Hezbollah’s Filibuster
Frank Salvato
August 14, 2006
Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This adage is true in more than just the political arena. With the recently brokered UN ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah taking effect – a ceasefire brokered in large part by the United States – it is a quandary that the West, and especially the Bush Administration, would “stand against itself” in the war against radical Islamist terrorism.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Created in the 1980s and following the ideology of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, their charter calls for the elimination of Israel. Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, Mohammed Hamadei, and Ali Atwa, Hezbollah members all, are on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a US Navy diver was murdered. Hezbollah is responsible for the June 1996 truck bomb attack of the US Air Force dormitory at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. And in March of 2004, Hezbollah signed an agreement with Hamas – another recognized terror organization – to increase joint efforts to conduct attacks against Israel. Hezbollah, by definition of its actions, is a terrorist organization.
It is because of this legitimate designation, and the fact that Hezbollah is openly supported by Syria and Iran (two nations that are recognized by the US State Department as state sponsors of terrorism) that the US contribution to and support of any ceasefire involving Hezbollah defies logic.
On November 6, 2001, President Bush made it clear to the world that there could be no “neutrality” in the war on terror, a conflict he has come to redefine as the war against radical Islamist terror. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
In legitimizing this “ceasefire,” the Bush Administration has effectively divided itself against itself. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization – which the US State Department says it is – then we have to be against them. Being against them means treating them as the enemy; an enemy who killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization until the September 11, 2001 attacks. By restraining the Israelis from succeeding in the eradication of this cancer of the Middle East, our words are not backed-up by our actions.
Some make the argument that Hezbollah is simply an organization that deals in legitimate resistance operations in the face of Israeli aggression. They argue that Hezbollah has been elected into the Lebanese government and has built schools and hospitals in the south of Lebanon.
While it may be true that Hezbollah has dedicated itself to a more positive public relations effort with the people of southern Lebanon, it cannot be denied that the same organization that builds hospitals and schools places missile batteries among them, using them as shields against retaliation for their indiscriminate missile launches into civilian locations within Israel.
And while it may be true that Hezbollah has captured 10% of the Lebanese government in elections, it should be pointed out that the only reason they achieved political victory in those elections was due to the disingenuous use of funds received from foreign powers, namely Iran. They bought their way into power not unlike the way George Soros tried to buy the 2000 and 2004 elections here in the United States for John Kerry and Al Gore. That Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the Lebanese government is as absurd a statement as saying Al Capone was a legitimate element of the business community in Chicago during the 1920s.
The UN brokered ceasefire is arguably the single biggest defeat yet for the United States and the West in the war against radical Islamist terrorism. It does nothing but provide a platform for political propaganda and an opportunity for Hezbollah to heal the wounds it incurred facing the superior forces of the Israeli army.
This notion is validated by Hezbollah’s Iranian handlers. A spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Sunday:
After one month of war against Lebanon's resistance, Israelis are the absolute losers and Hezbollah is the absolute winner of the war…The occupiers of Jerusalem failed, despite their military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic backings.”
If that weren’t enough, a Hezbollah central council member, Ahmed Barakat, told the Qatari newspaper al-Watan:
"Today Arab and Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of Israel is possible, and that countdown to the disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun… If a mere organization succeeded in defeating Israel, why would Arab nations not succeed in doing so if they allied?”
On the creation of this ceasefire, the enemy has once again been validated in their belief that the West is weak when it comes to winning wars that last beyond the tolerance of the weakest among them.
In the end, the conciliations of the West which allowed Hezbollah a seat at the global community negotiating table have transformed this legitimate battle in the global war against radical Islamist terrorism into a filibuster by Katyusha rocket.
In the end, we have to ask ourselves and our government, “Are we with us or against us?”
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His pieces are regularly featured in over 100 publications both nationally and internationally. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, and is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, as well as an occasional guest on numerous radio shows coast to coast. He recently partnered in producing the first-ever symposium on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism in Washington, DC. His pieces have been recognized by the House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Created in the 1980s and following the ideology of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, their charter calls for the elimination of Israel. Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, Mohammed Hamadei, and Ali Atwa, Hezbollah members all, are on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a US Navy diver was murdered. Hezbollah is responsible for the June 1996 truck bomb attack of the US Air Force dormitory at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. And in March of 2004, Hezbollah signed an agreement with Hamas – another recognized terror organization – to increase joint efforts to conduct attacks against Israel. Hezbollah, by definition of its actions, is a terrorist organization.
It is because of this legitimate designation, and the fact that Hezbollah is openly supported by Syria and Iran (two nations that are recognized by the US State Department as state sponsors of terrorism) that the US contribution to and support of any ceasefire involving Hezbollah defies logic.
On November 6, 2001, President Bush made it clear to the world that there could be no “neutrality” in the war on terror, a conflict he has come to redefine as the war against radical Islamist terror. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
In legitimizing this “ceasefire,” the Bush Administration has effectively divided itself against itself. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization – which the US State Department says it is – then we have to be against them. Being against them means treating them as the enemy; an enemy who killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization until the September 11, 2001 attacks. By restraining the Israelis from succeeding in the eradication of this cancer of the Middle East, our words are not backed-up by our actions.
Some make the argument that Hezbollah is simply an organization that deals in legitimate resistance operations in the face of Israeli aggression. They argue that Hezbollah has been elected into the Lebanese government and has built schools and hospitals in the south of Lebanon.
While it may be true that Hezbollah has dedicated itself to a more positive public relations effort with the people of southern Lebanon, it cannot be denied that the same organization that builds hospitals and schools places missile batteries among them, using them as shields against retaliation for their indiscriminate missile launches into civilian locations within Israel.
And while it may be true that Hezbollah has captured 10% of the Lebanese government in elections, it should be pointed out that the only reason they achieved political victory in those elections was due to the disingenuous use of funds received from foreign powers, namely Iran. They bought their way into power not unlike the way George Soros tried to buy the 2000 and 2004 elections here in the United States for John Kerry and Al Gore. That Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the Lebanese government is as absurd a statement as saying Al Capone was a legitimate element of the business community in Chicago during the 1920s.
The UN brokered ceasefire is arguably the single biggest defeat yet for the United States and the West in the war against radical Islamist terrorism. It does nothing but provide a platform for political propaganda and an opportunity for Hezbollah to heal the wounds it incurred facing the superior forces of the Israeli army.
This notion is validated by Hezbollah’s Iranian handlers. A spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Sunday:
After one month of war against Lebanon's resistance, Israelis are the absolute losers and Hezbollah is the absolute winner of the war…The occupiers of Jerusalem failed, despite their military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic backings.”
If that weren’t enough, a Hezbollah central council member, Ahmed Barakat, told the Qatari newspaper al-Watan:
"Today Arab and Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of Israel is possible, and that countdown to the disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun… If a mere organization succeeded in defeating Israel, why would Arab nations not succeed in doing so if they allied?”
On the creation of this ceasefire, the enemy has once again been validated in their belief that the West is weak when it comes to winning wars that last beyond the tolerance of the weakest among them.
In the end, the conciliations of the West which allowed Hezbollah a seat at the global community negotiating table have transformed this legitimate battle in the global war against radical Islamist terrorism into a filibuster by Katyusha rocket.
In the end, we have to ask ourselves and our government, “Are we with us or against us?”
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His pieces are regularly featured in over 100 publications both nationally and internationally. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, and is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, as well as an occasional guest on numerous radio shows coast to coast. He recently partnered in producing the first-ever symposium on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism in Washington, DC. His pieces have been recognized by the House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict.
Print
Email
