Thursday, August 10, 2006

"We Are All Hezbollah Now"

So read a banner at a "Pro-peace" march in London several days ago. Charming. British columnist Harold Evans dissects what these supposed liberals are really signing themselves up for.
If we are all Hizbullah now, who are we?

Are we the violent hijackers of the state of Lebanon who started this war without provocation and without reference to the elected government? Are we the "democrats" who hold hostages for years and murder political opponents?

Are we the suicide bombers, Hizbullah's contribution to civilization, randomly murdering innocents in the thousands - Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, for this cause or that, it makes no difference?

Are we Hassan Nasrullah, the latest pin up boy of terrorism, who competes with Iran's mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the most dedicated to kill Jews? He makes no secret of Hizbullah's genocidal ambitions. "If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel," he says, "it will save us the trouble of going after them on a world wide basis." Big joke.
Are we the puppets of our paymasters in Iran?

Are we the cowards condemned as such by the UN humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, for hiding our fighters and rocket launchers among women and children?

Are we not the cleverest of tacticians? If the human shield works, we are free to attack, and if it fails, Israel will bear the odium. What does it matter that our cruel deceit violates Article 58 of the Geneva Convention?

Are we the renegades who have for six years shown what we think of the Geneva Convention, international law (and UN resolution 1559) by regularly launching rockets across the border into Israel loaded with ball-bearings to shred human flesh. Yes, people died, six in a school bus, but they were only Jews and did you see the world take any notice? Nobody marched in London.

Are we the fiends who over two decades of Islamic terrorism have kidnapped, tortured and killed numerous peacekeepers?

Apparently, we are.

Via Buzzmachine.

Rumor has it another cease-fire proposal is coming. I'm not entirely sure what a cease-fire would accomplish in this situation. Cease-fires make sense when a political resolution is plausible--to give the parties time to negotiate. But this isn't a political conflict. Ultimately, none of the parties have or are willing to give Israel anything it really wants. Hezbollah, as Mr. Nasrallah has made clear, wants to slaughter every Jew in the world. What is there to negotiate? Maybe he'll compromise on half? Or just the Jews in Israel?

Hezbollah's short-term goal is for Israel to release Samir Kuntar. This, too, should be regarded as a redline: Men who kill a father in front of his daughter's eyes, then dash the 4-year old's brains out with a rifle butt (and remain proud of it), should not and cannot be released from prison. Not now, not ever. When the short-term goal is releasing terrorist brutes, and the long-term is genocide, there is very little a cease-fire will accompolish aside from letting the terrorists re-equip and start the conflict all over again.

1 comment:

Disenchanted Dave said...

[I'm still working on a response to your CLT post; I'll have something up later].

Do you think Israel's campaign is succeeding? Can you tell me what they've successfully targeted that has been worth the direct "collateral damage" and dramatically increasing Hezbollah's popularity and legitimacy throughout the region? Did they get Hezbollah's leaders? Do they have any hope of doing so? What will be accomplished by not signing a cease-fire?

These aren't rhetorical questions; I have no idea what your answer will be. As far as I can tell, Israel has hardly damaged Hezbollah at all. I literally have no idea what they're accomplishing or what they hope to accomplish. If it's the standard "we must crush them the way we crushed Germany and Japan to create lasting peace" argument, it's clearly not working.