U.S. Opposed To Cease Fire In Lebanon?
Here’s the headline:
Here’s the actual quote from the article:
“We’d love to have a cease-fire,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said. “But Hezbollah has to be part of it. And at this point, there’s no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms.”
Apparently the headline writer didn’t read the article.
Really, though, I’m getting tired of all this “we need a cease fire” talk. We don’t need a cease fire. What we need is for Hezbollah to return the soldiers they kidnapped, take responsibility for the civilians they’ve killed by using them as human shields, quit attacking Israel and recognize the Jewish state.
Any cease in hostilities without these terms being met is a victory for the terrorists.
June 20th, a full eight days before the first kidnapped soldier, Israel tried to execute someone and missed, killing three children. Before that, on June 9th, Israel shells a beach killing eight people. This isn’t mentioned on CNN or any news networks. This is the start of the current conflict.
Israel has 900 or so kidnapped civilians that have no charges against them. 30 members of of the government in Gaza were kidnapped. If i remember correctly, around 10,000 are detained with charges. Hezbollah and Hamas, using Israeli logic, should be able to kidnap soldiers. Right now, Hamas and Hezbollah have 3 kidnapped soldiers. Kidnapping a soldier is a whole different ball game than kidnapping a civilian (which Israel does all the time)
If it is not right for Hamas and Hezbollah to kill people (and it isn’t) then it isn’t all right for Israel to kill people, even if it is a form of extrajudicial punishment. People in central and northern Lebanon. People that have nothing to do with Hezbollah, people that are ideologically opposite of Hezbollah.
Funny that the groups we are counting on to form stability in Iraq, are pretty much the ideological twin of Hezbollah.
Graeme: Missing your target and killing civilians is, amazingly enough, both morally and in terms of what little “law” there is on the subject, different from targeting civilians in the first place.
When Israel starts putting ball bearings in missiles and firing them, unaimed, into cities, you can talk about equivalence. The civilian deaths in Lebanon all seem to be caused either by a) accident or happenstance or b) Hezbollah’s storage of rockets or placement of “military” targets among civilians precisely to build casualties so people just like you will blame Israel.
Mission accomplished.
June 20th? A beach? Oh! Those were our explosives that detonated. Thank you for buying our propaganda hook line and sinker! The American left, how we love you!
Iran has ginned all this up, exploiting Hamas and Hezbollah to be its surrogates, and now Mahmoud’s bluff is about to be called, big time. Much has been made of the “fact” that Israel can’t either attack Iran itself or take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. Don’t be too sure of that:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5597
Although this is hardly the first time that a decidedly anti-administration headline does not reflect accurately the underlying story, in this case, I could almost wish that the headline itself was true.
Instead of all the obligatory diplo-speak, how much more honest, and morally correct, if the US simply announced that we stand with the Israeli military assault on the Hezbollah terrorists, we will offer whatever assistance and support our ally requires, and that there will be no cease-fire until Hezbollah no longer represents a threat to Israel.
Mr. one-way.