The Wellspring

Usually one columnist doesn’t provide such a wide variety of fodder over such a short time. Dan Carpenter is one of those unique individuals that can break that stalemate, though. In addition to his screed on gun owners (and a host of other associated individuals), Dan was able to take a moment to share with us his thoughts on the developing crisis in Lebanon.

So what does Dan think of the looming crisis? Why, it’s all Israel’s fault, and the U.S. is just as guilty because we won’t rein in our junkyard dog.

Criticism of Israel in this country is pretty much taboo, even when it turns its state-of-the-art, American-financed military forces against its sovereign neighbors and "regrettably" kills far more civilians than do the anti-Israeli terrorists.

President Bush's insistence on this heedless ally's "right to defend itself" with hundreds of bombing sorties in response to a few kidnappings and guerrilla rocket launchings shows once again how out of step our leadership is when it comes to appreciating national aspirations.

Like most liberals, Dan is focused on looking at things through blinders and examining only one tiny aspect of an extremely complex situation. If you hear no evil, then you can see whatever you want it would seem. Notice how the actions that caused Israel to launch its current offensive are reduced to a “few kidnappings and guerilla rocket launchings”. Because Israel should just accept that people being killed by bombs and soldiers killed or kidnapped by border incursions are just the price of doing business in the Mideast apparently. And all the bombings before this one? Do they matter? As Israel has withdrawn and fallen back and begged for peace in the wake of continued murder of innocent civilians, none of that mattered? It really does take a liberal to ignore that.

There is also no consideration, of course, for the massive presence of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon, as well as hundreds of Iranian “advisors” and until recently a significant Syrian military presence. All these forces are sworn to Israel’s destruction. Iranian missiles and money have flooded into Hezbollah’s bases in Lebanon and Lebanon’s army has been unable to do much about it. With the stated objective of Iran now the complete destruction of Israel, doesn’t it make sense that they would ratchet up their puppet organizations along Israel’s border to fulfill that promise? Or is it just empty rhetoric?

So I’d say also it’s more than just a matter of a few kidnappings or some stray rockets. The main difference in the conduct between Israel and its enemies is, Israel is actually trying to avoid collateral damage. Although it’s war, and sadly innocents are going to get caught in this, Israel has always made it a policy to minimize civilian casualties. Israel’s enemies, be they Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Syria, Iran, any of them, go out of their way to kill as many women, children and young people before they bother targeting soldiers. In fact, I think soldiers are only targets when there’s no one else to blow up or shoot at. The whole moral equivalency thing is a bit sickening, but Dan’s all for it.

Don't the Iranians likewise have a right to defend themselves? The North Koreans? The Palestinians, who have suffered in every aspect of life under 40 years of foreign occupation?

Dan equates the Israelis to known state sponsors of terror, Iran, North Korea and the Palestinian Arabs. That’s the very definition of moral equivalency. Never take into consideration any of the particulars of a party, whether it be a rogue communist state like North Korea, a revolutionary Marxist/Islamist/fascist theocracy like Iran or an fake government of a fake people that sponsors real terror on its neighbors and is considered the trash of the Arab world like the Palestinian Arabs. The Israelis, in Dan’s eyes are no different and no better. They’re just another “animal” we have to rein in.

And this 40 years of occupation bleeding hart claptrap really pigeon holes Dan. I don’t have time to take you on the Grand Tour, but if you agree with Dan on that sentence, take some time to read a history book (and please not the text books they’re shilling in high schools and colleges these days). The Palestinian Arabs come from Jordan and Egypt as well as areas of the West Bank and the rest of Israel. Arafat was Egyptian for Pete’s sake. The PLO was founded before the ’67 war in which Israel occupied the Sinai and West Bank, and at the time those were claimed by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. There was no Palestinian state and there has been no occupation of some conquered people’s territory. The Hashemites in Jordan have killed far more Palestinians and the Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Syria have done more to treat the Palestinians like sub humans than the Israelis could have ever dreamed of doing.

That’s not the end of it, though. Dan has to explain why the U.S. won’t rein in one of its closest allies.

Bush's answer is the reflexive, popular, bipartisan gospel in America, where the Book of Revelation drives politics and the plight of the Palestinians gets no notice until a suicide bomber commands it for a day or two.

See, it’s the Jesus freaks in Jesusland who are guilty of our support of Israel. We don’t support it because it’s the only friendly democracy in the region (well, now one of two) or because of cultural or economic ties or even military ties. We support it because we let the Bible govern our foreign policy. Reading Dan’s blog, I couldn’t tell if I was reading the Indianapolis Star or International ANSWER’s web site.

It’s hard to take such a person seriously when their columns and blog entries are filled with the jingoistic talking points and tired arguments you would expect to hear in an amateur anti-war rally on some second-rate college campus. They don’t reflect well of a paid, veteran columnist of a halfway decent newspaper. I’ve seen Dan write better, even when I’ve disagreed with him, but I think sometimes he lets his leftist leanings and loathing’s get the better of him. Right, Dan? Columnists of the World Unite! Solidarity, baby.