If Hezbollah ceases firing, we have peace. If Israel ceases firing, they will be annihilated.

The United Nations desires to pass a resolution that forces a cease-fire on Israel.

To make such a decision is a retreat from defending freedom and free nations worldwide, and is nothing more than an attempt to appease the threatening forces of militant Islam.

This is a warning sign that the attempt to derail American determination to defeat terrorism could be gaining strength and American leadership might be in danger of being forced into retreating.

On July 31, 2006, Syria's military raised its readiness, pledging not to abandon support for so-called Lebanese resistance against Israel. The Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad was quoted as saying, "The barbaric war of annihilation of the Israeli aggression is waging on our people in Lebanon and Palestine is increasing in ferocity." Excuse me? This is coming from a man that is a part of an ideology that desires the annihilation of Israel as a state, as well as eventual domination of the West, and he calls Israel's actions to defend herself barbaric aggression?

In Connecticut if Ned Lamont defeats Senator Joe Lieberman (a longtime, Democratic, supporter of the war) in the primary it could be a major blow to America's stance in the war against terror. If Lamont wins by a large margin, Lieberman will probably drop out of the race, and push us as a nation to a decision point. A national-security debate more important than any since the years following World War II may open up and the questions put upon the table will be, "Do we seek victory against the forces opposing us? Or do we cut and run as a result of the naive belief that appeasement now will spare us from more horrific threats later?

There is every indication present that the U.S. State Department and France has gotten together to produce a resolution to the U.N. that would well be seen as a victory for Islamic terrorists and dictatorships. The draft resolution calls on Hezbollah and Israel to agree to an immediate cease-fire. It treats Israel as the moral equivalent of Hezbollah. Hezbollah (& Hamas) is the aggressor in this conflict. Any resolution should call for Hezbollah to disarm, not Israel. In turn, once the aggressors cease their activities, Israel will be glad to pull her troops out of southern Lebanon.

Do people not realize that Israel's move against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is in defense of herself?

Hezbollah refuses to follow the international rules of war. The terrorists consistently target civilians in Israel, promoting civilian deaths in Lebanon by using the Lebanese population as a human shield. Hezbollah troops blend in with the civilian population because they dress like civilians (in direct opposition to international law with requires combatants to dress like soldiers). Yet, they continue to portray all of the civilian casualties in this conflict as entirely Israel's fault. Qana is a case in point. Israel had information indicating that Hezbollah was using the area they hit in Qana as a base of operations to fire rockets into Israel. Israel leafleted the area repeatedly urging civilians to leave. The fact that civilians died in the attack by Israel is tragic, but was of Hezbollah's making, not Israel's. There is no strategic purpose served for Israel to target civilians. The civilian deaths, for which Hezbollah is responsible, do serve Hezbollah's strategic purposes by baiting the worldwide spectators to urge Israel to use more "restraint" while Hezbollah continues its rocket attacks specifically targeted against Israeli civilians.

As an added note, I believe that Israel has used a tremendous amount of restraint. If they weren't using restraint, the war would be over, and Lebanon, Syria, and anyone else that got in the way would be dead and their land would be nothing more than an international a parking lot.
Negotiation, by the way, has gone from proposing a strong NATO-led force that could disarm Hezbollah, to a weak little UN force that will have no effect on Hezbollah. The United Nations have had a 2,000 man force in Lebanon for the last six years, and all it did was allow Hezbollah to arm itself. What makes the UN think that a few more troops in a puny UN force that refuses to take any true military action is going to change things?

The Lebanese have more to fear from Syria and Iran than they do from the United States and France. Hezbollah have no intention of disarming. Syria and Iran have no intention of withdrawing their support from Hezbollah. The forces of terrorism, through such a resolution as the one that may be offered by the United Nations, will become stronger as the forces of democracy become weaker, placing our safety, and the safety of Israel, at a greater risk.

The liberal idea that this kind of UN Security Council resolution will halt Hezbollah's war (backed largely by Syria and Iran with indirect Chinese influence) against Israel is misguided and destructive. The UN is proving that it has no nerve, and that it is willing to undercut the efforts of the democracies to defend themselves. Neville Chamberlain allowed empty diplomacy like this to lull the world into a false sense of security about the nature of Hitler, and the result was the Second World War. Resolutions such as the one before the United Nations Security Council at this moment is nothing more than a rationalization that is lulling us into a similar self-deception regarding the threat of Radical Islam, with Israel's very existence hanging in the balance.

We need to continue to allow Israel to defend herself, and destroy Hezbollah as a threat to her security. Any resolution needs to focus on the roles of Syria and Iran in creating this conflict, and to insist on the implementation of the earlier UN resolution for disarming Hezbollah. Also, the UN should force Syria and Iran to pay reparations to Lebanon for the damage caused by the conflict.

Why hasn't Americans realized what Hezbollah's illegal tactics are all about? Why hasn't the United Nations (and the Europeans, for that matter) called for Hezbollah to move out of civilian areas, or demand that they wear military uniforms to identify themselves as combatants? Why does the world opinion not recognize Hezbollah's appalling encouragement of Lebanese civilian deaths?

The answer? Liberalism. It runs rampant through the minds of some very unfortunate people, and through the pages and broadcasts of the media.

Militant Islamic propaganda has gone a long way, and the liberals have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.


The world opinion, if common sense was a common commodity (of which it isn't), ought to be:

Disarm Hezbollah and Hamas.

Evict the Syrians and Iranians from Lebanese soil, or any place else they have their claws dug into.

Return Lebanon to the Lebanese government's control.

Demand that Israel's right to exist is not threatened by any nation, especially by those run by leaders sympathetic to radical Islamism.

People don't realize that this is an old war that has just escalated. It's nothing new. Problem is, we've been here before, and rage has given way to sadness. People have forgotten 9/11. They have forgotten what it feels like to be the target of terrorism. They have forgotten the anger and the rage we felt after the Twin Towers came down.

Israel experiences such terrorism against her daily. She is surrounded by the enemy. She is surrounded by nations that follow an ideology of violence and Israeli annihilation.