John Kerry, hapless, hopeless former presidential candidate recently said of the Middle East situation, "If I were president, this wouldn't have happened." Excuse me just a moment while I finish rolling on the ground, consumed with laughter. That a supposedly intelligent man would utter such absolute rubbish is almost unthinkable, unless you consider that the utterer is John Kerry.
John Kerry, hapless, hopeless former presidential candidate recently said of the Middle East situation, "If I were president, this wouldn't have happened." Excuse me just a moment while I finish rolling on the ground, consumed with laughter. That a supposedly intelligent man would utter such absolute rubbish is almost unthinkable, unless you consider that the utterer is John Kerry.
Since his defeat Kerry has made a career of sour grapes. "If I had been elected." To hear him talk, if he had been elected, all wars would have ceased, poverty would have been vanquished the world over, and all diseases (including cancer and AIDS) would have been eradicated. So I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised that his presidency would have also solved problems in the Middle East that have existed for thousands of years. After all, he IS John Kerry, Professional Liar and Super-Politician (is that redundant?).
Since, fortunately, Kerry was NOT elected, what is his brilliant strategy to solve the problem of Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's military response? "An immediate cease-fire." Wait a moment! Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, I remember. Everyone liberal Israel-hater in the world has called for "An immediate cease-fire."
Is there a liberal Command Central somewhere that emails talking points to all its mouthpieces? "Attention, all liberal stooges. Things have not gone as planned. Israel has responded to Hezbollah's attack with great ferocity, and Hezbollah is getting its tail whipped. Therefore we must concentrate this week on getting Israel to stop before Hezbollah is destroyed. Use the phrase, 'An immediate ceasefire' as much as possible, preferably two to three times in each sound bite."
We have heard from France's Jacques Cirac call for "An immediate cease-fire." The Foreign Minister of Spain thinks there should be "An immediate cease-fire." Russia says that the Israelis are bullies and calls for "An immediate cease-fire." Our allies, Canada and Germany, have called for "An immediate cease-fire." And Socialist Italy, supporting her supposedly-capitalist-but-still-Communist-leaning buddy Russia, says there should be "An immediate cease-fire."
At the recent summit in Rome there were three nations which are known to support terrorists: Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. All three spoke with one voice, calling for "An immediate cease-fire."
Dr. Hossein Haj Hassan, a member of Hezbollah and a Member of the Lebanese Parliament, says, "Hezbollah favours an immediate ceasefire, without conditions."
And today, no less a luminary that Pope Benedict, in his Sunday address, joined the chorus. Stating "I cannot think of a situation ever more grave or more tragic than the Middle East is going through," the Pope called for "An immediate cease-fire." He paused to stress the word "immediate."
It amazes me that the Pope cannot think of a situation that has ever been "more grave and more tragic" than a relatively small and localized conflict like that between Hezbollah and Israel. As terrible as that is, it cannot begin to compare with Hitler's torture and murder of SIX MILLION JEWS. If memory serves, the Pope at that time said NOT ONE WORD against Hitler or in defense of the Jews. I cannot understand why, when Popes decide to comment (or not comment) on wars or conflicts, Jews always seem to come out on the short end of the stick.
Finally, I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that the corrupt, self-serving Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Anan, has called for "An immediate cease-fire."
Anan is upset because recently four UN observers were accidentally killed by Israeli weapons targeting a Hezbollah site. Now, Anan knows that Hezbollah makes a practice of placing rocket launchers close to UN sites, just as they hides weapons and forces in population centers. Cowards commonly use "human shields" in war. Israel knows of this practice, and is extremely careful in targeting their strikes against Hezbollah. In fact, it is amazing that, with 2,000 UN troops in Lebanon, and considering the Hezbollah practice of using them as human shields, only 4 have died.
But Kofi Anan, supposedly speaking for his corrupt organization, stated that Israel had deliberately targeted the UN troops. He did this immediately after the tragedy, without waiting for even a cursory investigation. Mere words cannot describe the contempt in which I hold this excuse for a leader. To make such a stupid, unsupported accusation, while supposedly speaking for the "international community" endangers not only Israel; it endangers the entire Middle East and potentially the world.
Anan believes if a cease-fire can be forced on Israel, he has an answer: Increase the UNIFIL force.
What is UNIFIL? UNIFIL stands for "United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon." According to the UN propaganda website (see LINK below), "UNIFIL was created in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore the international peace and security, and help the Lebanese government restore its effective authority in the area."
What?!?! "Interim" means "Temporary." The UN "Interim Force" has been in Lebanon since 1978. That's 28 years!! But let's not be hasty. Perhaps there are good reasons why the UN has kept a temporary force in place for 28 years. Let's look carefully at their stated reasons for being in Lebanon, and the results they have obtained.
"To confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon." Israel withdrew decades ago. 'Nuff said.
"To restore the international peace and security." Pardon me. I'm having another one of those rolling-around-on-the-ground-laughing attacks again.
"To help the Lebanese government restore its effective authority in the area." Wow. The UN has certainly been effective in that area. The Lebanese military is laughable. The only effective military force in Lebanon is the terrorist group Hezbollah. It has, to all intents and purposes, become the government of Lebanon under the watchful eye of UNIFIL.
The real problem with the 2,000 man UNIFIL force is that they are part of the totally ineffectual UN. The UN cannot do anything right, and will never do anything right, because it is a conglomeration of nations who cannot see eye to eye on anything. Think of a jury with twelve members who see everything from totally different viewpoints. You would never get a verdict from such a jury. You would always get a "hung jury."
The only things the UN does agree on are either meaningless, or they are not enforced. For instance, in 2004 UN Resolution 1559 called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Yet you might have noticed that Hezbollah has over 10,000 rockets supplied to it by UN member states. More than 2,000 of those rockets have hit Israel in the last two weeks. So much for UN Resolutions.
The other problem with UNIFIL is that the UN won't allow the troops to do anything but watch. That's right. Their orders are to "observe" only. These are trained soldiers with weapons they are not allowed to use, even if they "observe" murders about to take place. And in fact, these "observers" have watched and reported on unprovoked Hezbollah attacks on Israel where innocent civilians were murdered, attacks which they could have stopped. If all we need are "observers" in Lebanon, we might as well send 2,000 British senior citizen birdwatchers with their binoculars. It would be a lot cheaper.
So obviously it would be ridiculous to send more UN "observers" to Lebanon who can't do anything. If the "international community" wants to do something, it should send real NATO troops to do what UN wimps have been unable to do: Enforce UN Resolution 1559 and disarm Hezbollah. That's the ONLY way the "international community" can stop hostilities on the Lebanon-Israel border.
Since that is not likely to happen, what would be so bad about an "An immediate cease-fire?" Please notice that the only people calling for a cease-fire are the Arabs, Muslims, and Israel-haters. That would suggest to any impartial observer that a cease-fire at this point would only help Hezbollah, and would hurt Israel. And that is indeed the case.
Remember what the Hezbollah spokesman quoted above said: "Hezbollah favours an immediate ceasefire, without conditions." If it's good for Hezbollah, it's bad for Israel. Also, not that Dr. Hossein Haj Hassan (I wonder if his doctorate is in terrorism?) wants the cease-fire to be "without conditions."
Well, let's ponder that. Hezbollah, like any good guerilla force, chose the time and the place to start the hostilities. This gives them the advantages of surprise, and hopefully finding their victims unprepared. They violated the Israeli border, killed eight Israeli soldiers without provocation, and kidnapped two others. Then they proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian targets. I mention this because the Democrats, their Socialist fellow-travelers worldwide, and the liberal media speak only of the Israel's violence against Lebanon. They never mention that Israel is fighting Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and Hezbollah started the violence.
What would a cease-fire gain Hezbollah and its Arab/Muslim sponsors, Iran and Syria? It would give them time to regroup and rearm. It would also give their supporters around the world to obscure the fact that Israel was attacked, and cast Israel in the role of aggressor and bully.
Even in advance of a cease-fire, the political strategy is starting to emerge. Today I heard the British Foreign Minister whine about Israel's "disproportionate" response to Hezbollah's attacks. Apparently if, because they are lousy soldiers, Hezbollah manages to kill only 24 Israelis, Israel's response should be crafted to kill only 24 terrorists. If Israeli soldiers have better aim, and manage to kill 100 terrorists, that would be termed "disproportionate."
Let me tell you about being "disproportionate." Let's say a man attacked my family with a baseball bat, hitting my daughter in the head with it. I don't know if she is dead or alive, but he is now going after my wife. If I have a gun available, I am going to blow him away with that gun. That is "disproportionate." If there are five men trying to kill us, but they have only managed to kill or injure one of us, I will do my best to shoot all five of them. That is also "disproportionate."
Why should Israel be punished for having better trained, better equipped professional soldiers who are willing to die to protect their fledgling nation? Why should the thugs be given a cease-fire so that they can get more weapons from Iran and Syria with which to murder more Israeli citizens?
Since it is clear that the "international community" does not have the will to enforce its own Resolutions, why not let Israel do the job? The "international community" should help them destroy Hezbollah. Bush should send troops to stand side by side with the brave Israeli soldiers. But if we're not going to do that, let's at least stay out of their way and let them defend themselves.
If a cease-fire is implemented before Israel has been able to clear out that nest of snakes that calls itself "The Party of God," nothing will have changed. The good people of Lebanon will still be enslaved by Hezbollah. And Israel will still have a ticking bomb on its border. It's time to take care of Hezbollah once and for all.
Dr. Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for 30 years. He has written for local and national publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of Conservative Truth, an email newsletter read by over fifty thousand weekly which focuses on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
