Posted by
on Monday, July 24, 2006 4:43:18 PM
We're still keeping an eye on Israel here at The Asylum, however Hugh Hewitt pointed out this diatribe by Tom Hayden over at Arianna Huffington's excuse of a blog site. Tom Hayden is a voice on the Left, which has thoroughly entrenched itself within the "mainstream" Democrat Party, and his piece there demonstrates where the Left stands in the Israeli/Hezbollah war:One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
About those Palestinian prisoners, Mr. Hayden neglects to note that these prisoners aren't "social agitators" but rather terrorists. These are people who have attacked Israel proper, were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to time in prison. The prisoner swapping idea is a dead notion to the Israelis because these people, when released, go back to the status quo; they go back to attacking Israel. And what territories are being occupied? Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs, and pulled out of Gaza ten months ago. Since then, terrorists in unoccupied Gaza have continued with Kassam rocket attacks. He cites that Israel has admitted that this war against Hezbollah is about destroying them. This is not some grandiose admission by Israel because they stated from the start that was their goal in this war. Israel wants Hezbollah to stop their attacks. They want Hamas to reign in the militants in Gaza. If not, does Mr. Hayden expect Israel to simply roll over and not defend itself?
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
Mr. Hayden neglects to note what Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced yesterday, and what he has maintained since the beginning of this war. Israel is not at war with Lebanon, or the Lebanese people. They are at war with Hezbollah. For the Left to continue fostering this idea that Israel cares nothing for the civilian deaths that have been accrued in this war, it shows how intellectually dishonest they are; a complete lack of understanding when it comes to waging war. In war, there will always be casualties. And their myth is furthered by neglecting to note that Hezbollah places their bases, their launchers, etc., in civilian populated areas. As we noted last week on our other site (or is it a cell?) Israel is not going to put its soldiers and pilots in danger by telling them not to fire on a military target. This is no different than the Islamofascists in Iraq and Afghanistan that use civilians as "shields" against our troops on the ground. Obviously our troops are going to take the best care possible to avoid shooting non-combatants, but not to detriment that it may kill them. To ask Israel to do just that--to avoid nailing a target simply because civilians are in the area--is preposterous.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
Faith-based initiative? What is Mr. Hayden implying? I can guess based on the general gist of this paragraph that deep down inside Mr. Hayden believes that this is some sort of "holy crusade" through the Middle East by the United States. The only thing missing in this paragraph is some veiled accusation that we are doing this for the Jews because the Jews control everything. Mr. Hayden has tried (pathetically so) to sound as though he is a reasoned voice on the Left. He's failed. By bringing Iraq into the conversation, Mr. Hayden has literally tried to tie both that and Hezbollah--Israel's war on its enemies--together. Well, while that might be true, to a point (we are, after all in a war on terror), Hezbollah is Israel's target, not ours. We can admit that their destruction or their disarming would be beneficial, but our assistance to Israel in this war is strictly logistical. But this is not a part of some far-reaching "Pax Americana" crusade. Terrorism--Islamofascism--is the most destabilizing element in the world today. And we recognized that problem on 11 September after ten-plus years of ignoring it, and hoping it would simply go away. We are dealing with our problem, and Israel is dealing with theirs. Neither have anything to do with some crusade that Mr. Hayden and those on the Left believe exists; they have everything to do with removing the ability for our enemies to hurt us again. If we can do it, why can't Israel?
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli troops and bombs.
And rightly so. I would rather see our tax dollars sent to help Israel than watch them be flushed down bottomless rat-holes like France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN. It's true that the United States sends billions upon billions in foreign aid worldwide. I'd love to see us reevaluate those expenditures because I'm betting a fair majority of them could be stopped. We're not the world's bank, nor are we it's checking account. But I'd rather help our allies--solid allies that haven't stabbed us in the back over and over again--than to keep funding people out there who could care less about our own existence. And notice that he's afraid that the Democrats may turn "hawkish." Isn't that telling. It's probably one of the most enlightening points made in this piece. He is firmly entrenched on the side of the Democrat Party that doesn't want the defense of America. I'm guessing that he believes in the idea that America is part of the world, and we should ask the world permission to do anything. I beg to differ. We do not do that. We see how the world reacts to certain things (Rwanda, anyone?) and it's pitifully poor.
And to correct his assertion that militarism can't stop Islamic nationalism, how incredibly obtuse. While the fervor will not be extinguished easily, we can stop them by wiping out those preaching this ideology. This goes to all the little mullahs in Iran, to the wacky Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, to the zealous religious teachers around the world. They preach hate. They preach discrimination for anything that is not Muslim, in the Koran, and set down by Mohammed. This world is not that inflexible. This is why they are threatened by the idea of democracy. A democratic nation is less likely to have such theocratic forces driving it, and they're less likely to be as aggressive as nations like Iran and Syria are.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation, resistance and deeper quagmire.
The 50,000 troops in permanent bases in Iraq (which I have yet to find anywhere in any media aside from those on the Left) is questionable. Not because I'm not aware of of the problems still facing Iraq, and those yet to come, but because the draw down explained by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will leave only a skeleton force behind. That skeleton force will continue to train their new military and security forces so they can better handle the threats around them. When we leave, it almost assured that Iran won't simply end their attempts to undermine the new Iraqi government. As for an exit plan, we have always had one regarding Iraq. We will leave when we are done setting them up, training them, and they ask us to leave.
Israel's so-called "exit plan" has been announced and reinforced for about the last ten days, or so. They want their soldiers returned. They want the rocket attacks to end. They want the cross-border incursions stopped. And they want a military force--be it the Lebanese army or an international force, possibly NATO--in southern Lebanon to act as a buffer zone between them and Hezbollah. Yesterday, Ehud Olmert stated that Israel could live with a disarmed Hezbollah; with Hezbollah being a political group. There will be no end to this war if Hezbollah follows in the footsteps of Hamas. Hamas was elected by 80% of the Palestinian Arabs to be the leaders of the Palestinian Authority. But they have taken no steps to curtail the militant attacks from Gaza into Israel proper. Israel can't work with people who say one thing, and do another. Disarm, end attacks, return the soldiers, and install a buffer zone are the conditions that Israel has stated for their war to end with Hezbollah. If these conditions aren't ment, the war will continue.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step. Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S. to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Mr. Hayden should be commended for being as forthright and honest with where the Left stands. They don't stand for defending this nation against it's enemies, or supporting it's allies in their own skirmishes with their own enemies. The Left is 100% dedicated to isolationism. They don't want us involved in foreign excursions or entanglements. Kosovo was a NATO/UN peacekeeping mission (the UN didn't enter until AFTER the '99 NATO portion of the war). Somalia was a UN mission. Both dealt with others asking for help rather than any sort of protection of America. 11 September was an attack on this nation, and we responded accordingly. We went after Afghanistan, got rid of the Taliban, and sent al Qaeda scurrying for cover. The war still continues there with leftover remnants of the Taliban. And it still continues in Iraq against the al Qaeda forces that have been in the country since before the invasion of 2003.The Left seems to have forgotten the proclamation issued at the end of World War II when it comes to the Jews: NEVER AGAIN. Now, they want to throw them under the bus, and condemn a nation for defending itself. They don't support Israel, and they dislike the United States acting in its own best interests. This is the face of the new Democrat Party. It isn't pretty. It isn't tolerant. It's unhinged and power-hungry, and the extreme Left are the one's in the driver's seat. We should thank Tom Hayden for being so honest and transparent.
Publius II