Ben,

On September 2, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1559, coauthored by France and the United States. Echoing the Taif Agreement, the resolution "calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Lebanon is currently in violation of Resolution 1559 over its refusal to disband the military wing of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is one of those armed militias that was to be disbanded and disarmed. Lebanon is in violation of this resolution as it has allowed Hezbollah to remain and reign terror upon Israel. In case you are not aware, here's a few Hezbollah facts, courtesy of CNN:

# Hezbollah is a Shiite militant group in Lebanon.

# The group was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

# It opposes Israel and the West, and supports a fundamentalist Muslim government.

# Hezbollah is regarded by the U.S. and Israel as a terrorist organization. It is dedicated to eliminating Israel and has formally advocated ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon, according to the U.S. State Department.

# It garners popular support among Lebanese by setting up schools, hospitals and other social services.

# It has become a social/political movement, holding 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese parliament, according to the parliament's Web site.

# The word "hezbollah" means "party of God" in Arabic.

# Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is the head of Hezbollah.

# Hezbollah fighters operate with almost total autonomy in southern Lebanon, and the government has no control over their actions, according to The Associated Press. But Lebanon has long resisted international pressure to disarm the group.

# Hezbollah has often launched shells and fired rockets into northern Israel and into the disputed Shebaa Farms area.

# Islamic Resistance is the name of Hezbollah's military wing.

# Hezbollah is known or suspected to have been involved in numerous terror attacks against the U.S., Israel or other Western targets, including the 1983 suicide truck bombings in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines at the Marine barracks and 58 at the French military barracks.

# The United States and Israel say that Hezbollah is given financial and political assistance, as well as weapons and training, from Iran and Syria. Syria says it supports Hezbollah, but denies supplying it with weapons.

# It absorbed most of the 1980s umbrella coalition of terrorist groups known as Islamic Jihad, according to Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center.

# In 2004, Hezbollah exchanged prisoners with Israel in a deal that took three years to negotiate. Israel released more than 400 prisoners and returned 59 bodies of Lebanese fighters. Hezbollah released a kidnapped Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

# The 1996 suicide bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 are killed, was attributed to Hezbollah.

# Hezbollah was blamed for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, in which 85 were killed.

# The State Department estimates Hezbollah has "several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives."

There is no moral equlivalence between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel is a sovereign state and Hezbollah is a terrorist organization backed by Iran and Syria. Hezbollah is nothing more than an armed militia of Iran with the express purpose of destroying Israel. You could find some relevance of a comparison of Israel/Hezbollah with the USA/Al Quida, except Hezbollah is larger, better armed and financed, more dangerous, and has fighters posed upon Israel's border. Any more questions?

Ben,

One other thing...there is no oil production in Lebanon or Israel. This has nothing to do with the "oil rich Middle East". This is about Islamic fanaticism. Iran would love nothing more than to destroy Israel, their Little Satan, and then defeat and destroy the Great Satan. Stay tuned.

Israel, the only Jewish nation on the planet surrounded on all sides by fanatical muslims dedicated to it's destruction, and so many people seem to have a problem with them defending themselves. It's no secret that both Hamas and Hezbollah both are dedicated to Israel's complete eradication. It's no secret that both groups launched unprovoked acts of war against a militarily superior fighting force. It's no secret that Israel is bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties by warning the population in advance to clear the area, which BTW, is something no other military force, including our own ever does. It's also no secret Hamas and Hezbollah could both end this conflict today by returning the soldiers they captured to start this whole thing. The only question remaining is, why won't they?

RebelSnake

"As I write this, more than 200 Lebanese have been killed by Israel since last week; all but 26 were civilians. In proportion, 30 Israelis have been killed by Hezbollah."

I know this doesn't translate well into the native liberal tongue Ben, but this is how wars are won. By killing the enemy. Unfortunately, this enemy chooses to hide among the civilian population in order to elicit sympathy from onlookers like you when they are hit. Wars are not won by worshiping at the UN alter or trying to negotiate with terrorists whose stated purpose is to destroy you at all costs, despite what you hear from cnn, npr, cbs, abc, msnbc, etc., etc.

Hezbollah and Hamas have taken a page out of The Terrorist Handbook.
"Disperse yourselves among innocent civilians while killing the government troops and make the troops cause collateral damage when killing you. Then blame the government for atrocities."
And some fools (like Mr. Lassiter above) gleefully support the terrorists by falling for this crap and shouting the propaganda in places like this.

I like the title of this LTE: "U.S. Middle East policy unfairly sides with Israel." How about "U.S. Middle East policy sides equally with Israel and Hezbollah terrorists". Should we side equally with both Ben?

ORR points out very clearly who Hezbollah is Ben. You want to side with them?

Rebel, Hezbollah won't return the soldiers and stop aiming rockets at Israel because they want war. U.N. suggestions of cease fire and "talks" are not going to work in the long run. Cease fires only give radical Islamic terrorists time to regroup in rearm. There is no negotiating with radical Islamic terrorists, they are incapable of understanding this concept. This is only one battle in the long war against radical Islam.

ORR, well done, you have done Ben a service, if he will only open his eyes and ears and face facts. If not, then he will never understand what is going on. Once again, great post ORR.

You are ignoring the other thing happening in that part of the world---and there's an administration that hopes you are not paying attention.

Troops are massing in Baghdad for largest civil war battle thus far. And of course, we need to be in the middle of it.

In case you have NOT been paying attention, here are some links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13977398/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13975473/

Too bad many are concerned about the bible and HOMO-Sek-Shewels, or about school prayer, and Flag burning.......LOL!

DD, please try to stay on subject. We are discussing the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, not your staple flag burning/gay marriage mantra.

How else has Bush's war in Iraq hurt us? Well, the Army recruitment--gross numbers and the lowering of standards. Yes, lowering of standards with a doubling of the number of category IV recruits entering the Army.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5387217

We could be a deterrant against Iran and its active support of Hezbollah, but NOOOOOOO. Mr. Bush wanted to avenge "Daddy's" nemesis, and now over 24,000 American troops have been killed or maimed in Iraq.
For all the "head in the sand Bush apologists", this was NOT a war against 'radical Islam'! It was a war of choice, trumped up by Bush and Cheney. Because of it, we are crippled, as to any meaningful persuasion in the current situation breaking out in the Middle East.

Thank you, George Bush!

DD it is good to see you and your normal reaction to any post, Bush's fault. You couldn't stay on subject if your live dependant on it.

How sad that your whole world revolves around Bush. What is going to sustain you when Bush's term is up. Who will you have to hate then. What a sad live you must have.

May you find peace some day.

DD one more note, I can't wait to vote for VR. Thanks for endorsing him for me.

Your everylasting enemy. Have a wonderful day.

Dan,

I think that a title something like this would have suited Ben's letter much better "U.S. Middle East policy unfairly sides against Hezbollah terrorists". I think that speaks much better to his letter.

Deacon, I am impressed that you were able to get all of your rant items onto this strand, even though it had no relationship to the content of discussion. Keep up the good work, Deac, you are still like the last dog in a sled team...your view never changes and you can't see anything different.

Since my weekends are ruled by an unquestionably higher authority, trips to the skating rink, swimming pool, park and children's museum mandated by my children, I'm going to limit my remarks to only one point in the lte writer's letter.

I found the writer's reference to the "far more meager means" held by Hezbollah of perpetuating violence to be both totally irrelevant and illogical.

That does not discount honest discussion or criticism of Israel's level of retaliation, only that the concept of an uneven capability bears no weight in relation to the fact that violence has been undertaken to combat other violence.

I do not spank my children because I do not find it necessary. Yet when they mention the fact that I don't, I always make it a point to remind them that as a form of punishment it has never been taken totally off the table. They are aware that for certain actions, intentionally injuring one another or intentional destructiveness, kicking the dog or other flagrant misbehaviors, spanking is a possible course of action on my part.

With that in mind, if I were to walk into the room and find one of them choking a kitten, and react by giving the child a good, sharp spank across their rear, although it would be reasonable to question the effectiveness of my action, the fact that I am much more physically capable of inflicting pain than my child would not in the LEAST justify her strangling the cat.

Restated, questioning Israel's level of response is a valid debating point, but to try to somehow equate military capabilities with the justification of the use of military force itself is a completely moot point.

Ben:

Why do you anti-Israel, anti-Semite liberals insist on wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor? I can't improve of most of the comments already put forth, so I'll just say one of the main mainstays of terrorism is that our country is unfortunately polluted with ill-informed, terroist sympathyzing fools like you.

Oak,
Guess you are not good at connecting dots, but it's okay. At least you are not "apologizing" for Bush anymore, like some STILL do on these threads.

My point is that we would have much more leverage in the peace process had we conducted ourselves in a more competent manner for the past five years. Guess that point is lost on some.

Some reasonable points made in response to a letter that showed admirable concern for innocent life along with its political naivete.

I am concerned with TonyMo's assertion that the LTE writer is anti-Semitic. I'm certainly sensitive to anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism can obviously color opinions about Israel.

But opposing the policies of an Israeli government is not necessarily the same thing as anti-Semitism, and there is no evidence that the writer is anti-Semitic.

It's an important distinction to make, because otherwise the actions of a government are being declared off-limits to criticism by decent people, which cannot be a healthy situation.

Israelis criticize their government and its policies all the time -- does that make them anti-Semitic? Of course not. Some Americans criticize Israel for giving up its settlements, others for having them in the first place -- are both groups of critics anti-Semitic?

Americans can and should judge the actions of Israel without fear of being smeared as bigots. We should recognize bigotry where it exists, but not use the baseless claim as a political weapon.

If Al Gore was President right now, world events from 911 to Israel's current attack on Lebanon would likely be viewed by the right-wing as part of a Zionist conspiracy. But, since Dubbya the Messiah is in office, they are doing a 180.

Amazing how party politics makes people "flip-flop". When right-wingers voice support for Israeli Jews, look out. Something ain't right. Their support should alarm, not comfort, the Jewish people. Why? You see, the Jews have no place in their crazy visions of Armageddon, unless of course, they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

Thanks, Ed and SD. We are all living in perilous times. Name calling and hate and violence surround us. I pray for peace for all nations.

I fear that Israel, Lebanon, and other countries have been taken over by radical extremists. I fear that the USA has been taken over by men who do not have a clue.

I have a friend who tells me of his time spent in Lebanon years ago while he was in service. He talks of how beautiful the country was and how it has such great geographical landmarks, mountains, coast etc.
Too bad the turmoil is starting back up there.

Katrina left some vivid memories....the poor blacks left floating in N.O. while Bush stood next to Trent Lott's destroyed home...

I can just see the mental image of Bush putting his arm around Hamas Party leader, or Israeli leader, or Lebanon's President saying, "I want to come back when this has been rebuilt, and rock with you on your front porch".

The irony is inescapable.

Ed and Jan,

Great points and analogies.

ORR,

Thanks for the info about Hezbollah.

Neocon,

I thought the same thing the other day when someone was lamenting how many Iraqi dead there were compared to American dead. It sounded like they would have been happier if more Americans had died so the casualties would be balanced on each side. Probably not how they wanted to be interpreted, but that's the way it came across.