OFA leaders Mitch Stewart (who organized for the Iowa caucuses) and Jeremy Bird (who organized for the South Carolina primary) discuss their progress. There are two important differences between winning elections and doing issues advocacy.

The first is that an election is a yes or no decision. But someone might support a health care bill with a public option and oppose one that lacks one. Because the organizers have no control over the final product, they have a harder time doing a pitch. The second difference is timing. With elections, you know when the election will be, and you can plan in great detail, make goals, and measure progress. But OFA had no idea when there would be a vote on health care reform. That's complicates things quite a bit.

One thing I am confident about is that Michael Steele is hopelessly outmatched at the Republican National Committee (RNC). The RNC doesn't have the brain power to match what OFA is doing. We keep getting evidence of this because the Democrats have been dominating special elections ever since Obama became the president.

I have my problems with the DNC and will not give them money because it just goes to the right-wing of the party. But I belong to OFA and believe in their organizing philosophy and prowess. I get calls from OFA several times a month asking me to do various tasks, mainly phonebanking and canvassing. It's useful to do canvassing and events because it allows you to link up with other committed Democrats in your area. This is probably most valuable in red areas of the country where it can sometimes feel like you're an endangered species. But OFA is important in every congressional district and every state. And, even though it is run by the DNC, the membership is progressive. So, while the DNC may be funneling money to Blue Dogs, the OFA is organizing progressives in those districts who will one day be able to nominate one of their own and actually win office in places where only 'centrists' are supposed to have a chance.

No one is happy that Iran is producing enriched uranium, but what are the options to deal with that fact? War? That would be insane in the current world political and economic situation. Only a Cheney would consider the use of military force the one and only solution to the conundrum of Iran's nuclear ambitions (the scope of which no doubt varies from one political figure to the next, just as in any country).

Maybe it's time to cut a deal with Iran, the deal that's been on the table for weeks now, rather than continuing to rattle the useless saber of economic sanctions:

World powers should seriously consider a newly-drafted fuel swap plan for Iran to part with some of its nuclear material, even if it is not perfect, a group of high-profile experts said.

The nine experts, including former weapons inspector David Kay, former U.S. Under Secretary of State Tom Pickering and arms control experts Jeffrey Lewis and Daryl Kimball, said the offer should be seen as a possible diplomatic opportunity.

Turkey and Brazil last month resurrected parts of a U.N.-backed offer for Tehran to part with 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium in return for special fuel rods for a medical research reactor.

As with all diplomatic solutions it involves a compromise, but we have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better say these experts in the field of nuclear non-proliferation:

The group of foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation experts said in a statement on Tuesday however that the new offer should not be dismissed.

"We urge the so-called Vienna Group (Russia, France, the United States, and the IAEA) to seriously pursue this proposal as an opening for further diplomatic engagement with Iran on outstanding issues of concern," they said.

The statement was distributed by the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, a think tank supported by Iranian Americans and U.S. foundations. The non-proliferation experts are independent figures who work for other think tanks and include respected analysts in the field.

Sometimes the refusal to take the first step is the catalyst for disaster. It's time to walk away from confrontation with Iran and begin a dialogue. Is the current proposal everything the Western powers would want? Of course not. But ask yourself this? Which countries represents the greatest threat to peace and security in Southwest Asia. Iran, which doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, doesn't make the list.

No, the two greatest threats to peace in the region are the two powers who already possess large numbers of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them: Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan because it is a war torn, fractured and nearly failed state. Israel because it is governed by the most radical extreme right wing government in decades which views military force as the primary means of conducting its international affairs.

Iran's President may make a pest of himself now and then. He may very well be an illegitimate ruler in light of the election controversy last year. However, America has conducted diplomatic relations with characters at least as bad in the past who we knew in no uncertain terms had actual ongoing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs (Saddam Hussein in the Reagan years and Mao in the Nixon years to name but two).

I think we can come to terms with Iran, which is far less of a threat and far less of a military aggressor than Saddam ever was. We don't have to like President Ahmadinejad to reach an accommodation with him. I hate to drag out this quote from Winston Churchill all the time but it is appropriate to our current situation:

“To jaw-jaw- is always better than to war-war”

Time to get serious about our jaw -jawing President Obama, don't you think?

Rep. Artur Davis must have believed he'd win the Democratic primary for Alabama governor in a walk, and all he needed to worry about was looking conservative enough to compete in the general election.

Davis gave up a safe Democratic House seat to try to become the first African-American governor elected in Alabama.

Originally the favorite for the Democratic nomination, Davis had hoped to capture some of the momentum that President Obama had built among African-American voters and also hoped to display some of Obama’s crossover appeal. Neither materialized for Davis, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

With 96 percent of the precincts reporting, Sparks had 62 percent of the vote to Davis’ 38 percent.

Here's the thing. Davis tried to capture the momentum that President Obama built among African-Americans by voting against Obama's signature issue, the health care bill. So, should he be surprised that black turnout was low? Davis tried to follow a DLC formula of taking pro-corporate positions on the issues while relying on his identity to motivate black voters. I think that is an anachronistic formula for winning as a Democrat in the South, but, in any case, it was a general election strategy that was ill-suited for winning a Democratic primary.

Meanwhile, in Alabama's Fifth District, the Republicans rejected Rep. Parker Griffith who was elected in 2008 as a Democrat but switched parties in response to the protracted health care debate.

Congress lost another party-switcher Tuesday when Republican Rep. Parker Griffith was defeated in his primary in Alabama’s 5th district.

Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks won the three-way contest without the need for a runoff by taking 51 percent of the vote. Griffith won 33 percent, and conceded before the final precincts were tallied. Veteran Les Phillip had 16 percent.

This was in spite of Minority Leader John Boehner showing up down there to do a fundraiser for Griffith. The Establishment took a beating down south last night. This was he case even in the Democratic primary. The Establishment offered Taze Shepherd, the grandson of Sen. John Sparkman. Sparkman served in Congress for 32 years. He was Adlai Stevenson's running mate in 1952 and a somewhat reluctant signer of the Southern Manifesto. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although it seems that was more out of political necessity than personal conviction. Still, he was a Jim Crow senator, and that's a stain that can't be washed off. His grandson did not run to the left.

Shepard called himself the "most centrist candidate" and the only Democrat who has held public office.

"I'll have the best chance of beating whoever comes out of the Republican primary," he said. "I'm a centrist like Bud Cramer (who retired from Congress in 2008), and he appealed to Democrats, independents and Republicans."

Shepard had his head handed to him by Steve Raby.

Raby expressed how grateful he was for the support he received and for the people in all seven counties in the fifth district who worked hard on his campaign. Raby says he was pleasantly surprised by the outcome on Tuesday.

"We were very hopeful and confident that we could win without a runoff," says Raby. "That means 50 percent, plus one vote. To get over 60 percent of the vote is really humbling."

Here's how Howie Klein describes Raby:

Steve Raby is a former employee of the Federal Reserve who spent 9 years in Washington as Chief of Staff to conservative-Democratic Alabama Senator Howell Heflin. Since leaving Washington, Raby has run a lobbying and consulting firm here in North Alabama and has been the consummate gatekeeper. Raby is a self-described conservative, recently stating in an interview, "Can you be a conservative and be a Democrat? Well, I am. Heck, I own more guns than anyone in this race." Raby has dubious connections as well, having tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Republican candidates and other electeds who now sit in federal prison.

We all know that in Alabama whoever owns the most guns in the race is going to be the winner of the race, so it's good to see that confirmed. Raby is hardly anti-Establishment, but he wasn't the first choice. This seat isn't going to provide many critical votes for the Democrats even if they win it, but a vote for Pelosi is a vote against Boehner, and that could be worth a lot.

Out in New Mexico, Pete Domenici Jr., the son of a long-serving Republican senator, was crushed in the gubernatorial primary, receiving a mere seven percent of the vote.

Last night was just further proof that legacies have no pull and the parties have less influence than ever over the electorate.

Only one thing matters to me on this election night. Will Dale Peterson prevail in his quest to be the Agricultural Commissioner of Alabama.

Okay, I lied. I don't give a rip.

It's kind of mind-boggling, but Mark Halperin is actually right about something. Also, Chris Matthews and Charles Blow are wankers.

The deficit fear mongers are right: America is facing a deficit that threatens to cripple our economy and foreclose on the futures of millions of Americans. They just have the wrong deficit. That's the reality we'll address at America's Future Now!: America faces two deficits, and must decide which is most important to address now. Prioritizing one will enable us to address the other in the long term. Prioritizing the other will eliminate hope of addressing the first one at all.

In other words, we face a choice between a better future for all Americans, and oblivion. Right now, our elected officials are choosing  oblivion. Here's how we're going to pay for it.

Under the current rules of the Senate, if you don't have 60 votes you can't pass anything. There are two main avenues for obtaining 60 votes. The first is to compromise. You let a few individual lawmakers have a major role in constructing the legislation, which normally entails the watering down of your goals. This is how both the Stimulus Bill and Health Care Reform managed to pass. Of course, this kind of compromise can also involve giving out goodies, like NIH funding for Arlen Specter or medicaid reimbursement deals for Ben Nelson. But the idea is to give something away in return for support.

The second way to get to 60 votes is to make your opponents fear the consequences of opposing you. And this is how the Wall Street Reform bill got passed in the Senate. Now, a debate has opened up within the Democratic Caucus about which strategy to pursue on Climate Change legislation. On one side is Harry Reid and the liberals who want to take advantage of the current unpopularity of Big Oil to strike fear into the hearts of Republicans. On the other side are the centrists, who seek accommodation:

Centrist Democrats argue that energy and climate change is substantially different than Wall Street reform. Polls showed widespread anger at big Wall Street banks but public opinion over how to address energy and climate change is mixed.

“People were angry at Wall Street and I don’t think there’s the same anger aimed even now at the oil industry,” said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank.

Kessler and other centrists believe that Reid needs to push a unifying message that energy and climate change reform will spur the economy.

“This has got to be about an economic message, creating clean-energy jobs and having America lead the world,” said Kessler. “This can’t be about evil corporations; it’s got to be about American opportunity.”

Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist from Indiana, said: “It’s always easier to take a firmer line when the public is behind you and the polls indicate that financial regular reform is popular.”

Of course, there is precious little consideration here about the merits of policy. Progressives tend to focus on what is needed. And, when it comes to Climate Change, bold action is required. Normally, something is better than nothing, but on this issue you may face a tipping point on warming. In that case, there may be no substantive difference between something and nothing. Instead of taking this threat seriously, the debate is all about tactics.

That's a shame. But the tactics do matter. And I think Harry Reid is on the right side of this particular argument.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democratic Senate leaders doubt that playing nice with Republicans will yield much cooperation.

“The reason we were successful on Wall Street reform is that we were able to show a sharp contrast,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “We had a foil: Wall Street; and we had an enabler: the Republicans.”

Democratic leaders see a similar dynamic in the energy and climate change debate.

“You’ve got a very unsympathetic target in big oil,” said the aide. “Big oil earns billions in profits and it doesn’t invest in the safety mechanism necessary to keep millions of gallons from spreading along the Gulf Coast.

“And you’re going to see a Republican Party side with big oil,” the aide added.

Politically, the president is going to take a hit all summer because of his inability to shut down the oil leak in the Gulf. Getting the Republicans to stand in unison in defense of Big Oil is definitely one way to limit the damage. And there is a good chance that the Republicans' unity will crack. I think being aggressive makes it more likely that we get a strong bill and that a bill passes. But it is also smart from electoral point of view.

So, I think the centrists are going to lose this argument.

On immigration reform, which this article also discusses, I don't see raw aggression as yielding results. But I don't see compromise working either. I just don't see any way to get a vote out of the Senate this year for immigration reform.

There's been a lot of bashing of Israel over its attack which resulted in the deaths of the Gaza aid activists. Many here rightly question the value of America's continued unmitigated support for an ally that bombs civilians in the Gaza strip, starves them, denies them essential medical supplies and has destroyed their economy in the interest of -- well, of what I'm not sure.

Eliminating Hamas? Hamas seems to be, if not thriving, continuing to maintain its authority. Indeed, US mediated private talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority are now on indefinite hold, which I imagine only strengthens Hamas' position that they should have a seat at the table. Was Israel playing the "crazy Nixon" card to make its enemies quiver in fear? Seems all it has done is cause great animosity between Israel and one of the few Islamic nations in the region that had remained friendly or at least neutral toward it (Turkey).

At the same time this "action" seems only to have increased tensions between Israel and Iran. Iran is one of the few states with the means (not as vast as our right wing brethren think, but means nonetheless) to produce enriched uranium that might be used in the future to produce nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles that could strike Israel. And if Iran gets nukes, its Katy bar the door time in the Middle east as every Arab Sunni state in the region would likely engage in a nuclear arms race.

Israel having nukes is one thing which the large Sunni Arab states have tolerated since Israel has done nothing to harm their economies nor the authority of their governments. However, a rival Islamic state governed by religious political figures the Sunni dominated nations believe are heretics out to undermine their authority in the Islamic world is something else entirely. Nuclear proliferation on that order would certainly not be a benefit for either Israel, the United States or the rest of the world in general.

Perhaps Israel is looking for a justification to attack Iran, fight another war in Gaza to attempt to destroy Hamas, or attack Hezbollah in southern Lebanon? After all when everyone really is against you (even the Wall Street Journal agrees on that point). Nothing rallies your country's citizens round the flag better than making everyone hate you.

Of course, a war in the Middle East involving Israel and anyone at this time would be disastrous for the United States and (if the attack was on Iran) the world economy. Oil prices would skyrocket on speculation alone, and the threat of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States at home or abroad would also likely increase dramatically.

So, what, if anything is the United States getting for our "friendship" with Israel? Well, I did find one benefit and here it is:

WASHINGTON — A former U.S. ambassador aboard a Gaza aid ship seized by Israeli commandos is on his way home, his wife said Monday evening.

Edward Peck, 81, of Chevy Chase, Md., a Washington suburb, was among activists in the flotilla trying to get humanitarian aid to Gaza, Ann Peck said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

She said she received a brief e-mail from Israel's foreign ministry on Monday informing her that her husband was fine and headed home. The e-mail said he would likely arrive Tuesday, didn't have a cell phone with him and would call from a New York airport when he landed, she said, adding that it didn't say which airport.

That's right. Our government can still pull strings to get an 81 year old ambassador released from Israel's "protective custody." Mind you, it didn't help a younger American activist in Gaza whom the Israeli forces literally bulldozed to death, nor did it help the American sailors who died or were wounded on the USS Liberty in 1967 by Israel's unprovoked attack on that ship, but at least our formerly important political figures are safe in Israel's hands.

That's a comforting thought, I'm sure for any of our former political bigwigs who ever find themselves detained in Israel. For other people, not so much:

A day after Israeli commandoes raided an aid flotilla seeking to breach the blockade of Gaza, Israel held hundreds of activists seized aboard the convoy on Tuesday as news reports said activists may be planning a fresh attempt to ferry supplies to the Hamas-run enclave.

Now, admittedly, Israel was viewed by past American governments as a valuable ally during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union. They provided America with the military bases and muscle to guard our interests in the Middle East's oil reserves, much as the Shah of Iran did before he was overthrown. Heck, that;s why Donny Rumsfeld was so chummy with Saddam Hussein after the Shah was deposed, remember?

But those days are over. The question remains, strictly from a geopolitical standpoint, what value does Israel provide to the United States? I suggest not much. Sure, we get the benefit of whatever intelligence they choose to share with us (assuming that intelligence is accurate, which is a big assumption these days).

But in all other respects Israel is viewed around the word as a pariah nation. Our continued support for its actions seem evermore inexplicable, and continues to fuel anger among the common people of Arab and Islamic countries around the world, much as our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done.

Some have claimed that this is merely antisemitism in disguise from the Left. I would argue that is a misguided and dangerous assumption to make. What I and others are arguing is that our support of Israel's actions regardless of what their consequences has become a political and moral liability for America. I believe that the State of Israel deserves to exist. I believe Israel is entitled to secure borders.

However, the current policies Israel's governments have pursued of wars, military action, territorial expansion, and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people in the Gaza strip through this blockade can arguably be viewed as crimes against humanity fueled by racism. The truth of the matter is that Israel's neighbors and the Palestinians have suffered far more than Israel from the ongoing pattern of maintaining and even exacerbating Israel's conflicts with those around it.

One has to ask who benefits from Israel's policies? Certainly the right wing parties in Israel and the extremist political groups in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, both of whom can use the conflict to justify their actions and their authority. And it benefits arms manufacturers and dealers around the world. Wars and the preparation for wars are always good for their business. It also benefits the more extreme governments in the Middle East, such as Iran and Syria while undercutting the authority of more moderate regimes in Turkey, Egypt and other countries who would prefer that the problem simply go away. Ranting and raving about Israeli atrocities and the threat of Israeli military action inflames the crowds and keeps the focus off internal dissent.

It also advances the careers of those (e.g., President Ahmadinejad) who would prefer to arm their nations with the most destructive weapons on the planet. In short, Israel's increasingly hostile and deadly actions have helped tear apart efforts to make the Middle east a nuclear free zone.

Who knows, maybe that was the intention all along.

But let me remind people of a little history. Wars and territorial expansion and the subjugation of occupied peoples and nuclear weapons are no guaranty of security. Quite the contrary. History has shown us that eventually nations that pursue military aggression as their primary means of "diplomacy" end up with less security and ultimately create far greater harm to their own countries (see, for example, America in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and of course Japan and Germany in WWII).

Wars breed more wars, because the survivors of those who are slaughtered in war, the nations who lose those wars, always want revenge. It may not come today, or next week or even in the next few years. But eventually history shows us that a day of reckoning will come. Israel is sowing the ground for its own future destruction, and our continued support of their aggressive actions only brings that day of reckoning closer for both them and for us.

I woke up this morning and looked at the news. You know what? I don't want to write about Israel. I've already said what needs to be said. Whether you oppose Israel's policies or you support them, you need to step out of the American conversation and look at things clearly. Try looking at things this way for just a moment:

Indeed, the parallels between Israel and -- gulp -- North Korea are becoming pretty eerie. True, Israel's economy is thriving and North Korea's is not. That said, both countries are diplomatically isolated except for their ties to a great power benefactor. Both countries are pursuing autarkic policies that immiserate millions of people. The majority of the populaion in both countries seem blithely unaware of what the rest of the world thinks. Both countries face hostile regional environments. Both countries keep getting referred to the United Nations. And, in the past month, the great power benefactor is finding it more and more difficult to defend their behavior to the rest of the world.

The American conversation doesn't see this. It is almost totally blind to it. Israel is not North Korea. There is nothing in North Korea worth preserving or fighting for. Its regime and its ideology are irredeemable. But, as far as world opinion goes, Israel is not far removed from North Korea. Even Israel's refusal to sign the non-proliferation treaty puts them in a small club that includes North Korea. Israel is getting a lot of good advice from people who want the best for them. But it's up to the American government (and its people) to demand that Israel begins taking that advice, because it is quite evident that they will not do so willingly.

Right, even though this rash action by Israel endangers our relationship with Turkey and potentially our troops in Iraq, we should bend over backwards not to alienate Israel.

The situation is difficult for the United States, which has close relations with both countries and is now in the awkward position of crafting a reaction that avoids alienating either side. Both the United States and Israel use Turkish air space for military exercises. The United States supplies the majority of its Iraq effort from a military base in southern Turkey.

I am tired of our country acting like Israel's poodle.

Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, urged the U.N. Security Council in an emergency session Monday to condemn Israel's raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip and to set up a U.N. inquiry to hold accountable those responsible for it.

"Turkey would like to see that the Security Council strongly reacts and adopts a presidential statement strongly condemning this Israeli act of aggression, demanding an urgent inquiry into the incident and calling for the punishment of all responsible authorities," he said in an address to the 15-nation council. "I call on this council to step up and do what is expected of it."

Behind closed doors, U.S. diplomats sought to prevent the council from authorizing a U.N. investigation into the Israeli raid, saying Israel should be given a chance to conduct a credible investigation first.

Here's a NEWSFLASH for our diplomatic corp. There is no such thing as a credible Israeli investigation. That's because no one believes a thing they say. But, there's no example in history where someone killed over a dozen civilians in cold blood and then were told to investigate the crime. The word 'credible' doesn't exist in the same universe as that scenario.

And this next bit is a bit like scolding Martin Luther King Jr. for being ineffective.

The Turkish initiative at the United Nations placed the United States in the difficult position of trying to mediate between two important allies. Alejandro Wolff, the United States' second-highest ranking ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States is still trying to "ascertain the facts" but that it "regrets the tragic loss of life and injuries." Wolff said the United States expects "a credible and transparent investigation and strongly urges the Israeli government to investigate the incident fully."

But Wolff also scolded the members of the humanitarian convoy, saying that their unapproved delivery of aid "by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances." Wolff said that "non-provocative and non-confrontational" procedures exist for delivering assistance to Gazans.

Contrary to Wolff's position, I hope people start sending a flotilla a day. You know what's inappropriate and irresponsible? Blowing up civilians to make a political point. Non-violent direct action is the moral alternative to terrorism. And when Israel kills activists in cold blood who haven't come near their territorial waters? That's just murder. Not even the Jim Crow governors gave out those kind of orders.

And our government's response is to scold the people who died?

This whole relationship has become untenable.

Well, now Israel has done it. They have actually provoked Turkey to the point that they may start a war over this incident massacre:

Turkey has threatened Israel with unprecedented action after Israeli forces attacked an aid vessel, killing 10 peace activists headed to Gaza.

Israel said 10 people died while those on the ship said at least 15 were killed.

A shocked world has responded with outrage. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and warned of unprecedented and incalculable reprisals.

Two Turkish activists were reported to be among those killed in the flotilla. Ankara warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy, a development with unpredictable consequences.

Israel has sounded an alert throughout the country fearing rocket attacks by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If Turkey is promising to send new supplies with naval escort, then we're headed for an epic showdown between two of Americas closest allies. I don't think Obama is getting too much rest and relaxation this Memorial Day.

Meanwhile, the Arab League will meet tomorrow and put immense pressure on Egypt to lift their portion of the Gazan blockade. I can't imagine that Egypt will refuse. In fact, I think Israel has jeopardized their peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

All this, and for what? To keep construction materials from the Gazan people? Israel is not behaving in anything resembling a rational manner. They just lost the only friends they had not named America. And who can help them now but Big Daddy? The problem is that Big Daddy has more to consider than Israeli's deluded interests. We have to worry about our own image and international relationships.