Skip to content

Blending

I’ve written about the situation in Lebanon twice. You just can’t see either of the posts because they got lost in the netherworld of “timed out” between my computer and my web host. Since I appear to have a small window of opportunity here, I’m going to try again. Unfortunately, my notes are in my notepad in my Windows operating system so most of this is from memory.

A couple of days ago, Howard over at the Smedley Log posted a link to a web site with lots of pictures of the effects of the “measured” response of the Israelis on the people of southern Lebanon. Dead, burned, mutilated children. It’s horrible. It’s unacceptable.

Understand that I’m not making fun of people who are genuinely concerned over this kind of carnage. It is horrible and it is unacceptable. I just differ from a lot of folks out there as to why.

I’m guessing that pretty much everyone in the world has already made up their mind about whether Israel should be able to act to eliminate a tangible threat to their security. I believe their response has been too measured. Others think they should not have responded at all. I don’t think we’re going to change that based on a couple of comments on this blog. I think what is instructive here is that these images give us a very clear picture of radical Islam. They give us an undeniable insight into the values and character of Hezbollah and others of their ilk.

A few days ago, the chief Humanitarian for the UN, Jan Egelund criticized Israel for its “disproportionate” response to the situation. I’m sure you’ve seen it. It was on all the MSM web sites, TV (or so the Head Rat tells me), pretty much everywhere. Did you know that the next day Mr. Egelund said this:

“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” Egeland said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”

No? Didn’t see that one? Well, probably not. I wouldn’t have seen it except for a link to a web site in Canada. (It also showed up on Fox, but only crazed neo-con warmongers read the Fox web site.) I finally found a reference to it on MSNBC.

The point is that Hezbollah is proud of the fact that they managed to get a lot of women and children killed. They wanted it for propaganda purposes. They wanted it to preserve their own skins. And they never considered hiding behind women and children a problem because of the radical Isalmicist view of women and children as near chattel. Just another expendable resource.

I realize it is profoundly un-politically correct of me to say so, but faced with this kind of undeniable evidence of the radical Islamicist worldview, how can anyone claim that these people represent anything remotely resembling a religion of peace? Given the literally hundreds of expressions of intent by Hezbollah and their ilk that have been recorded, video taped and printed over the past few years, how can anyone doubt that this is who they really are? More importantly from my point of view; what kind of twisted moral calculus does one have to fabricate to delude oneself that the radical Islamicist world view is not socially, functionally and morally inferior, that these people are “just like us” and that they would be willing to peacefully coexist with us if only we would just appease accomodate them a little more?

Yes, those mangled children in Lebanon are unacceptable. And it is our (the “civilized” world’s) fault. It is our fault because we have stood by and allowed a group of death-worshipping, armed thugs to continue to exist and pretended that they should be treated like real, civilized grown-ups. We’ve allowed them to be propped up by entities who are just as deranged, for their own purposes. And we’ve contributed to their existence by pretending we had no choice from a humanitarian standpoint but to feed and clothe them because they were craven enough to embed and intertwine themselves with a civilian population. After all, we can’t let the children suffer, can we?

Well, the children are suffering now. And many of us in the West have the unmitigated gall to suggest that this is somehow the fault of the IDF. This is the same IDF who practically carpet-bombed the areas they were about to shell with leaflets urging the civilian population to leave before the shelling began. Now there are pictures circulating on the internet of UN and Hezbollah bunkers sitting side by side (reportedly sharing phone service) and we are supposed to draw the obvious conclusion that it is Israel that is evil and the continuing proof is their brazen killing of UN “peacekeepers”?

I wish I had a pithy summary for this that didn’t sound like I was beating a dead horse. But I don’t. So I’ll lay it out nice and clean with no innuendo or nuance. Hezbollah is a threat to Western Civilization in general and Israel in particular. Israel needs to do what is necessary to rid themselves of Hezbollah as a tangible threat. Civilian casualties that may ensue are the fault of the West because we have tolerated and supported Hezbollah.

How’s that for a nice, clear statment?

One other thing. If you follow the link to the web site with the pictures, you will see, prominently displayed, pictures of little Israeli girls writing messages on artillery shells, ostensibly “greetings” to Lebanon. It saddens me that someone in Israel thought this was a good idea. I, comfortably removed from the danger of Hezbollah rockets, think this is reprehensible. But, this too, is indicative of a larger dynamic. When a radical Islamicist proclaims threats of death to Israel, America or anything else in the West, we scramble all over ourselves to point out that these are isolated viewpoints, not representative of Islam in general. How is it that this regrettable incident with the little girls and the artillery shells is somehow indicitive of the depravity of Israel in particular and Jews in general?

Just asking. Of course, I know the answer, it’s just a rhetorical construct meant to make an ugly point in a casual conversational way.

Didn’t really work, though, did it?

{ 2 } Comments