Right Wing Nut House

The Israeli Air Force has changed its story on how and why the ancient village of Qana was bombed, raising questions about a host of military/civilian issues that demand answers.:

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

To sum up; no Hizbullah rockets launched from the building or in the vicinity, none apparently even launched from Qana that day, it was not in retaliation for a rocket launch but rather part of a “plan” to strike the building, and that “mysterious” 8 hour gap could very well not even exist:

The IDF account and those of survivors present contradictory versions of the Qana deaths. The IDF said that there is an unexplained gap of about seven hours between the IAF strike and the first report that the building had collapsed. Residents’ accounts say only 10 minutes went by between the strike and the collapse.

The survivors say rescue teams arrived only in the morning, as night conditions made the rescue mission difficult. The Red Cross in Tyre received a call for help only in the morning, explaining their late arrival.

First and foremost, those who are blogging this story should step back for a while and wait for the IDF report on the tragedy which should be forthcoming in the next couple of days. This appears to be one of those stories where the bloggers got ahead of the curve of information so far that speculation took on a life of its own and ended up making some wish they had held their fire.

The immediacy and impact of blogs makes delving into stories like the Qana bombing a treacherous undertaking. It is one thing to relay media reports like those from Qana that suggested there was an 8 hour lag time in the building’s demolition as well as IAF statements that have now turned out to be false. But it is quite another to engage in the kind of rank speculation that posited the notion that the collapse of the building was due to the enemy bringing down the building on top of those civilians instead of an Israeli bomb.

This in no way should give Hizbullah a free pass for their shameful dog and pony show with the dead bodies of children found in the rubble. Nor does it excuse the AP, Reuters, and other news organizations who always seem to be there to act as Hizbullah’s private PR team.

And while there are still legitimate questions that need to be answered about several issues surrounding the bombing, what the IAF is admitting here does not reflect well on their targeting policies. Based on the best intelligence available to them, it nevertheless appears that the IAF made a tragic and perhaps avoidable mistake.

Given the professionalism and yes, the humanity of the IDF, I fully expect an investigation into the incident to include the decision making process that led to authorizing the mission to bomb the building.

Meanwhile, Hizbullah gets a free pass from most of the world for firing missiles at Israeli cities, probably praying to Allah before launch that the rockets hit a building and kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. The contrast between the two sides should be highlighted at every possible opportunity; when Israel hits a civilian target, it is a mistake, cause for mourning and a re-examination of military protocols. When Hizbullah hits a civilian target, it is a cause for celebration and probably rates a pat on the back to those who launched the rocket.

UPDATE

Confederate Yankee makes two excellent points:

1. That the building was used to store munitions.

2. Evidence for the almost immediate collapse comes via an “eyewitness” who may or may not be telling the truth.

He also links to The Left Coaster who thinks piles on Israel’s supporters for daring to speculate that Hizbullah could have engineered the entire incident. This from a moonbat who wrote this measured, thoughtful piece on the day of the tragedy at Qana:

God damn you Mr. President for what you, yes you have done to this country. You, your satanic Vice President and Secretary of Defense, and your inept Secretary of State have besmirched the integrity and dignity of this country for far too long. I fear that we will all now pay a price for it. With his green light and wink and a nod relationship with Israel, Bush has blood on his hands tonight just as much as the Israelis. …

Burn in hell Mr. Bush. Your foreign policy team is waiting for you there. No matter how quickly you try and weasel your way away from this and towards a face-saving call for a cease fire, this hangs around your neck, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

This is what passes for rational thought on the left.

It appears that Prime Minister Olmert is going to shoot for an outright victory against Hizbullah (if that is possible) by authorizing the IDF to begin a massive incursion into southern Lebanon:

Israel’s Security Cabinet approved early Tuesday widening the ground offensive in Lebanon and rejected a cease-fire until an international force is in place, a participant in the meeting said.

Airstrikes in Lebanon would resume “in full force” after the 48-hour suspension expires in another day, said the participant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters. He said there was no deadline for the offensive, though the United Nations Security Council is expected to debate a resolution this week about a cease-fire.

Thousands of army reserves have been called up in recent days in advance of the decision, which is expected to lead to sending more troops into the border area. Israeli leaders have said they want to carve out a zone about 1 mile wide that would be free of Hezbollah emplacements.

Israeli forces have been operating in two segments of south Lebanon, sweeping through villages, fighting Hezbollah gunmen and leaving considerable destruction behind.

The participant said the international force must have the ability to intervene with force if necessary to keep Hezbollah guerrillas from returning to the border area.

And there is a definite outline of what it will take before the Israelis are willing to agree to a cease fire:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday told British Prime Minister Tony Blair that as soon as an international force deploys along the Israel-Lebanon and Lebanon-Syria borders, “it will be possible to implement a cease-fire.”

Also Monday, government and defense officials said that Israel will release two Lebanese prisoners in return for the two soldiers abducted by Hezbollah as part of a cease-fire agreement.

The sources added that the UN Security Council would call for a cease-fire in Lebanon on Friday, and it could take effect as early as Saturday.

Alternatively, the fighting might continue for a few more days.

In essence, here are Israel’s terms:

* No immediate cease fire.

* Israel will carry out offensive operations until an international force is in place to act as a buffer between Israel and both Hizbullah and Syria.

* Israel will exchange two Lebanese for the two IDF men being held by Hizbullah. No mass release of Lebanese prisoners thus denying Nasrallah a propaganda victory.

* The international force must be able to fire back if Hizbullah resists being disarmed or if they try to infiltrate back into southern Lebanon.

* No wide ranging political settlement with Lebanon that takes into account the “return” of the Shebaa Farms. No discussion of war compensation to Lebanon prior to the cease fire.

In short, Olmert and his cabinet are rejecting every single point made by Hassan Nasrallah who has demanded an immediate cease fire by Israel, a release of thousands of Lebanese being held in Israeli prisons, no international force (only an augment to UNIFIL), and the Lebanese government will be in charge of disarming Hizbullah only after a complete settlement between Israel and Lebanon is reached including the return of Shebaa.

The two sides couldn’t be farther apart.

Never fear. France is coming to the rescue of the Iranians, Syrians, and Hizbullah. If it wasn’t so goddamned predictable and serious, it might be fodder for a stand up comedy routine. France wants no part of any international force that has the slightest chance of incurring any casualties whatsoever. In fact, like Nasrallah, the French want all the “i’s” crossed and “t’s” dotted before they step foot one in Lebanon:

Yet as her plane made its way across the Atlantic, the fissures between the United States and its allies widened at the United Nations, where a meeting to craft plans for the international force was postponed after France declared it pointless without a political settlement between Israel and Lebanon.

“You know, France is in favor of setting up an international force to implement . . . a political settlement,” Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sablière said at the United Nations on Monday. “So it is important to have this political settlement before having the force deployed. And it is very difficult, we think — premature at least — to have such a meeting.”

And Rice may have scored something of a coup as she apparently has bypassed the French and forged a shaky consensus on the outlines of a cease fire with other Security Council members:

The United States will move for a resolution centered on three parts. The first is a cease-fire. The second is a set of political principles or framework for a long-term settlement to ensure that the flashpoints are eliminated so that fighting does not erupt in the weeks, months or years ahead, Rice said. The third will outline the sensitive mandate for the new “international stabilization force,” which will back up the Lebanese army as it spreads government authority throughout Lebanon, prevents the import of any new weapons to rearm Hezbollah, and keeps the peace.

The emerging consensus includes agreement on several points, Rice said. All armed groups would be prohibited in the zone where the international force is deployed. An international arms embargo, she said, must ensure that the only weapons allowed into Lebanon must be for the Lebanese government or the stabilization force.

No foreign troops except the stabilization force would be allowed in Lebanon. The Lebanese government and army would assume responsibility for disarming militias, with the “appropriate” assistance by the stabilization force, Rice said. Israel and Lebanon would fully accept the border as defined by the so-called Blue Line — a potentially contentious issue that involves the disputed Shebaa Farms area.

Meanwhile, Olmert gets another chance. The bombing pause may turn out to have been a godsend for the Israelis in that it has allowed international tempers to cool slightly while giving civilians in the south a chance to flee - something Hizbullah was preventing by setting up roadblocks:

Taking advantage of the abatement in bombing, Lebanese fled north Monday, and U.N. and other relief organizations accelerated the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the south Lebanon hills, where an estimated 750,000 people have been displaced by Israeli bombing over the last three weeks.

Fewer civilians means fewer propaganda points scored by Hizbullah once the Israelis begin to move. Those civilians are being evacuated by UN agencies and the Red Cross so Hizbullah can’t interfere:

Intense clashes continued well into Tuesday afternoon between IDF troops and Hizbullah guerrillas in the southern Lebanese town of Ayta a-Shab.

A total of five brigades were operating in the region and heavy gunfights were reported involving light machine guns and rockets.

The IDF said that the guerrillas fired anti-tank rockets at troops from a house in the town.

Meanwhile, the IDF distributed flyers, urging residents in the region north of the Litani River to leave their homes and head northward.

It is uncertain how far this incursion will go. If the IAF is dropping leaflets telling residents north of the Litani River to flee, that would mean a penetration of at least 15 miles - a good start but hardly what is needed.

If, as expected, Hizbullah’s crack military cadres stand and fight, there is every reason to believe that the Israelis will kill anyone who doesn’t run. Indeed, at this point, the “legend” of Hizbullah that has been advanced in this country regarding their “fighting abilities” would mean that any retreat by the terrorists would diminish their standing in the eyes of the world. For when you think about it, the “heroic” nature of Hizbullah is pretty pathetic. They are being lionized not because they are defeating the Israelis on the battlefield (in fact, they are getting slaughtered) but because they are not wetting their pants and running or immediately surrendering as other Arab armies have done.

Truly nauseating. The Israelis believe they have killed at least 200 of these crack Hizbullah troops while losing 25 soldiers themselves. Some estimates place the number closer to 400 Hizbullah fighters killed. If so, there is at least an 8-1 and perhaps as much as a 16-1 Israeli advantage - hardly the stuff of legend except for those desperate to build up the terrorists into something they aren’t; a match for the IDF on the battlefield.

This piece in today’s Haaretz sums up Olmert’s second chance at getting it right and committing more ground troops to do the job:

Olmert wants to take another stab at a decisive conclusion before the UN Security Council blows the final whistle. That’s why he convened the cabinet on Monday to approve a wide-scale ground operation targeting villages used by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Olmert is fighting the battle over public opinion, both at home and abroad. He wants people to see the war as a victory, not a draw. It was this attitude that led Olmert to tell a conference of mayors on Monday that the operation is continuing despite the unfortunate deaths of dozens of Lebanese civilians in Qana Sunday.

“Israel is continuing to fight,” the prime minister said. One can imagine the slogan as part of a commercial for a bank, on billboards or car bumpers. “There is no cease-fire, and there will be no cease-fire in the upcoming days,” Olmert promised to the cheers of mayors in attendance. Conference participants made it clear they want the operation to continue.

With the people behind him for the moment, Olmert is rolling the dice once again, hoping he can roll up Hizbullah and punish them enough before the international community moves forcefully to stop him.

It is imperative that he succeed. Any other outcome is unthinkable.

UPDATE:

LFG reports that in Qana, they have pulled 28 bodies from the rubble of the building. The Lebanese government said 57 were killed, 36 children. Some published reports had the number as high as 60.

Even if it is “only” 28, that is still a tragic and significant loss of life. But I’m sure you’d agree it doesn’t sound as awful as 57 nor does has there been any explanation yet from anyone why the building collapsed 8 hours after the bomb hit.

Maybe instead of swallowing all the Hizbullah propaganda, our media could like, you know, confirm the facts before publishing?

Fat chance…

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today is, I believe, the crisis of the war. The Israelis are planning on resuming their air operations and, more importantly, the IDF is poised for a massive invasion of southern Lebanon. We’ll look at the military and diplomatic implications today.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

“There is something fundamentally wrong with a war where there are more dead children than armed men.”
(Jan Egeland, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs)

Mr. Egeland is commenting on the fact that out of the more than 700 Lebanese civilians who have been killed in the Israeli-Islamist War, half have been children. The Qana tragedy, where Hizbullah terrorists deliberately sighted their rocket launchers next to a building bursting with Lebanese children and oldsters knowing that Israeli retaliation would in all likelihood result in massive civilian casualties, cost the lives of more than 3 dozen youngsters alone. And Hizbullah’s actions are at the heart of what has become the number one question for armies that fight terrorist groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, or al-Qaeda.

Who bears responsibility for a civilian’s death when one side puts a bullseye on an innocents back simply to gain a propaganda advantage by his death?

There seems to be no interest by the international community to discuss this question. The reason is simple. Since it is western armies faced with this paradox and most of the world is made up of non-western states, it is to everyone else’s advantage to pretend, as this gentleman does, that there is an absolutist position on the death of civilians; it is always wrong:

It’s been awhile so it seems again it’s time for a helpful reminder that noncombatant immunity isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law.

In other words: You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

Killing civilians is against the law. Killing civilians makes you a criminal.

Yes, but …

No buts about it. You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

And, also: You’re not allowed to kill civilians.

This is neither new nor controversial, yet putting the matter in such stark terms always seems to upset people.

On the one hand, this isn’t surprising since the killing of civilians has become a scarcely remarkable, dog-bites-man commonplace. Yet it’s still surprising that anyone could find this elementary notion upsetting: You’re not allowed to kill civilians. If you’re one of those people who finds this upsetting, bear in mind what it is that you’re upset about. Apparently someone you feel ought to be immune from criticism has been killing civilians and you feel I’m criticizing them by pointing out — in the most abstract terms, without any mention of particulars — that this is something that no one is allowed to do.

To be fair, the writer does mention that there may be extenuating circumstances where the killing of civilians is unavoidable. But that doesn’t address his moral condemnation for violating his simplistic mantra. The fact of the matter is, that there is a clear moral mandate to condemn the cynical use of civilians by Hizbullah and what’s more, place the blame for civilian deaths squarely and confidently in the bloody hands of the terrorists.

James Lewis brilliantly explains:

We have lost elementary moral distinctions over the last century. As a culture, we pretend we cannot tell the difference between accidental shootings by police in pursuit of killers, and deliberate killing by those intent on destroying innocents. This is not, as the Left likes to boast, a reflection of our higher morality. It is a loss of elementary moral discrimination. We are much less moral than our ancestors of a hundred or two hundred years ago.

One role of the New Media must be to restore that common sense morality which says that hiding behind women and children in war is murder, plain and simple. The onus for murder is on the terrorist, not the cop.

There is a solution: It is for the media and the United Nations to rediscover the elementary moral distinctions of the original Geneva Conventions. Killing innocents is murder. Drawing enemy fire on children is evil. It’s not hard.

Why then is there no outrage against Hizbullah except in the narrow ideological confines of conservative western thought and a few liberal outriders going against the grain of the lockstep left?

It is more comfortable to pretend that the old verities regarding war are somehow still operational in a real world sense. An unarmed 10 year old boy leaning out a window in Anbar directing fire against American positions in Iraq presents a wrenching moral choice for the officer in command of the action. What guides that American officer is usually contained in the Rules of Engagement. Sometimes it’s how he was trained. But it is always what is inside the officer himself - his own personal code of morality and honor. Whether the boy is targeted or not, whether his death can be justified or not is really not the point. The child is a civilian in a combat zone and according to a strict reading of the laws of war and dictates of humanity, killing him is wrong.

Or is it? This situation, hypothetical as it is, brings us all into a new moral country as do the actions of Hizbullah with their brazen use of civilians as a combination human shield and fodder for press releases. Have you heard of any gathering of the great philosophical and ethical minds of our time to address these questions? Has there been any Security Council meetings to examine the implications of not only what Hizbullah is doing but what Israel (and to a lesser degree the United States) is forced to do in response?

Has there been any effort whatsoever on the part of the naysayers, the carpers, the condemners, to look beyond their spiteful, absolutist moral positions and delve into these dilemmas? I am not looking for an ethical or moral justification for dead civilians as much as I’m seeking a moral framework that takes these tactics into account. There is none. The American officer in Iraq or the Israeli Air Force Chief of Staff targeting Qana are all alone with their agony. And I firmly believe that this need not be the case.

Again, James Lewis:

European warfare came out of a tradition of chivalry. The military uniform marks combatants from bystanders. The British Redcoats were brilliantly visible, as were Napoleon’s armies. The idea of disguising oneself in the face of musket and even cannot fire was treated with contempt. Far more, the idea of drawing enemy fire while hiding among women and children was simply criminal. The British Navy would have hung its own sailors for such crimes. European soldiers were ready to die rather than be contemptible.

The Geneva Conventions came out of this tradition. Wars were terrible, and became much worse as they become industrialized. But they still reflected some of the values of chivalry.

[snip]

For the Nazis, savagery and murder became a matter of ideology and policy. SS men sent to murder Jews and other civilians were told to reject any feelings of compassion. The Nazis explicitly rejected Christian values, a point that is constantly lost to the Left. On the hard-hearted Left, during the Lenin-Stalin period, explicit orders were constantly given to kill peasants who resisted Moscow’s orders to give up their land and huddle in communal farms.

Thus the Roman and later Christian doctrine of Just War was steadily diluted as the 20th century wore on. Israel has a similar doctrine of “purity of arms,” and has recently revised its ethics code for the protection of civilians in guerilla warfare—- war in which civilians are used to shield the warriors, and innocent deaths are desired for their propaganda value. The media, consisting of nostalgic Lefties and old Mao-worshippers, fall for the double standards every day.

I would disagree slightly with James in that the media doesn’t so much “fall” for Hizbullah’s ruse as much as they and the left pretend, as do Islamists the world over, that the outrage is solely confined to “civilian deaths” and not to those who cause them.

Michelle Malkin:

The truth about Muslim outrage over Qana is that it’s not really about the tragic deaths at Qana–just like the cartoon jihad was not really about the cartoons.

Remember: Muslim outrage over the Danish cartoons was stoked and manufactured amid attempts to bully Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. Iran blamed Israel for the cartoons:

[snip]

What better way to distract from Hezbollah’s atrocities and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s annihilation plans than to start screaming about Israel’s “war crimes” and Western crimes against humanity. John Hinderaker at Power Line points to prefab jihadi banners demonizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. EU Referendum looks at morbid photo posing. Bob Owens wonders where all the men were.

But never mind all that, right? The Muslim world is united again. And some short-sighted Westerners are allowing themselves to be duped.

With everyone pretending together - the media, the left, the enemies of Israel and the United States - it becomes relatively easy to gin up outrage not only in the streets of Arabia but also the salons of the Upper East Side and the offices of network news executives. Hence is opinion manufactured and liberal outrage assuaged.

All of this fails to take in Lewis’ main point - that the traditions in the west of wrestling with moral questions regarding war has been deliberately abandoned. Any new moral truths or clarity that would emerge from such a debate or discussion would threaten the left’s ability to use civilian deaths exactly as Hizbullah does; to beat their political opponents over the head.

It’s a shame, really. The very people who would ordinarily be at the center of helping the west in creating any new moral paradigms for fighting and winning the War on Terror are letting her down in her hour of greatest need. The 500 year old liberal intellectual traditions of moral and ethical debate have been tossed into the gutter and replaced with an unyielding, anti-intellectual absolutism that will brook no opposition to its cherished tenets and comfortable, old shoe verities.

We may yet pay dearly for their prideful ignorance before all is said and done.

UPDATE

Allah comes through with a round up of the growing pushback against the out of control condemnation by most of the non western world against Israel for Qana. Will it matter? Hard to tell from just reading the internet but my guess would be we definitely have not heard the last of Qana and that the purveyors of the storyline that says Israel is at fault will be hardpressed to defend themselves over the next few days.

I had a fascinating discussion with Doug Hanson this morning about Russia, Iran, and the War on Terror on The Rick Moran Show. Doug is national security correspondent for The American Thinker and just got back from that part of the world which made his comments not only interesting but timely as well.

You can access the interview here.

Also, I am in the process of getting new java script for the “Listen Live” button which should clear up many of the problems some of my listeners have been having accessing the stream.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

This morning, we’ll be talking about the “Second Miracle at Qana” including the Israeli bombing halt and how that could aid Hizbullah. We’ll also look at the cynical use by Hizbullah of civilians as human shields.

In the 7:30 AM central time hour, we’ll talk to The American Thinker national security correspondent Douglas Hanson about Russia, Iran, and the War on Terror. Here are two recent articles by Doug that give some excellent background to what we’ll be discussing:

Putin, Iran and the Caucasus
Putin as the New Gorbachev

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

Following the tragic loss of 60 civilians in Qana as a result of an Israeli air strike on Hizbullah rocket launching positions, Prime Minister Olmert has declared a 48 hour halt to “aerial activity” over Lebanon:

Israel agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity over southern Lebanon after it bombed a Lebanese village on Sunday and a number of children died, a US official said.

The attack marred US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s weeklong mission to halt the fighting between Israel and Hizbullah.

The suspension of over-flights was announced by US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli. He said Israel has reserved the right to attack targets if it learns that attacks are being prepared against them.

It’s probable that the Israeli government announced this de facto bombing halt at the urging of US Secretary of State Condi Rice who just completed a round of talks with Olmert. Her trip back to Lebanon, however, has been cancelled by Prime Minister Siniora:

Saniora said Lebanon would be open only to an immediate cease-fire. “There is no place at this sad moment for any discussions other than an immediate and unconditional cease-fire as well as international investigation of the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now,” he told reporters Sunday.

The halt will be a godsend to Hizbullah who brought the bombing of Qana - the ancient city where it is said Christ performed the miracle of turning water into wine - on the civilians of that tragic town by using the streets and buildings as cover for their rocket launchers:

This morning, July 30, 2006, the IAF attacked missile launch sites in the area of the village of Qana, an area from which hundreds of missiles were launched towards the city of Nahariya and the communities in the western Galilee.

The IDF will defend the citizens of Israel from attacks by the Hizbullah and the responsibility for any civilian casualties rests with the Hizbullah who have turned the suburbs of Lebanon into a war front by firing missiles from within civilian areas.

Residents in this region and specifically the residents of Qana were warned several days in advance to leave the village. Eighteen Israeli civilians have been killed and over 400 have been wounded by these rocket attacks which have disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of Israeli citizens.

The IDF regrets any harm to uninvolved civilians, but this is the result of Hizbullah terrorist organization’s contemptible use of Lebanese civilians as human shields.

In addition to the statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has some eye opening video that clearly shows rockets being launched from between buildings in Qana.

In other words, the malicious bastards in Hizbullah, knowing that the rocket launches would draw immediate retaliation by the IAF, positioned their equipment so that maximum damage to civilian structures would ensue.

And it appears that this kind of cynicism is going to be rewarded as the nation’s of the world (including the United States) as well as the world press, and most of the left (who have been cheering on Hizbullah anyway) have gotten their way and Israel will now stop short of their stated goals of altering the situation on their northern border and trying to disarm Hizbullah.

For Hizbullah, it is a second Miracle at Qana.

The Hizbullah Hallelujah Chorus in the media and on the left has spent the last 24 hours ecstatically rolling in the blood of the civilians killed in Qana, dropping condemnatory bombs on the Israelis while being unable to display one iota of moral discrimination about the conflict. James Lewis at The American Thinker brilliantly elucidates this point:

We have lost elementary moral distinctions over the last century. As a culture, we pretend we cannot tell the difference between accidental shootings by police in pursuit of killers, and deliberate killing by those intent on destroying innocents. This is not, as the Left likes to boast, a reflection of our higher morality. It is a loss of elementary moral discrimination. We are much less moral than our ancestors of a hundred or two hundred years ago.

One role of the New Media must be to restore that common sense morality which says that hiding behind women and children in war is murder, plain and simple. The onus for murder is on the terrorist, not the cop.

There is a solution: It is for the media and the United Nations to rediscover the elementary moral distinctions of the original Geneva Conventions. Killing innocents is murder. Drawing enemy fire on children is evil. It’s not hard.

Any recognition of Mr. Lewis’ argument will come too late for Israel who will be enjoined from restarting the bombing probably by the United States who sees the diplomatic writing on the wall. It is simply unsustainable to furnish any more support for Israel’s bombing campaign against Hizbullah and their rocket launching sites. Indeed, judging by the reaction by the world community, it would be a dead certainty that Hizbullah would move their military activities even closer to residences in order to maximize civilian casualties.

I hope otherwise but world public opinion is so outraged at this point that it appears that unless Israel is willing to go it alone, the war may be over. Does George Bush have it within himself to continue to commit the US to standing with Israel against Hizbullah? I would hope that he would but at this point, I wouldn’t be too harsh on him if he urged Olmert to fold his cards and trust that the international community can summon the strength to force Hizbullah to accede to UN Resolution 1559 that mandates their disarming.

One final point: The unexplained gap of 8 hours between the time the building where 56 civilians lost their lives and its collapse will go mostly unnoticed in the media. It doesn’t fit the narrative of bloodthirsty Jews killing innocent babies for no reason. Also unnoticed will be the definitive proof that shows Hizbullah carrying out combat operations smack in the middle of suburban Beirut, giving the lie to idiotic imbeciles like Mitch Prothero of Slate.com who said that Hizbullah using civilians as human shields was a “myth.”

Israel is in a box. If they stop now, Hizbullah is a clear winner despite being pulverized by both the Israeli army and air force. Their simple survival will be spun by the media and the left as a great victory against those horrid Jews. But if they continue the war following this 48 hour bombing halt, they may have to do it without the support of the United States as Bush is coming under increasing domestic and international pressure to rein in the Israelis and force them agree to a cease fire while they are still short of their military goals.

Bush is going to earn his salary this week.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey believes Hizbullah will honor the unilateral cease fire by the Israelis in the breach:

A suspension puts more pressure on Hezbollah than it does Israel. The world has screamed for a cease-fire, and Israel has conditionally agreed, at least for a short period. If Hezbollah quits firing over the border, the Israelis may extend it, allowing the conflict to settle. However, no one really believes that Hezbollah will honor this — after all, they started the war, and they obviously believe this plays to their benefit. Once they launch another rocket, all bets are off, and Israel will get at least another two weeks before the ADD-addled global diplomats again forget that Hezbollah started the war.

I predict that the suspension will not last; Hezbollah will continue its operations, providing yet another point of clarity in this conflict.

Okay, Captain, pass me some of that kool aid. I’ll take a sip…

Any rockets launched by Hizbullah in this cease fire period will be blamed on Israel because, although it wasn’t specifically mentioned, the cessation of air attacks will not preclude the IDF from attacking Hez positions in southern Lebanon on the ground.

But let’s explore your thesis further. Any “point in clarity” with regards to this conflict will not be recognized by the overwhelming majority of nations (including the EU) as well as most of the media and certainly the left in this country. For them, there is no moral clarity to be gleaned. Israel is at fault. Israel is using “disproportionate” force to protect themselves. Israel is bombing Lebanese civilians deliberately (”Hizbullah? Hiding among civilians?” It’s a myth.)

In short, those most in need of moral clarity are wearing blinders in the first place. It is left to you and me and those of us who recognize that Israel’s fight is our fight to delineate any moral distinctions to be had in this war.

Tomorrow morning on The Rick Moran Show, I’ll be interviewing Douglas Hanson in the 7:30 AM central hour. Doug has recently returned from the Caucasus (Georgia) and is an expert on terrorism. We’ll discuss Russia’s role in the GWOT as well as the sad state that Russian democracy has reached under President Putin.

The show airs from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central on WAR Radio.

We’ll also look at how the Israeli-Islamist war is going and how Lebanese democracy has been set back by the conflict.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

TUNE INTO THE RICK MORAN SHOW FROM 7:00 AM - 9: AM CENTRAL TIME TODAYM 7/31 BY CLICKING THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN THE LEFT SIDEBAR

Give me an H!
Give me an I!
Give me a Z!
Give me a B!
Give me a U!
Give me an L!
Give me an L!
Give me an A!
Give me an H!

Wuzzat spell? HIZBULLAH! Louder! HIZBULLAH! I Can’t Hear You! HIZZZZZZBULLAH!
(Billmon of Whiskey Bar)

The Hizbullah cheerleading competition on the left has become a fierce battle between those who have become doe-eyed worshippers of the terrorist leader Nasty Nasrallah (currently in hiding from his rabid and overly demonstrative fans in the IDF) and his cadre of happy-go-lucky rocketeers and those who simply want to see Israel destroyed.

For the judges of the contest, this presents something of a dilemma. Do they deduct points for virulent hatred directed against Jews that blinds contestants to the finer points of cheerleading? Or do they penalize participants for their utter stupidity in cheering on their own potential beheaders thus demonstrating a third grader’s understanding of Pep Squad etiquette and self preservation instincts?

A close call, that. In desperation, the judges were forced to go to the videotape.

Billmon:

It seems more likely that the Israeli cabinet’s decision not to endorse the IDF’s plan for a major invasion was the proverbial blink in this eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. I don’t even know if Olmert still has hopes of carving out a notional two-kilometer-wide DMZ along the border. I mean, it’s easy enough to say such a buffer zone exists, but if the Israelis really want one they’re going to have to fight Hizbullah for every inch of it. And as I said, it’s pretty clear the Israelis don’t have much of an appetite for that kind of fighting.

At this point, and until they show me otherwise, I have to assume the Israelis now would be very happy just to get back to the status quo ante.

There remains, however, the little problem of the steady steam (100 a day, give or take) of rockets falling on northern Israel, plus Hizbullah’s still-unused long-range “Tel Aviv” rockets. Yesterday’s strike on Afula (east and about 30 miles south of Haifa) was a reminder from Sheikh Nasrallah that he still has a few rungs left on his escalation ladder, and that the IDF hasn’t been any more successful at missile “plinking” than the U.S. Air Force was in Gulf War I.

The judges deducted 5 points immediately for Billmon’s disconnect from reality. One judge protested that in this kind of competition, the deduction was unfair because the same could be said for every single contestant, the competition being confined to leftist twits with no more grasp of strategy than a marmoset. However this judge summed it up nicely:

Only a true fool like this dolt (who is worshipped by the ‘progressive’ left) could look at a military operation and say that, because in less than three weeks Hezbollah can still fire off some completely ineffective rocket barrages that have no military impact whatsoever, and because they managed to kill a couple of dozen Israeli soldiers, that the action has been a ‘debacle’ for Israel. Last time I checked, Olmert was still in Israel, and Nasrallah was hiding behind his puppetmasters in Damascus. I guess the fact that he hasn’t been scared all the way to Tehran means that’s a defeat for Israel, too.

On the other hand, Billmon scored well in “Anti-Israeli Fundamentals” and in “Overall Appeal” to Hizbullah sympathizers. And while the judges felt his laughable ignorance of what was actually happening on the battlefield should be cause for a major deduction, Billmon made up for that negative by projecting typical leftist admiration for the tactics of terrorists. Slight deduction for not smiling enough and for the inadvertent showing his panties on the “basket toss.”

Next up, The Next Hurrah:

Hezbollah right now is operating in bunkers. All the news that comes out comes when one or another IDF soldier admits that they’re discovering Hezbollah to have well-disciplined, courageous fighters–which sends a more powerful message than all the Shock and Awe! you can muster. Meanwhile, Israel is very publicly bombing the sh*t out of Lebanon, yet it’s winning no apparent advantage from the bombing. The same, I suspect, will happen with this. Oh, I’m sure there’s pro-Hezbollah astroturf out there. But mostly, there’s just effective propaganda, winning the hearts and minds of other Arabs. Whereas Israel is conducting a very public campaign, but it appears to be dropping nothing but duds.

There was an immediate uproar from the judges following the viewing of this segment of the videotape. One judge asked if he could award a score lower than “zero” just for having to view such a nauseating routine. Another said it wasn’t so bad if you pretended “emptywheel,” the Captain of the squad, was mentally challenged and unable to differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, friend and foe.

In the end, the judges awarded hefty style points for the way that the contestants marched in lockstep with other lefties as well as extra credit for adding inadvertent humor to the routine. Minor deduction for poorly disguising their obvious anti-semtism as well as turning too many handsprings in logic.

Finally, Cecilia Lucas (Common Dreams):

But I am making progress, seeking and finding new information, clearing some of the smoke. I am coming to terms with something that I’ve tried to deny, something I’ve been taught to deny. And so I have written a love poem. For Hizbullah. Like love that inspires poems often is, this love is not all rosy and sweet. It is complicated, tortured, frustrated, somewhat inappropriate, certainly scandalous, sometimes hesitant. It is irrational and overly rational. But still, it is love. A dear friend told me today, “Nobody ever really learns something without feeling something.” So, to Hizbullah, I offer this poem.

I Don’t Want to Love You, But I Do

You were born out of death to a life in a cage
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong

You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese

Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina
That you have created so much
Saved so many lives
Improved so many more…

After picking their jaws up off the floor, the judges went to work. Two judges wanted the contestant thrown out of the competition for making a mockery of the event. It simply wasn’t possible that Cecilia’s rank anti-Semitism and spectacularly ignorant views on Hizbullah could be taken seriously. It had to be parody. Or at the very least, a sick attempt to win the judges favor by being “too creative.”

Another judge pointed out that the contestant’s not disguising her disgusting Jew hatred was also cause for her being dismissed from the competition. It went against the tactics of the other contestants on the left who chose to hide their anti-Semitism by wishing for a Hizbullah victory all the while claiming they supported the existence of the Jewish state (most of the time).

But the majority of the judges decided to rate her team’s performance anyway. She actually got excellent marks for some of the routine, like when she performed her “Deadman” and the way in which she “attacked the crowd.”

But Cecelia received major deductions for sloppy thinking and a disconcerting lack of moral clarity. She received her biggest deduction for writing bad poetry, an unforgivable faux pas common among the left but largely absent from this particular competition. Slight deductions for a horrible costume (difficult to do jumps and splits in a burkha) and for rhetorically stumbling all over the place like a drunken sailor.

Who won? Perhaps I should open the comments up and let my readers vote. Have at it! And may the best leftist loon win…

A scientific survey done by the Beirut Center for Research and Information is something of an eye opener. The survey was conducted by Lebanese statistician Abdo Saad between July 24 and July 26 according to confessional and regional distribution, including the opinion of refugees. 800 adults were queried on a variety of topics including the performance of the government during the crisis as well as attitudes toward Hizbullah’s actions that started the war and how the terrorist group is viewed in general by the population:

The answers to the first question showed a relatively high level of support for Hizbullah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers, contrasting the positions of some local political forces’ condemnation of the operation. Such support was based on a belief that Israel and the US intended to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 by force, regardless of whether Hizbullah carried out the July 12 raid.

Moreover, the results show the majority of Lebanese believe the only way to liberate Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons is through the capture of Israeli soldiers and a prisoner swap, as was the case in 2000.

The survey showed near-identical numbers as an earlier survey, published by As-Safir on March 2. That survey showed 70.9 percent support for Hizbullah operations to capture Israeli soldiers.

This despite the heavy consequences being paid by Lebanese civilians for the Hizbullah incursion into Israel. Support for the kidnapping of the Israelis has even increased since March in the Christian community, thanks in part to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun’s Memorandum of Understanding with Hizbullah agreed to last February that supported Hizbullah efforts to get Lebanese nationals released from Israeli prisons.

Support in the Druze community has fallen slightly from 49% in March to 40% now. This could reflect Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s uncompromising condemnation of Hizbullah’s actions on July 12 and their incursion into Israel.

There is also strong support for Hizbullah’s terror tactics:

The survey showed 87 percent support for Hizbullah’s retaliatory attacks on northern Israel. Such a high level of support must be attributed to Hizbullah’s political and military performance, in addition to a national consensus identifying Israel as Lebanon’s main enemy.

The survey suggests that Hizbullah’s military performance has bolstered confidence in the resistance’s abilities as 63 percent of respondents expected a Hizbullah victory over Israel.

Hizbullah, an extremely media savvy terrorist group, will likely find a willing audience for the post war spinning of their lopsided military defeat into some kind of glorious victory.

Support for the US as an “honest broker” has dropped considerably:

The survey showed that a large majority of Lebanese do not consider the US to be an honest mediator (89.5 percent). A similar survey conducted by the Beirut Center for Research and Information published in As-Safir on January 31 showed 38.2 percent support for the US role in Lebanon. This drop is due to the close political cooperation between the US and Israel.

I imagine most Lebanese are extremely upset that the United States refuses to call upon Israel to stop bombing them. If I were in their position, I’d probably feel the same way.

Finally, there is mixed news for the government of Prime Minister Siniora:

Meanwhile, the majority of respondents were unsatisfied with their government’s performance on the diplomatic level (64.3 percent) and relief efforts (54 percent).

However, the rates varied according to sect, as 82.1 percent of Shiites polled and 64.8 percent of Sunnis polled said they were dissatisfied with the government, while 50.1 percent of Druze polled and 61.9 percent of Christians polled said the government had done a good job with humanitarian relief.

One might note that the bombing has fallen heaviest on the Shias and economically damaged the middle class Sunnis the most while the Druze (who are concentrated outside of Beirut) and the Christians (whose enclaves have barely been touched by the war) demonstrate support for the government.

Clearly, the people want Siniora to press Lebanon’s case more forcefully in the international arena and do a better job in dealing with the massive humanitarian crisis (more than 700,000 displaced people) that threatens to overwhelm Siniora’s shaky government.

What is most troubling is the apparent identification of Hizbullah as a force defending Lebanon. This is a change from before the war when most Druze and Christians saw Hizbullah as a danger to the Lebanese state. This attitude can only be bad news for Prime Minister Sinora (and the US and Israel) who will be facing a popular political figure in Nasrallah after the war who has been emboldened by public support for his militia.

It’s going to make disarming the terrorists that much harder.