What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Israel is Right To Defend Itself

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Charles Krauthammer is a brilliant writer and he rips the liberal talking points to shreds.



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4077881.html
July 27, 2006, 9:35PM
Stop demonizing of Israel for merely defending itself


By 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?

Hearing 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.

The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with "proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.

The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

On Wednesday, CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead, it attacked dual-use infrastructure — bridges, roads, airport runways — and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten-thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in south Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?

Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
On this one, I have to agree with you. It sums up what's been going on, quite accurately.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Charles Krauthammer is one of the best writers out there, and he counters the liberal talking points with logic and common sense.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
What other country was established by U.N. mandate regardless of the wishes of the indigenous population?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
We have logic and reason with Charles and then we have the liberal media....


http://newsbusters.org/node/6600

NYTimes Gives 'World Powers' Duty to End Israel's Actions - Failure USA's Fault
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 27, 2006 - 14:00.
Isn't it generally assumed that when two countries are at war, that it is the right and duty of those countries actually in the conflict to decide when that war might be over and how it is prosecuted? Certainly other nations might attempt to diplomatically intervene to help resolve the crisis but, when all is said and done, isn't it still the duty of the warring parties to arrive at their own conclusions?

Not according to The New York Times. The Times has pronounced it the duty of the "World Powers" to end Israel's security measures in Lebanon as if neither Israel nor Lebanon have a thing to say about it.

Naturally, it's all the USA's fault that they couldn't agree on a policy, too.


"World powers failed to agree Wednesday on a plan to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, underscoring the power of the United States to prevail when it comes to dealing with Israel."

So, these "world powers" want to stop the war, quite regardless of what caused it, but that darned old USA has taken sides again.


"In their formal statement, the United States, the Europeans, and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia expressed a vague 'determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities.'”

But, here is something that contradicts the claim that these “world powers” have a place to interdict here. On one hand, these "world powers" seem to think that they have the right... no the duty.... to intervene in this conflict and stop the war, yet when it comes to creating a military force that could help ensure this "peace" they imagine is their duty to create, suddenly that effort is one that they don't think is their job!


"But the Europeans, who are expected to make up the bulk of any force, as well as the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said that it would be impossible politically to send the world’s most powerful military alliance, which is so closely identified with the West, to police a conflict between Israelis and Arabs."

Why is it OK for these powers to interdict on one hand but not the other? Isn’t that a clear contradiction in the story that the Times is not pointing out?

So, let me get this right, New York Times: It's OK for these "world powers" to make the claim that it is in their power to stop the war, but it ISN'T in their power to create a force of their own people that they can send to help enforce this peace?

It is hardly disputed that this action in Lebanon started over the ultimate refusal of the Lebanese government to live up to its promised UN commitments to eliminate Hizbullah. Yet, Jaques Chirac insists that the same "world powers" that insisted Lebanon eliminate Hizbullah now won't even ask them to live up to that agreement anymore.


"Mr. Chirac, who did not rule out French participation or even command of a force, said it could only be deployed after a cease-fire and a solid political agreement was in place. In the absence of a political agreement, he added, an international force would not “have the capacity or the mandate to disarm Hezbollah,” which he said had to be done by the Lebanese authorities."

So, he'll trust the same government that already failed to fulfill its past commitments to fulfill them now, but he won't agree to force them to do so to get his sought after "peace"? Chirac's refusal to admit to the fact that Lebanon's failure to fulfill its agreement was the entire reason the Israelis went into the area in the first place reveals his support of Hizbullah and bias against Israel.

Chirac is, in essence, saying that the entire onus is on the Israelis and none on the Lebanese. Yet, the French still demand that the fighting stop, even though they are directly and wholly supporting Israel's enemy, giving them succor and protection, and offering Israel nothing in return to entice them to the bargaining table.


“'We demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities, and the majority of the other parties insisted on our line,” the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in a telephone interview from Rome, but the Americans disagreed."

This story is one contradiction after another.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,939
Reaction score
38,501
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
Please don't tell me you people are buying into this bullshit.
It is a WAR between two groups. It is IRRELAVANT if 3rd parties feel its justified, or if one side has a "right" to remain where they are. The fact is both sides feel strongly enough in their beliefs that they will fight, they will die, they will wage war on the other. Condemning or condoning it from the outside isn't going to change the fact that they will fight their war.
There is nothing we could possibly do to ever change either side's beliefs to the point where they will stop waging war. The Zionists believe its their right to be there, fine, they can believe whatever they want, just don't ask me to fight your war for you! And Arabs feel they were wronged when the UN created the state of Israel in their lands. We cannot change the mistakes made in the past. And I will not die for them either.

Stop with this gung-ho lets fight for Israel bullshit.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
We see who the liberal media is supporting.........




http://newsbusters.org/node/6604

Norwegian Cartoonist Likens Israeli Prime Minister to Nazi Prison Camp Commandant
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 27, 2006 - 10:57.
It is safe to assume that few Americans are going to forget the Muslim outrage a few months ago over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. Well, the Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday (hat tip to NRO Media Blog) that a Norwegian newspaper published the cartoon to the right depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a crazed Nazi prison camp commandant:

Invoking a scene from the film Schindler's List, one of Norway's largest newspapers recently published a political cartoon comparing Prime Minster Ehud Olmert to the infamous commander of a Nazi death camp who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing at them at random from his balcony.

The caricature by political cartoonist Finn Graff appeared on July 10 in the Oslo daily Dagbladet.

Think this created riots and death threats in Norway? Hardly:

In response, the Norwegian Israel Center against Anti-Semitism, an Oslo-based organization comprising Jews and Christians, has appealed to the government to speak out against hatred of Jews.

"We have launched a campaign to get Norwegians to send letters to the minister of justice to make Norway a safer place for Jews," said center founder Erez Urieli by phone from Oslo.

For a little more background:

In the cartoon, Olmert is likened to SS Major Amon Goeth, the infamous commandant of the Plaszow death camp outside of Krakow, Poland, who was convicted of mass murder in 1946 and hanged for his crimes.

While in charge of Plaszow, Goeth would go out to the balcony on his villa, and engage in target practice by aiming his telescopic rifle and firing at random at Jews imprisoned there, often killing them.

The scene was famously depicted by director Steven Spielberg in his 1993 film, Schindler's List..

Is it safe to say that because Jews throughout Europe aren’t rioting and setting fire to neighborhoods the American press will ignore this?
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
theHawk said:
Please don't tell me you people are buying into this bullshit.
It is a WAR between two groups. It is IRRELAVANT if 3rd parties feel its justified, or if one side has a "right" to remain where they are. The fact is both sides feel strongly enough in their beliefs that they will fight, they will die, they will wage war on the other. Condemning or condoning it from the outside isn't going to change the fact that they will fight their war.
There is nothing we could possibly do to ever change either side's beliefs to the point where they will stop waging war. The Zionists believe its their right to be there, fine, they can believe whatever they want, just don't ask me to fight your war for you! And Arabs feel they were wronged when the UN created the state of Israel in their lands. We cannot change the mistakes made in the past. And I will not die for them either.

Stop with this gung-ho lets fight for Israel bullshit.


Exactly. :rock:

America First!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
People said the same thing in the 1930's
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
red states rule said:
People said the same thing in the 1930's

And again, the buildup was a result of jewish antagonism.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,939
Reaction score
38,501
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
theHawk said:
The Zionists believe its their right to be there, fine, they can believe whatever they want, just don't ask me to fight your war for you! And Arabs feel they were wronged when the UN created the state of Israel in their lands.


I also want to add that Arabs may feel wronged but don't expect sympathy from me after they target women and children like gutless cowards and Israel retaliates. They need to take responisbility for the way they wage war- with cowardly terrorism.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
rtwngAvngr said:
And again, the buildup was a result of jewish antagonism.


The nerve of the Jews to live their lives, raise their kids, build their cities, move out of the Gaza, do the "land for peace" deals, and doing other such antagonist things
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,939
Reaction score
38,501
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
So what happens, RSR, if Israel gets its ass kicked? Will you grab your gun, lock n' load, jump into the trenches on the borders of Israel?

May as well, I'm sure President Hitlary Rodham Clinton or whatever sap usurps the office will gladly draft rednecks to march into the meat grinder in Gaza.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
theHawk said:
So what happens, RSR, if Israel gets its ass kicked? Will you grab your gun, lock n' load, jump into the trenches on the borders of Israel?

May as well, I'm sure President Hitlary Rodham Clinton or whatever sap usurps the office will gladly draft rednecks to march into the meat grinder in Gaza.


Do not underestimate the power Israel has. If they have to let loose they will. Remember, they are telling the civilians where and when they will attack next.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
red states rule said:
The nerve of the Jews to live their lives, raise their kids, build their cities, move out of the Gaza, do the "land for peace" deals, and doing other such antagonist things

The UN allows them to set camp smack dab in the middle of people who hate them. Did they expect a cakewalk?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15114428.htm


Israel needs our helpBy CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER
www.firmaspress.com
T

en reasons why we must support Israel:

• First: Because Israel is the clear victim of a new aggression, and the moral thing to do is to support the victims. After Israel left Gaza, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and launched rocket attacks. Shortly thereafter, short- and middle-range rockets launched from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists rained on Israel, inflicting casualties among the civilian population. Several soldiers were murdered. Israel is not attacking; it is defending itself. It has the right and the duty to do so.

• Second: Because if Israel does not defend itself and is unable to protect its citizens, there will be a repetition of the massacre of Jews the world witnessed (with considerable indifference) during the Nazi era. Does anyone doubt how a Palestinian government formed by Hamas and Hezbollah would behave if it manages to defeat the Israeli Army and dominate the territory? The threat to hurl the Jews into the sea is not a metaphor but an ominous promise repeated a thousand times by the most radical Islamists.

• Third: Because defeating and disarming Hezbollah would confer on Lebanon the opportunity to exist as a prosperous, peaceful and free society. Hezbollah, with its aggressive militia armed by Syrians and Iranians (a militia more powerful than the Lebanese Army), intends not only to destroy Israel; it has already destroyed Lebanon, plunging it into a war that most Lebanese did not want.

• Fourth: Because Israel is the only pluralistic democracy, respectful of human rights, that exists in the Middle East. For sure, it's the only democracy where the Arabs, even those who detest the Jewish State, vote freely and participate in Parliament. It is the only democracy where women of Islam study without limitations, enjoy the same rights as men and are not treated like second-class citizens.

• Fifth: Because the only solution to that conflict depends on peaceful coexistence between Israel and an Islamic world that finally, as happened with Egypt and Jordan, admits the right of that state to exist. And it seems that that's not going to happen until there is a clear conviction that it is not possible to destroy the Jewish state -- something that will be even clearer once the enemies of Israel perceive that the whole free world backs Israel's integrity unhesitatingly.

• Sixth: Because behind Hamas and Hezbollah hide the Syrian and Iranian satrapies, two regimes hostile to the West that diverge on religious grounds. Syria is a lay dictatorship; Iran, a religious dictatorship. But they converge in their irrational hatred toward liberal democracies.

• Seventh: Because Israel's economic, political, scientific and social success has the potential to become a model for the region. The more sensible Arabs in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority, when comparing the miserable life imposed upon them by the bullies of al Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah, with the very superior lifestyle of their Arab-Israeli brothers inevitably conclude that liberty and rationality bring dividends.

• Eighth: Because it's in the whole world's best interest to eliminate the terrorists capable of provoking an escalation of a conflict that might drift into a devastating war. Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear state, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly said that the Jewish state must be wiped out. No one doubts that, if Iran attempted such a task, Israel would respond in kind. And the result would be a catastrophe for the region and the world.

• Ninth: Because the factor that encourages adventurers to attack Israel is the dual language of Western countries, their indifference and false equivalence, as if the actions of some callous terrorists who encourage suicidal murderers to blow up school buses or fire rockets against the homes of civilians had the same legitimacy as the response from a society that defends itself from those

aggressions.

• Tenth: Because the history lesson that taught us the moral foundations of Western civilization are found in the Judeo-Christian tradition was right. In the West, Israel is all of us. And if one day Israel should perish, its death in a way will be our death.

©2006 Firmas Press
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,939
Reaction score
38,501
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
red states rule said:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15114428.htm


Israel needs our helpBy CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER
www.firmaspress.com

Ten reasons why we must support Israel:

Oh well, I can't wait to know why i MUST support Israel.


• First: Because Israel is the clear victim of a new aggression, and the moral thing to do is to support the victims. After Israel left Gaza, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and launched rocket attacks. Shortly thereafter, short- and middle-range rockets launched from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists rained on Israel, inflicting casualties among the civilian population. Several soldiers were murdered. Israel is not attacking; it is defending itself. It has the right and the duty to do so.
The aggression is hardly new. Its been there since the formation of Israel, and will always be there. Unless you think you can reason with Islamic savages.


• Second: Because if Israel does not defend itself and is unable to protect its citizens, there will be a repetition of the massacre of Jews the world witnessed (with considerable indifference) during the Nazi era. Does anyone doubt how a Palestinian government formed by Hamas and Hezbollah would behave if it manages to defeat the Israeli Army and dominate the territory? The threat to hurl the Jews into the sea is not a metaphor but an ominous promise repeated a thousand times by the most radical Islamists.
Well if you want to make your home in the middle of the lion's den, what would you expect?


• Third: Because defeating and disarming Hezbollah would confer on Lebanon the opportunity to exist as a prosperous, peaceful and free society. Hezbollah, with its aggressive militia armed by Syrians and Iranians (a militia more powerful than the Lebanese Army), intends not only to destroy Israel; it has already destroyed Lebanon, plunging it into a war that most Lebanese did not want.
I'm not fighting a war so Lebanon can exist as a free nation. Sorry.


• Fourth: Because Israel is the only pluralistic democracy, respectful of human rights, that exists in the Middle East. For sure, it's the only democracy where the Arabs, even those who detest the Jewish State, vote freely and participate in Parliament. It is the only democracy where women of Islam study without limitations, enjoy the same rights as men and are not treated like second-class citizens.
Good for Israel, so they don't keep their women in viels and allow them to drive. You want a cookie?


• Fifth: Because the only solution to that conflict depends on peaceful coexistence between Israel and an Islamic world that finally, as happened with Egypt and Jordan, admits the right of that state to exist. And it seems that that's not going to happen until there is a clear conviction that it is not possible to destroy the Jewish state -- something that will be even clearer once the enemies of Israel perceive that the whole free world backs Israel's integrity unhesitatingly.
Egypt and Jorden do not represent all the Arabs surrounding Israel. And somehow I doubt if a proposition was given to its citizens to vote on about the right of Israel to exist that it would pass.


• Sixth: Because behind Hamas and Hezbollah hide the Syrian and Iranian satrapies, two regimes hostile to the West that diverge on religious grounds. Syria is a lay dictatorship; Iran, a religious dictatorship. But they converge in their irrational hatred toward liberal democracies.
We can wage war on Iran for our own reasons. Namely because they sponser terrorism and are working on making nukes.

• Seventh: Because Israel's economic, political, scientific and social success has the potential to become a model for the region. The more sensible Arabs in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority, when comparing the miserable life imposed upon them by the bullies of al Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah, with the very superior lifestyle of their Arab-Israeli brothers inevitably conclude that liberty and rationality bring dividends.
Heh, yea right. I'm sure most of arabs look on at Israel as a "model" for the middle east.

• Eighth: Because it's in the whole world's best interest to eliminate the terrorists capable of provoking an escalation of a conflict that might drift into a devastating war. Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear state, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly said that the Jewish state must be wiped out. No one doubts that, if Iran attempted such a task, Israel would respond in kind. And the result would be a catastrophe for the region and the world.
This really ties in with #6.


• Ninth: Because the factor that encourages adventurers to attack Israel is the dual language of Western countries, their indifference and false equivalence, as if the actions of some callous terrorists who encourage suicidal murderers to blow up school buses or fire rockets against the homes of civilians had the same legitimacy as the response from a society that defends itself from those aggressions.
I don't need to support Zionism to condem cowardly terrorist attacks.


• Tenth: Because the history lesson that taught us the moral foundations of Western civilization are found in the Judeo-Christian tradition was right. In the West, Israel is all of us. And if one day Israel should perish, its death in a way will be our death.
Riiiiiiiight.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
You could have saved space and time by saying, since the terrorists are not coming after you (yet) you don't care how many Jews they kill
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
43,939
Reaction score
38,501
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
It doesn't matter how I feel about it either way. I can't stop the killings. I can't stop the hatred. Its something that will have to be reconciled between the two of them.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
theHawk said:
It doesn't matter how I feel about it either way. I can't stop the killings. I can't stop the hatred. Its something that will have to be reconciled between the two of them.


The way to stop the killing by terrorists is to kill the terrorists

Even the terrorists, and the NY Times, were shocked by how Israel responded

http://newsbusters.org/node/6590


Hezbollah, New York Times Taken Aback by 'Ferocity' of Israel's Response
Posted by Clay Waters on July 26, 2006 - 14:43.
A “news analysis” Wednesday by Middle East based Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar, “Why Syria Has Much to Lose If Hezbollah Is Finally Halted,” has this odd description of Israel’s counterattack:


“The consensus here is that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah were all taken aback by the ferocity of Israel’s response to the capture of two soldiers; the seizure seemed to fall within the unspoken rules of limited engagements. Similar operations had prompted prisoner exchanges in the past, the current demand by Hezbollah for ending the fighting.”


“Ferocity” is an interesting word to use for Israel's response to what was not only a kidnapping (not “capture”) of two soldiers, but the killing of three other soldiers (previous news accounts said eight soldiers) in that same unlawful incursion into Israel. Israel's response was ferocious only in comparison to giving in to demands by the terrorist group Hezbollah.


For more examples of New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top