I read on AP wire that Israel has accepted a cease-fire. Here is a podcast of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. on the aims of the Israeli war with Hezbollah (I have seen 7 spellings of this in English--anyone with an idea what the definitive spelling is, or is there even a definitive spelling?) If you listen to the podcast, let me know what you think. I think he has some good points--that Hezbollah is largely aided by other countries with eyes on Lebanon for their own political purposes. But I also think, like U.S. governmental officials (on both sides of the house), he seems to be talking from a script that includes the completely-pounded-into- inanity-by-the-assumption your audience members are cretins buzzwords like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Nuclear Ambitions" (the one I fancy the most--I wish I had nuclear ambition! Presently, my ambition is hamster-powered). And on that note--as a good English teacher who preaches that cliches show a distinct lack of critical thinking--if I hear the phrase "We don't want to go back to the status quo ante one more time, then my hamster will go all 3-mile-island. Say it in English. In Hebrew. In Arabic. In Farsi, Pashtun, Dari/Urdu/Gaelic/Ice Landic, but please, please, don't turn a dead language into a mind-numbing poli-zombie. The Ambassador does not, thank God, say this phrase in the podcast, but every American policy-maker has adopted this phrase as his or her media mantra.

Here is the link to the podcast. . .I haven't a clue how to html embed podcasts/Mp3s. Someone wanna tell me?

That brings me to my question for those who don't have time to/don't want to listen to the podcast. How do you think the blogosphere has changed the face of conflicts? I think it is so interesting to see the war carried on line with parrying between parties involved, if by proxy, in Israeli and Lebanon, and the U.S. and Iraq. I have also seen olive branches offered--people trying to rationally discuss the conflicts and work toward a better understanding of other communities. Are you hopeful or pessimistic about the ability of blogs to alter the reality of war? The media in Vietnam radically altered America's view of the war, and thus the war itself--no media had covered a war like that before--at least in the states. Hope I get at least one answer on this!