Too High a Price? Rubbish!!

An article from the The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/editors4, discusses the current conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

Once again, the view from the left wears rose color glasses with the notion that conflict in the Middle East can be resolved merely through diplomacy. And of course, as the editors are quick to point out, this current war is, once again, the fault of the U.S. government.

I often sit and ask myself if people truly think in this manner or is it simply to get a rise by holding onto an opposing view. I mean, I often cannot logically grasp the suggestions made that conflicts, such as the current war in Lebanon, can be avoided if only Bush could sit down over a cup of coffee and negotiate peace with terrorists and militias.

Don't they get it! These groups want death to Israel and the U.S. for that matter. What is so difficult to understand here?

The editors start off the article by lambasting Israeli forces for 'disproportionate' response to the kidnapping of two soldiers and killing of eight more. I have to ask these editors, does Israel have the right to protect its Nation? I mean, at what point is enough, enough? Would proportionate reaction be capturing two Hezbollah soldiers and killing eight more? Should the two sides go back and forth with each other like a game of chess, taking out one piece at a time, as to be fair?

When a militia lives at the doorstep of your Nation and its primary goal is to see to your death, I strongly believe, and advise for that matter, the right to destroy such a group. Would you want an equivalent taking post on the Mexican or Candadian/U.S. border?

The editors go on to point out this conflict is the result of the administration's persistence that Syrian troops withdraw from Lebanon. It is suggested that current occupation of Syrian troops in Lebanon would be a natural restraint on Hezbollah, thus keeping them in order. This, of course, is the same Nation (Syria) that assists in funding Hezbollah. The editors then point out that this conflict should remind us, "peace and stability of the region is too important to be left to Israel and to Washington". And that there is a much greater need for UN involvement. Yet, wasn't it the UN Resolution 1559 that called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon?

Is this the type of UN involvement you're requesting? If so, isn't this exactly what you described as the primary reason that led to this conflict, yet so eloquently blamed on the U.S. and Israel? So, which side of the fence is it?

Point being, once Syria left Lebanon its government should've demanded assistance in disarming Hezbollah. Whether the assistance came from moderate Middle Eastern countries, the EU, or the U.S., it undoubtedly was a major task that was never seriously addressed. In fact, I believe the Lebanon government was fine with Hezbollah occupying the southern borders. Consider, why else leave this militia living and breathing within a fragile Nation knowing the tension it stirs with Israel and being led by non-sensible radical leader?

Once again from the left we get our daily dosage of spin, spin, spin. They continue their failure to fully comprehend the enemy that is rising in the Middle East. Their empty suggestions that diplomacy is the answer turns a blind eye on recognizing the face of the enemy. These unified terrorist groups and Nations that serve them in the Middle East will not seize until their destruction and holy war on mankind is achieved.

I ponder everyday why editors, such as these, don't sympathize with that type of reality.

DP