July 20, 2006

Israel, Hezbollah, and Anti-Zionism

Many conservatives are having a field day with anti-Zionist arguments regarding the current clashes between Israel and Hezbollah. And rightly so: The anti-Israel forces are bleating about Israel’s killing of innocent civilians in Lebanon, without troubling themselves to mention one key fact: The terrorist organization Hezbollah purposefully hides itself among the Lebanese civilian population in order to force its enemies to harm innocents.

Not that this is the only pertinent omission detectable in their Islamist agitprop. On the contrary: They either dismiss or somehow skirt around the fact that Hezbollah started this entire brouhaha by illegally treading into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. This, say our anti-Zionist pals, was merely a “pretext” for Israeli aggression, as if this heinous act of war was mere child’s play.

And we can point to more dishonesty. The anti-Israel forces love to harp on the damage Israeli rocket fire is causing in Lebanon without mentioning the daily barrage that Israel has been compelled to endure—both from Hezbollah and Hamas forces in un-occupied Gaza. Without mentioning the fact that neither Lebanon nor Gaza is controlled by Israel (though Syria, clearly, has much power in Lebanon, thanks to Hezbollah), they speciously claim that this whole matter pertains to the horrors of “occupation.” And thus they pine for the release of all Lebanese prisoners—i.e., all captured members of Hezbollah.

Wow: Talk about chutzpah. We don’t know what’s more brazen: Ruthlessly attacking a militarily superior enemy, or immediately and incessantly whining about the unsurprising response you receive.

Even so, we must admit that there is a certain (deadly) consistency to some of the anti-Zionist positions. After all, from their caterwauling about the Israeli response, it is clear that the professional Israel-haters wish that Israel would do nothing. That is to say, they hoped that, having been attacked on two fronts by terrorist organizations, and having soldiers captured, they would sit idly by.

Now, naturally, this is absurd. But, insofar as anti-Zionists by definition aim to eradicate the state of Israel, it makes perfect sense. If a country doesn’t respond to terrorism, it is much more likely that it will eventually cease to exist. Thus, in counseling Israel not to retaliate, anti-Zionists are merely suggesting a response that will quicken the demise of the Jewish state.

What’s more puzzling, we think, is the anti-Zionists’ expectation that proponents of Israel will listen to their arguments. After all, if you actually desire Israel to exist, why would you take heed of those who pine for its demolition?

And this makes us wonder about the feculent pronouncements of many European leaders. What exactly does a cry for a “proportionate” response mean, when it comes from Vladimir Putin, not exactly a man known for his “proportionate” responses to Islamic terrorism—or anything else, for that matter?

Why don’t Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, et al. simply admit that they are anti-Zionists? That way, we won’t have to bother listening to their inane opinions, since we’ll know definitively that they are not in Israel’s best interest.

Posted at July 20, 2006 12:01 AM | TrackBack