Moral equivalence
Since Meryl is aghast at Hizb'allah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon, I'll use some strong words.
If you dare to consider that Israel and Hizb'allah are even remotely in the same camp of morality, you're an ass. Hizb'allah isn't merely hiding among friendly civilians to force Israel to kill partisan civilians - they are holding Lebanese civilians directly hostage, to force Israel's hand, and to try to force the hand of the world, against Israel.
Hizb'allah is killing Lebanese as well as Israelis. Why? Because in the world of the Islamist anti-Semite, the only thing that matters is the death of Jews and the death of Israelis. At any cost, especially if someone else pays it. They aren't fighting for anything, despite rhetoric about the resistance, the oppression, Shebaa Farms, Gaza, the West Bank, or what not. All they want is to kill Jews/Israelis. And if they have to kill some Lebanese to do that, they're happy to do so.
Comments
It's interesting to see how Meryl's first commenter looks at the IDF report, and says "How can the UN say nothing when they have first-hand experiences with this?"
The inherent assumption in this statement is that an IDF report is completely reliable, with no possibility for bias or spin, and that the UN is completely corrupt and utterly unreliable.
Which turns the post's semantic content into: "since the UN is an unreliable information source, this story proves that the UN is an unreliable information source!"
Posted by: Chris | July 19, 2006 03:15 PM
I disagree, Chris. The inherent assumption here is that the IDF report is reasonably accurate - that UN workers are being interfered with - and that the UN brass will keep quiet.
History has demonstrated that the UN is pretty anti-Israel, and the first commenter is just expressing the usual aghast comment that the UN will do nothing, even with firsthand experience - just like they did in 2000.
Posted by: Andy | July 19, 2006 03:54 PM