Yesterday, I was flipping back and forth between articles that described Condi's progress in crafting the outlines of a ceasefire agreement, simultaneously contradicted by Olmert's statements: "There is no ceasefire and there will not be any ceasefire in the coming days". Israel is obviously pandering to its domestic audience, leaving the US in the awkward position of mopping up the diplomatic mess left behind.

The WSJ (which I don't normally read but the article was sent to me) suggests that this divergence is causing some strain as Condi desperately maneouvers to get a Sec Council resolution in place before more UN outposts/civilians are blown to bits, more carnage-filled photos are posted on the internet and more Western allies are alienated.

Speaking in Florida, President Bush dismissed the idea of "stopping for the sake of stopping" without a plan for lasting peace. But he also reiterated U.S. plans to pursue U.N. action to end the fighting.

The growing tensions underscore the risk the administration took several weeks ago by backing Israel's right to wage its offensive against Hezbollah.

A senior administration official said the U.S. believed Israel would have only a matter of weeks to strike Hezbollah before international pressure for a cease-fire forced an end to the fighting, especially if civilian casualties climbed. Now, the official said, the U.S. is beginning to fear that it could be left both with mounting regional fury and an emboldened Hezbollah that has withstood the initial assault without losing its ability to inflict casualties on Israeli troops and civilians.

Oopsie.

Apparently some Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is finally waking up to the madness and calling for an immediate halt to hostilities. Forget his name, but it's about time someone mentioned that "stopping for the sake of stopping" is really about stopping because many innocent civilians are getting blown up.

Ah yes, this guy:

"How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend -- the country and people of Lebanon -- is going to enhance America's image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?" asked Hagel, the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He called on Bush to name "a statesman of global stature" as his personal envoy to the region. And he urged the administration to open direct talks with Hezbollah's backers, Iran and Syria, both of which Washington also accuses of meddling in Iraq.

"Our relationship with Israel is special and historic," he said. "But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice."