Only an idiot denies a nation the right of self-defense – without that right, civilized nations must fall to barbarians. The winners of the Anti-Israel Idiotarian contest are the Pope, the EU and the UN.
Pope Benedict on Sunday condemned “terrorist” acts and reprisals in Lebanon and Israel, saying the violence was unjustifiable.
He called on both sides to resume dialogue.
“The causes of such fierce confrontation are unfortunately objective situations of violation of law and justice,” Benedict said, speaking from his holiday retreat in the Aosta valley.
“But neither the terrorist acts nor the reprisals, above all when there are tragic consequences for the civilian population, can be justified.”
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano on Friday singled out Israel, calling its strikes on Lebanon an attack on a sovereign and free nation.
After the Germans bombed London in WW2, the RAF attacked targets throughout Germany. If this man had been around then, he’d have condemned the Brits & if they’d heeded his advice, Europe would have been condemned to centuries of Nazi slaughter and slavery. Maybe that’s what he’d have liked.
It must be tough to be Catholic with this man as leader.
The EU and UN
I think we could have a cessation of hostilities immediately if Hezbollah would stop terrorizing innocent civilians and give up the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. So that to the extent this crisis continues, the cause is Hezbollah.
How you get a ceasefire between one entity, which is a government of a democratically elected state on the one hand, and another entity on the other which is a terrorist gang, no one has yet explained.
The government of Israel, everybody says, has the right to exercise the right of self-defense, which even if there are criticisms of Israeli actions by some, they recognize the fundamental right to self-defense. That’s a legitimate right.
Are there any activities that Hezbollah engages in, militarily that are legitimate? I don’t think so. All of its activities are terrorist and all of them are illegitimate, so I don’t see the balance or the parallelism between the two sides and therefore I think it’s a very fundamental question: how a terrorist group agrees to a ceasefire.
You know in a democratically elected government, the theory is that the people ultimately can hold the government accountable when it does something and doesn’t live up to it. How do you hold a terrorist group accountable? Who runs the terrorist group? Who makes the commitment that a terrorist group will abide by a ceasefire? What does a terrorist group think a ceasefire is? These are – you can use the words “cessation of hostilities” or “truce” or “ceasefire.” Nobody has yet explained how a terrorist group and a democratic state come to a mutual ceasefire.