Non-Sequitur Diplomacy

The United States and France have finally reached agreement over the crisis in the Middle East. I guess that's good news, except ... neither one of these countries is actually engaged in the war that is the subject of this "agreement".

At least not directly. Sure the U.S. is indirectly involved, via Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. When the IDF soldiers storm though villiages in Lebanon their M16A1 rifles literally have the words "Property of the United States" on the side - in case there's any doubt who the "Bigger Satan" might be in the minds of the impressionable and non-evacuated Lebanese children who may be watching.

But France? Why is the U.S. striking a deal with a decrepit former colonial power over the conflict in Lebanon? Many third parties at the United Nations have strong feelings, but the countries that are fighting have demonstrated a robust indifference to world opinion.

All I can think about are other ludicrous examples: Denmark Strikes Deal With Burger King Over Australian Land-Rights. And so forth.

As I type, Condoleeza Rice is currently on TV trying to express her tepid support for the draft resolution, but it's an underwhelming performance. There must be some sober understanding behind the scenes that, without the direct support of Olmert and Nasrallah, everything else is just fluffy make-nice talk. The Lebanese government - which is also, essentially, a third party, since they have so little influence over Hezbollah - is already on record as saying the resolution is unacceptable.

Back to the violence, folks.