Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Moral Equivilancy

I have a lot to say about the terror attacks on Israel and their righteous response, but alas the summer has been busy. (That and I had a great post I didn't save - stupid rookie blogger mistakes...)

But it really all boils down to this. There is a clear good guy, and a clear bad guy.

One of the parties has the capability to annihilate every last man, woman, and child on the other side. They chose not to.

The other side has stated expressly, in writing, that they want nothing more than to annihilate every last man, woman, and child on the other side and around the world. They do not have the capability, but if they did, they would make good on their promise.

Do we get it now? No reasonable person can draw moral equivalence here.

Despite Israel's capability, they do not intentionally target non-combatants. They isolate and cut off supply routes, and spend millions of dollars on precision munitions so they can get the enemy rocket battery that has been purposely set up next to the school without killing children. Their army wears uniforms to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. They pamphlet target zones before they attack to warn people to take cover and to get away. Their army attacks from positions far away from the civilians they protect, in an attempt to draw the violence of war away from homes and children. They try to protect their people, despite the propaganda value dead Israelis might have. They show their faces. Their names are embroidered on their uniforms.

And all this even though their very survival is at stake. Only a just and moral nation acts this way.

The Hamas and Hezbollah units of the Iranian and Syrian military, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians. The only good Jew is a dead Jew, after all, and because they're only apes, there's no difference between killing a soldier and a Jewish baby. And because their own people are worth less than scoring points with the UN, they go out of their way to make sure their own civilians are killed for the cameras. They do this by intentionally placing military batteries in and around schools, markets, and houses. They don't wear uniforms, and hide behind civilians to fire their rockets. When they do come out in the open, they wear masks. The men running the war claim neutrality like cowards while they pull the strings from afar, and the complicit international community goes out of their way to participate in the lie.

Not since the Third Reich has there been such a clear and aggressive bad guy. And all parties who talk about "disproportionate responses" and "killing on both sides" are complicit in the evil of the Islamo-fascists.


Cato said...

The real losers here are the Lebanese, and the Israelis are right to make every effort to harm as few of them as possible. The Lebanese people are the only ones who can really wipe out Hizbullah, and they need a strong government to do that. The Israeli attacks may actually be counterproductive to that goal (especially the Beirut bombing campaigns). Middle East policy is always tricky. I generally think our best policy is to support our allies diplomatically and otherwise stay the hell out.

Orrin Johnson said...

Had Lebanon even made token attacks against Hezbollah at the begining, and spoken out in favor of Israel in their carefully measured attacks on Hezbollah, I would feel more sympathy for them. Even more, they could have shut down their own northern border with Syria so the Israelis didn't have to. They were in a tough spot, but they aren't exaclty helping themselves very well, either.

We're already in it. We have been since the 70's. It's naive to think we can just "stay out of it." Naive and deadly.