Carol Platt Liebau: Sending the Wrong Signal

Friday, July 28, 2006

Sending the Wrong Signal

So Israel has decided not to advance any farther into Lebanon.

It's understandable that Ehud Ohlmert wants to avoid a bloody guerrilla war on the ground in Lebanon. But we can all only hope that the Israelis understand that any opportunity to cripple Hezbollah shouldn't be surrendered lightly. In this conflict, they're a proxy for the entire West -- and the Islamofascists will interpret any reluctance to take the fight to the enemy as confirmation of its conviction that the civilized world lacks the intestinal fortitude to fight.

The Israelis needn't send in lots of ground troops. Instead, it should simply drop leaflets warning civilians to evacuate, and then carpet bomb all the places twenty miles within Lebanon from which rockets have been launched.

3 Comments:

Blogger COPioneer said...

ah Jill, NOW I understand why all you liberals want to let all the criminals out of jail and coddle the immoral in society.

Hmm, why is that exactly?

And it's been going on a lot longer than 100 years. 1300 is closer to it. Ain't going to stop because we do nothing.

I say again:
The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes. Therefore people who are contributing nothing to society except their constant criticisms can feel both intellectually and morally superior. -- Thomas Sowell

I'll add:
It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. -- Sowell

sorry if I'm often snide on this site!

12:49 PM  
Blogger HouseOfSin said...

I have not a whole lot to add, but I do want to address some things to the group on this.

First, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and missing. Speaking of "sending signals," what signals are current Israeli soldiers sent at present?

To listen to the media (Broder, Robinson, others), these soldiers don't exist. Existing soldiers whose whereabouts are known may well conclude that if they fight and are captured, "enlightened" opinion will be to ignore them, and pretend they never existed.

In my mind, a cease-fire sends exactly that signal to soldiers, present and future, who might fight for a cause, the signal that soldiers who are captured are on their own.

NO, NO, NO. Would those of you who are enlightened please explain to me why no one mentions them anymore?

Or why their safe return (in whatever condition) should not be the barest of minimal terms for any cease-fire?

Final thought: The word "soldier" is emotionally loaded, I realize. But these men were not in combat (that they were aware of) at the time of the attack. They were inside of sovereign, UN-ratified borders, minding their own business. They may as well have been civilians.

3:08 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Wrabkin,

The United States and Israel have a right and a responsibility to defend themselves against UNPROVOKED attacks. Islamic Terrorists have never honored a negotiated peace. They are not interested in social justice or economic opportunity. They want to destroy the West. We have no choice but to fight them.

Also, I've never belonged to a country club. And I married a waitress. Am I supposed to be a Democrat or something?

9:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google