Henry Imler July 29th, 2006
There is more to say about the Israeli response to Hezbollah, despite what I said earlier.
First up is Charles Krauthammer:
What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked
aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a
countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to
fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?
What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks
into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize
civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy
the enemy’s infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided
munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable
consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?
To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it
unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few
significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain,
Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the
media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.
Next up we have a map of the attacks in Beirut:
Hardly the widespread, systematic destruction of Beirut that we see on TV.
Up next, we see that Hezbollah had been using that UN outpost that Israel bombed.
Israel is trying its hardest to minimize the damage done to the
civilian populace. They are dropping leaflets telling civilians to
leave areas that will be attacked and using precision-guided bombs to try and only strike at Hezbollah’s weapons and infrastructure.
They are trying to destroy Hezbollah, something that I do fully
support. They are waging it in a way that gives them victory and tries
to minimize civilian casualties. It does not help the situation when
Hezbollah purposely hides in civilian areas and is targeting civilians in its rocket attacks.
Hezbollah, in the meantime, is targeting civilians in its rocket attacks.
Moral equivalence? Nope. Israel shines in this one. Some may say that because Israel has killed more civilians they are the worse party and even call the acts terroristic. That is an awfully morally relativistic argument,
is it not? Israel is not trying to kill any other than Hezbollah’s
members. They are taking an many steps as they can to limit civilian
causalities and still make safe their country. Hezbollah, on the other
hand, has a goal of destroying the state of Israel and driving the Jews
into the sea and hides amongst civilians for protection. As a matter of
fact, the leader of Hezbollah may be hiding in the Iranian embassy.
In sum:
ISRAEL: Fighting for the safety of its citizens, trying to do the
least amount of damage to those other than Hezbollah, very concerned
with trying to minimize civilian casualties. Has killed more civilians
than the Hezbollah because Hezbollah hides amongst the civilian
populace. Is not targeting civilians, but is trying to destroy
Hezbollah’s infrastructure.
HEZBOLLAH: Fighting for the destruction of Israel. Targeting
civilians specifically. Wants to exterminate the Jews. Due to the
superiority of the Israeli forces, they have killed less civilians than
Israel. Hides amongst the civilian population for protection and
strikes out at Israel and her citizens from the civilian cover.
Which is worse? Hezbollah has the worst intentions and methods.
Israel has as good as possible intentions and implements these
intentions as best as possible, but due to circumstance, has killed
more. From a deontological standpoint, Israel is not acting in an
terrorist manner, while Hezbollah is. One could argue that since
Hezbollah is a member of the Lebanon government, their acts no longer
qualify as terrorist acts.
![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Which
Note
The dominos are poised to fall. Iran has said that 
