What do you have to say for yourself ?
Andrew McCarthy, in The Corner on NRO:
So now the Lebanese democracy can't control Hezbollah (which has been freely elected and controls about a fifth of its legislature), while the Palestinian Authority IS Hamas (the Palestinian people having democratically put them in power).
How much do we figure that Israel is hoping democracy breaks out in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad waiting in the wings? All it needs right about now is yet another democratic neighbor.
Sodano is using moral equivalency in his "argument" where none exists. He's also assuming that a sovereign state of Lebanon exists, which is a fiction. Lebanon is simply a staging area for terrorists who act at the behest of Syria and Iran. To imply, as Sodano does, that Israel is unjustly invading a sovereign nation, is disingenuous and untruthful (not a surprise when Sodano speaks.)
What is more surprising to me, given Sodano's recent history with Benedict XVI, is that he issues a statement such as this. I would think that Benedict would be bitchslapping him all over the place. Either that or Benedict actually agrees with him, which is much more disturbing. OR, Benedict can't control him at all.
Three comments Gerald:
1 - Cardinal Sodano´s comments in Italian were published by the Holy See Press Office. Your version is a report based on the original press release of the Vatican. So it seems Sodano´s statement is the oficial position of the Holy See. (I´m no fan of Sodano and I now that he is not always of one mind with the Pope, but this time it seems he was speaking for the Vatican).
2. - I feel sorry for Lebanon. It´s a country that has underwent a lot of suffering. It has a considerable Christian population, and that parcel of the population surely does not support Hezbollah. Lebanon has suffered Israeli attacks and ocupations in the past, as well influence from Syria, a country that until recently kept troops inside Lebanon, and that had a very strong say in the Lebanese affairs. Lebanon has only recently got rid of the Syrian troops, and is a democratic state, although with an imperfect system. I fell sorry for those in Lebanon who do not support Hezbollah and who are now being bombed.
3. - My personal opinion about the present Israeli strategy is that it will only create further disaster.
Israel invaded the Gaza strip to weeks ago because a soldier was kidnapped (as had happened in the past, to blackmail Israel into a prisioner exchange). They haven´t found him yet, and he is probably dead by now. Prime Minister Olmert defended this as his policy: Israel will not tolerate the kidnapping of soldiers, will no longer make prisioner exchanges and will attack those who are responsible for the kidnapping.
Two weeks later and what happens: another soldier was kidnapped at another border (the Lebanese one), and a new Isreali offensive takes place. What message does that change to terrorists? That they can now provoke a massive Israeli reaction against the country where they operate by kidnapping a single solidier. Israel will then attack, destroy civilian facilities, houses, etc, as it always does, and then the terrorists will have created a new breeding ground of future suicide-bombers. That´s what the terrorists want. Create havoc and destruction, so that they can recruit poor desperate people in those destroyed communities to their ranks, fill them with religious fundamentalism and hatred of the West, so that they become soldiers of terror.
I feel very sorry for Lebanon, but I am fully behind Israel and I hope they take Hamas down for the count.
I hope it DOES create further disaster - for the terrorists. The more disaster the better, for them. And as for creating "new breeding grounds for suicide bombers", a suicide bomber only can do his work when he gets close. They can breed themselves into oblivion, as long as they can't get near to Israel, so I hope the IDF sterilizes a 40-mile wide cordon sanitaire between themselves and the nearest Muslim fool who wants to punch his ticket to Allah's whorehouse in the sky.
I can't help but admire Isreal...they act like they care about their country and their people...they are like a man amoung girls.
Prof., I must respectfully disagree with your opinion. It presuposes that Israel is still very vulnerable to suicide-bombers, and that there are a great many nations which these groups may base themselves out of.
Despite the US presence in Iraq and an increase in terrorism world wide, Israel has experienced only a handful of terrorist attacks since the construction of their wall. It would seem that, for better or worse, they have hit upon an effective strategy to keep terrorists out.
Secondly, these incidents are triggered by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Israeli soldiers are restricted to one geographic location (as opposed to US soldiers being in many many countries). Realisticly, they could only be kidnapped by groups staged out of Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank/Gaza Strip area, and Lebannon. Egypt and Jordan are essentially out of the equation. Those groups based out of Lebanon are supported by Syria and Iran. If Israel were to eliminate the threat from Lebanon (which they appear to be preparing to do with extreme prejudice), then they would essentially have resolved the problem of having soldiers kidnapped by external forces. If they targeted Syria and Iran by air, then they would probably ensure such problems don't resurface for a very long time.
Though it is cliche, I must ask the question-- how would any other nation with a 21st century military react to a soldier being kidnapped from across a border, and 11,000-13,000 stored across that same border and being fired upon civilians each day. For example, how would we react if a US soldier were kidnapped at the Mexican border, and Mexican drug gangs were launching missles into Brownsville and occasionally Houston, with promises of 11,000 more to come? How would China react to a similar situation? Russia?
The reaction would probably redefine the meaning of "The Wrath of God."
Israel's response (in comparison to what ours would be) is redefining the word "restraint."
*11,000-13,000 rockets stored across that same border.
If rockets were daily falling into Antonio's neighborhood, he'd demand something more than a strongly-worded letter. There is, as far as some people are concerned (to include many people at the Vatican), absolutely nothing Israel can do in its own defense that meets the test of proportionality. As soon as some of the military geniuses start coming up with a way Israel could demolish Hizb'allah without putting a single civilian's hair out of place, I'll have a listen. As soon as they acknowledge that Hizb'allah is using residential homes as gun implacements, I'll take them seriously.
Besides all of which, this notion that anything Israel does is going to increase the flow of terrorists into those training camps is just talking nonsense, and probably knows it. Since all I do is talk with defense and security analysts all day long--any of whom would have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that Israel "always targets civilians" as a matter of policy--I feel safe proclaiming such tripe profoundly ahistorical, unserious, sanctimonious crap.
Those pesky Jews! How dare they defend themselves!
One other thing: I just love this idea that the Israelis are supposed to just sit and take whatever Hizb'allah throws at them, since doing anything else--like, say, crippling their ability to wage war--will actually encourage terrorism. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that the very thing Hamas and Hizb'allah have been demanding in exchange for these soldiers is...drumroll, please...the release of thousands of terrorists currently rotting in Israeli jails!
So, by playing ball with these groups, and essentially lying down when they make armed incursions into Israel's soveriegn territory, and then giving up thousands of terorists who will return home to a hero's welcome before going back to the weight business of carrying out yet more terror attacks, we're supposed to believe that the Israelis will be impressing their enemies with the idea that maybe they ought to get out of the terror business? And that the number of active terrorists in the Mideast will somehow have fallen?
Riiiiiight. Great insight, pal. It's too bad that the world's foremost experts on anti-terror techniques don't have your brilliance at their disposal, or this thing would be wrapped up in a matter of hours, no doubt.
A time for peace, and a time to kick ass...
Israel has had to put up with WAY more than most of us would -- (at least here in the southeast US where patriotism still abounds)
It's easy for armchair opinions -- even from the Vatican -- but I suspect if we had to endure the barbarianism for all these years, most of us would have a slightly different opinion.
why the blind zionism!
Sodano is absolutely correct. Israel has no justification for attacking non-Hizbollah Lebanon.
As fellow Catholics you should stand by Lebanon (which is different from Hizbollah). Lebanon was created to be a haven for Maronite Catholics who still make up almost 40% of the population and it is mandated that the president be a Maronite. If by "harboring" Hizbollah you mean Lebanon is so weak that it is scared to death to confront them. Israel's response is reprehensible and unjustified that is not moral equivalency, or anything of the sort. Do the deaths and kidnappings of a handful of Israeli SOLDIERS justify the precise destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the deaths of dozens of civilians. No I can't believe this, why do so many Catholics put Israel before their own brethren in Lebanon. I think I will start a thread in the forum about this if there already isn't one.
I wonder what Sodano would think if Hezbollah was lobbing rockets into his back yard? Frankly, I give Israel credit, that they even waited this long to deal with these murderers. It's very easy to pontificate from the comfort of his Vatican office, when neither his country's survival, nor his life is at stake.
"No I can't believe this, why do so many Catholics put Israel before their own brethren in Lebanon."
Because we're not Muslims. We don't operate on clan or tribe sympathy. We don't protect vicious killers and sadists just because there happens to be a family connection, like Muslims do. And so we don't refuse to do justice to Israel just because they're not part of our clan - we support them because they're right. Doing nothing is not an option, and it won't fix Lebanon anyway. Killing terrorists just might. It's worth a try, since we know the alternative is useless.
It isn't blind Zionism, and Israel is restraining itself by only hitting legitimate targets. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes perish when legitimate military targets are hit.
When those legitimate military targets are inside homes, it is more likely to be that way. That happens when you fire rockets out of homes.
I must ask, anthony, what response should be used? Hizbollah has 11,000-13,000 rockets and is firing them at Israel daily.
No Catholics are wishing for the death of fellow Catholics in Lebanon, but who doesn't want to see Hezbollah broken? There were plenty of Catholics in Germany who didn't agree with Nazi policies but were forced to go along with it; however, their presence shouldn't have stopped Catholics or the Holy See from seeing that certain forces in Germany needed to be stopped. Unfortunately, innocent people are put in danger in situations like this. Lebanon's government has done nothing to try to stop Hezbollah and the destabilizing influence Hezbollah itself has on the country's infrastructure (as we can see from these recent events). If the Lebanese are so frightened by Hezbollah perhaps Israel is doing the Lebanese a favor.
I also don't believe this is about just "a handful of Israeli soldiers." This event probably just pushed Israel over the edge. The Israelis deal with terrorist violence every day of their lives. It is commonplace. I wonder exactly how many Israeli CIVILIANS have been killed since 1947 or whatever year Israeli was founded in. If the Israelis actually know where the offending terrorists are, why not punish them?
If the Lebanese government is unable to control militant groups within their land that are obviously posing a threat to neighboring countries, I don't see how we can fault the neighboring country whose security is being threatened for taking measures to secure itself, its people and rid itself of nearby enemies that are taking hostile action.
I don't recall American's (except the far left) complaining about a "measured response" when we invaded Afganistan, toppled the regeme there, and then occupied the country for the past four years (which I support) after a few modified terrorist "missles" hit the Twin Towers.
We were right to defend the US against the terrorist, as is Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah launch their attacks regularly... Enough is enough... We took down a whole country for the attack on the US, which I think was measured, reasonable, and justified. Israel has done much less in their response to the constant terrorist attacks, and is condemned.
I do feel sorry for the Lebanese that are not apart of Hezbollah. I pray for them. Although in WWII there were many good Germans that were hurt and hinder that were not Nazi's, but that does not mean the Allies should not have engaged Germany...
In response to dr mabuse its not clan loyalty, my argument is that when Israel targets beirut and other parts of LEbanon it is no longer attacking legitimate targets. The state of lebanon is two week to deal with hezbollah and these attacks will assure once and for all that they never will be able to take care of those parasites. Besides it is important that there are 40% Christians in LEbanon because you abandon them when you just dismiss Lebanon as a radicial islamist hezbollah dominated state. This is not the case, in fact many in lebanon dislike Hezbollah (of course their sympathy only grows when Israel forces them to be freedom-fighters like during the occupation). The situation in LEbanon is much more complicated than many recognize it to be, and Israel is playing into the plans of syria and lebanon. I maintain that ISrael's response is disproportionate and wrong, certainly strategicially and I think even morally. Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization insofar as a clear area of control and and a military that attacks the IDF. If attacks on the IDF are acts of terrorism then attacks on Hizbollah is too. The truth is neither are. We need to take a step back and look at this complex problem and realize that Israel is making things worse. The entire world should be ashamed for what it let happen to LEbanon in the '80's. God forbid we let it happen again.
I am sorry if my above post is at points incoherent. I find this whole issue rather frustrating.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/views...fm?
recnum=45337
Jul. 14 (CWNews.com) - Patriarch Nassrallah Pierre Sfeir, the head of the Maronite Catholic Church, asked for prayers for the people of Lebanon during a July 13 press conference in Massachusetts.
The Maronite patriarch, Lebanon's most prominent Church leader, spoke to reporters as he concluded a trip to the US, during which he sought to increase awareness of his country's problems. Thanking American leaders for their support, he said that "the Lebanese are determined to live far from terrorism, tyranny, corruption, and despair."
Saying that he is "very concerned and anxious" for Lebanon in the light of this week's new violence, Cardinal Sfeir condemned "all aggression, wherever it comes from."
He continued: ""We condemn Israel's recent retaliations against Lebanon's people and infrastructure. We also hope that Hezbollah will finally lay down its arms and join the other citizens of Lebanon in reaching political solutions to all of the Lebanese problems."
Emphasizing Lebanon's democratic past, and the country's efforts to emerge from Syrian domination in recent years, the Maronite Patriarch asked for prayers for his people. "We have known war first-hand on our own soil," he said. "We have had enough."
Hezbollah is part of Lebanon's elected government and its headquarters are also in Beirut, which I believe is why the Israelis are targeting Beirut.
Bombing an airport is one of the first military targets one would bomb in this instance...legitimately... The only time you don't is if you think you are going to occupy it in short order.
1) Israel wants to reduce avenues to fly out it's captured soldiers.
2) They do not want planes to be used against Israel or it's navy, which is just off-shore (as we saw yesterday what a missle or drone did to an Israeli ship close to Beruit).
3) It makes it difficult for Iran or Syria to move larger scale military hardware or soldiers into the area should the situation continue to escalate.
4) Minimize re-supply of military hardware from other countries that often take advantage of these situations to make big $$$ selling military hardware (France, China, Russia come to mind).
5) Mimimize terrorist leadership from flying out of the country prior to being brought to justice.
Israel is acting defensively having seen Hezbollah arming itself to the teeth on Israel's northern borders.
They are going to wipe out this terrorist organization with its homocide bombers, beheaders etc...
My prayers are with Israel.. May she prevail. This is just another skirmish in WWIV. We are all part of this war whether we like it or not.
For those who think that Cardinal Sodano was not of one mind with the Pope this time, see the the text of the Holy Father's Angelus Message of today, Sunday, June 16th, published in today's bulletin of the Holy See Press Office. As usual, the Pope adressed those who were then present both before and after reciting the Marian Prayer. The pre-Angelus adress was dedicated to the memory of Our Lady of the Mount Carmel, celebrated today. As for the post-Angelus words of the Pontiff, before greeting each linguistic group of pilgrims, he took the opportunity to adress the situation in the Middle East. That is what the august Pontiff had to say in the first paragraph of his post-Angelus remarks (the one paragraph he used to talk about the present crisis):
"In questi ultimi giorni le notizie dalla Terra Santa sono per tutti motivo di nuove gravi preoccupazioni, in particolare per l'estendersi di azioni belliche anche in Libano, e per le numerose vittime tra la popolazione civile. All’origine di tali spietate contrapposizioni vi sono purtroppo oggettive situazioni di violazione del diritto e della giustizia. Ma né gli atti terroristici né le rappresaglie, soprattutto quando vi sono tragiche conseguenze per la popolazione civile, possono giustificarsi. Su simili strade - come l’amara esperienza dimostra – non si arriva a risultati positivi."
This indicates that the Pope was behind Sodano's comments. The penultimate sentence of the above transcript reads "But neither the terrorist acts, nor the reprisals, especially when there are tragic consequences for the civilian populations, can be justified".
Thus, Janice's opinion that Sodano was using moral equivalence when there was none seems to apply to the Pope as well, since the Holy Father today said something in the very same line of Sodano's statement.
Commenting by HaloScan
