Abu Wabu

I first noticed the man in this article at EU Referendum, and commented thus:

Bring on the Hezbollywood. What a bunch of fucking ghouls these animals are.

That was before EU Referendum and others began noticing something strange.

Now, meet Mr. Green Helmet, a veteran of disaster-photo sessions in Kfar Cana, going way back to 1996:

His presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hezbollah official? If not, who is he?

Let's take it from the top: one hundred and fifty rockets are fired from Kfar Cana at Israeli civilians, all within a day or two. The IAF takes video of launch vehicles being hidden in local buildings.

Can you think of a better way to get the IAF to sit up and take notice of you?

Hezbollah positions in Cana are in turn attacked by the IAF. Seven, eight hours later, a building collapses on civilians who, for some strange reason, did not or could not evacuate despite widely-distributed Israeli warnings to the local populace. They hadn't been forced to stay because the roads were out of commission, because by dawn the place is crawling with media newly arrived from Tyre. The rescue scene is swarmed by stringers and photogs, some of whose film logs appear to show they spend hours shooting the same rescuers with the same childrens' corpses, already displaying a remarkably speedy onset of rigor mortis, in various poses.

What the hell is going on here?

Israel Insider inconveniently contemplates the scope of the production:

The well-documented use by Palestinians of this kind of faked footage -- from the alleged shooting of Mohammed Dura in Gaza, scenes from Jenin of "dead" victims falling off gurneys and then climbing back on -- have merited the creation of a new film genre called "Palliwood."

There is increasing evidence that the Kana sequel is another episode in this genre, a variety which might be called Hezbollywood. The Hezbollah have evidently learned their craft well.

In another nod to their Nazi progenitors, Islamofascists have made such Big Lie productions their specialty. Mohammed Dura, Jenin, Saddam's baby-parades, the orchestrated cartoon riots, the slaughters premised on Newsweek's irresponsible flushed-Quran story, the documented attacks on Gitmo guards only now getting notice from the MSM, and now it seems that they are posing imported dead children for their cause.

All while the usual idiots scream for "constitutional rights" and "proportional response!".

Spare me.

This story is not only plausible, it's probable, because that's how these guys roll.

Memeorandum has all the links.

Vital Perspective quotes Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

All that need be said of Hezbollah and their supporters.

Updates moved to separate post.

Hezbollah and the government of Lebanon are clearly responsible for the civilian deaths in Cana. Hezbollah has been allowed by the Lebanese government to attack Israel with impunity from the sanctuary of populated civilian neighborhoods, which these smuggled photos prove, as if any further proof is needed. The IDF has little choice but to respond to missile attacks on innocent Israelis, who are Hezbollah's only targets, and hiding behind Lebanese women and children (the men are all busy firing rockets at Israel) must not protect these animals from liquidation.

Blaming Israel for Lebanese civilian deaths is worse than stupid- it's obscene. To do so one must ignore the very nature of Israel's enemy, which admittedly is the favored sport of terror apologists everywhere. It is akin to blaming the massacre of Beslan's children by Islamofascist animals on those who attempted to rescue them. And now that we know that the building in question did not collapse for eight hours after the IDF attack, the charges may be more ludicrous and irresponsible than ever, if that is possible. Indeed, it may be that Hezbollah destroyed the building so as to ignite massive anti-Israeli public opinion. It wouldn't be the first use of such a tactic. Nor would it be the first time Hezbollah prevented civilians from evacuating an area after being warned by IDF leaflets to leave.

Israel's aspirations do not include killing innocent civilians, which is why they take such great pains to minimize civilian casualties, but that is exactly Hezbollah's double-ended tactic of choice with every ball-bearing-packed missile they randomly launch toward Anytown, Israel. In the case of Cana, it looks as if Hezbollah, knowing how consistently the IDF responds to their rocket-launchers, ruthlessly drew Israeli fire upon innocent Lebanese civilians for propaganda purposes, and it's quite possible that when the building they targeted for IDF fire failed to come down, they brought it down themselves.

Either way, Hezbollah is responsible, and so is the Lebanese government, but I don't expect the U.N. to condemn either one; after all, Israel, not Hezbollah, is the U.N.'s quarry.

James Lewis at The American Thinker:

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.

AJ Strata is updating the story regularly.

Also Read:
And Rightly So
Captain's Quarters
Tiger Hawk
Blue Crab Boulevard
Sam Houston
Michelle Malkin, with more brave Jihadi heroes
Sondra K.(comic relief)
Pajamas Media
Flopping Aces
Little Green Footballs
Flapsblog

HT: Captain's Quarters

Obsession: What The War on Terror Is Really About.

Racing to the bottom against this Vanity Fair laugher, Rolling Stone's James Bamford regurgitates time-tested neo-con conspiracy theories with a sophomoric trasher aimed at Dr. Michael Ledeen, whom Bamford contends is using his gargantuan clout with the Bush administration to singlehandedly initiate a war against Iran. But the idiocy doesn't stop there. Bamford's tale (this isn't reporting) is the usual shambles: one of his more serendipitous revelations has Saddam hiding in Iran in 2001, amongst his mortal enemies, some two years before the coalition invaded Iraq.

Yeah, I know.

So, as Andrew C. McCarthy describes, James Bamford and Rolling Stone join the ranks of Jason Leopold and all the other idiots who are actually willing to sacrifice their careers and reputations in service to spreading hatred of President Bush.

The anti-Bush press is becoming ever more delusional in its attacks on the right. So often, as Christopher Hitchens mused recently about their reporting of nearly everything Joe Wilson has said in the last three years, the truth is the exact polar opposite of what they say.

Ed Morrissey has more here and here at Captain's Quarters.

Another dose of moral clarity from Charles Krauthammer:

What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities — every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians — and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world — governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats — has completely lost its moral bearings.

David Frum, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, elucidates Iran's Showdown With The West:

The war Hezbollah provoked is a war between Israel and Iran, with Hezbollah as Iran's proxy--and the people of Lebanon as Iran's victims. The Lebanese have been kidnapped by Iran as surely as those two Israeli soldiers abducted on the northern border.

Israel has recognized that tragic fact. It has fought this war on its northern border as humanely as it can. Flip the switch in Beirut and the lights come on; open the taps, and the water flows. Essential services have been spared. The runways at Beirut Airport have been bombed to stop reinforcements to Hezbollah, but the control towers and the newly built terminal have been spared because Lebanon will need them later.

Unintended civilian casualties have tragically occurred, as they do in any war. But Israel's sincere and costly attempts to minimize the loss of innocent life present a stark contrast with Hezbollah's deliberately atrocious war methods.

Hezbollah has boasted that it has tried to fire missiles into Haifa's chemical factories, in hope of releasing gases to poison the civilian population. Hezbollah rocket warheads arrive crammed with ball bearings, so as to inflict maximum death and suffering upon the civilian populations at which they are fired.

Nobody wants the war to last a minute longer than it needs to. But ironically, letting this war go to the finish would be a far more humane policy than the UN's call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire.

And in his column at NRO, Frum quotes Canadian Major General Lewis McKenzie, who makes clear the truth about the Israeli bombing of the UN outpost that killed four UN observers along with a bunch of Hezbollah lowlifes. Terror apologists and other idiots might note that the problem has a familiar ring to it:

What he [Major Hess-von Kruedner] was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it.

At least that's what Hezbollah was counting on when they overran the U.N. position. Hezbollah suddenly has a problem they didn't have before now; unlike the U.N., Israel is no longer willing to enable their cowardice. The deaths of the four UN observers are no more or less unfortunate than those of any other innocents in this conflict, but they are not unacceptable. In fact, they are a necessary part of facing down and crushing any part of the Islamofascist movement, because that's how they fight: from over the shoulders of innocents.


Illuminating Exchange Of The Week comes courtesy of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Bolton renomination hearing:

John Kerry: This has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.
John Bolton: It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.
Kerry: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That's what the Clinton administration did.
Bolton:
Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed.

Is that the same John F'n Kerry who as the Democratic Presidential candidate criticized President Bush for going it alone in his foreign policy? Why yes, it is.
HT Power Line




Okay, now I understand, sort of: several Democrats, taking Howard Dean's lead, boycotted the speech by Iraqi PM Maliki to Congress after accusing him of anti-Semitism because he criticized Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Following that logic with integrity (there's that damned "i-word" again) would lead one to the concurring conclusion that to criticize President Bush for invading Iraq would be, uh, anti-American.

Fair enough, as long as Democrats don't question Maliki's patriotism. Or something like that.

I read that Democrats John Dingell, John Conyers, Nick Rahall, Pete Stark, and Neal Abercrombie voted against House Resolution 921, which formally condemns Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. Are they also anti-Semitic, Mr. Dean?




Dog Bites Man




Victor Davis Hanson describes The Vocabulary of Untruth, in which words take on new meanings as Israel struggles to survive.




The fun rages on at Seixon.

Captain's Quarters does a damned fine job in Israel Rejects UN-Led Force In Lebanon.

The UN already knew that Hezbollah had built its positions in close proximity to the UNTSO/UNIFIL camps -- and Kofi Annan did not do anything to get those men out of the area once fighting broke out. Why should Israel allow the UN to bias the investigation when it will inevitably pin the blame on Kofi?

LGF:

This morning, Hezbollah opened small arms fire at a UNIFIL convoy consisting of two armored personnel carriers (APC) on the road between Kunin and Bint Jubayl. There was some damage to the APCs, but no casualties, and the convoy was obliged to return to Kunin.

Bill Patterico Pontificates.

Destined for the inevitable Blogging Hall Of Fame in the 'Shooting Fish In A Barrel' category.

Frank J launches a commentfest on the new leftist craze: self-destruction while idioting:

Sock puppeting is terrible, unless you've had a New York Times bestseller and been quoted on the Senate floor and won a spelling bee in 2nd grade and come in 3rd at the Pinewood Derby when you were 8 (and would have won but Todd and Jim's dad let them cheat) and are extra, extra special and wonderful like me, I mean like Glenn Greenwald.

Posted by: Green Glennwald on July 27, 2006 08:49 PM

...

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

Posted by: Innocent_Bystander_who_doesn't_have_a_rocket_launcher_or_any_bombs on July 28, 2006 01:46 AM

HT: Instapundit

Nine months ago almost to the day, I wrote that Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby had changed nothing about the fact that notorious liar Joe Wilson and his double-knot spy soccer-mom wife Valerie Plame were treasonous cranks, which they of course still are and always will be. Christopher Hitchens has nailed that coffin shut and presents more documented evidence that the truth about the Niger uranium biz was simple and clear to anyone without a vested interest in remaining an idiot:

...both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed.

I part with Hitchens on his characterisation of Wilson as having "missed" the Niger connection. Wilson did no such thing; he was sent by his wife and her CIA cohorts (his claim to have been sent by VP Cheney notwithstanding) specifically to debunk the story. Wilson may be missing integrity, trustworthiness, love of country, a conscience, whatever, but he didn't miss anything in Niger- he simply lied in service to treason against his country.

10. President Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, would have personally evacuated all Americans from Beirut in August of 2005 on his wakeboard.
9. President Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, would have delivered humanitarian aid to Lebanon prior to the kidnappings of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, with whom he would have immediately negotiated an eternal ceasefire pleasing everyone.
8. President Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, would have personally trained Lebenon's armed forces to disarm Hezbollah in 2001, if not earlier.
7. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah all would have elected courageous, visionary, nuanced and peace-minded leaders in the mould of a Dominique de Villepin. In 1998.
6. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Dean and the hawkish Jack Murtha would already have made the world a safer place, although it is not clear how.
5. Iran would be purchasing its nuclear technology from America and her trusted allies France and Russia.
4. President Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, would have crushed Adolph Hitler's skull with his bare hands in 1923.
3. Secretary Of State Joseph C. Wilson III and his double-knot-agent wife, at the request of Vice-President John Edwards, would have brought peace to Africa in a single afternoon over mint tea with Larry Johnson in a five-star Niamey hotel.
2. Karl Rove, Prisoner #9112001
1. America, led by President Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, would have passed the Global Test with straight A's.

That's right: we'd be screwed.

A slight variation on this theme from Power Line.

Once upon a time, in the midst of losing yet another political debate with me, a leftard self-assuredly directed me to the geniuses at Truthout.org to buttress his argument, the essence of which was "terrorists good, Bushitler bad, Karl Rove indicted". Good call, leftard. Seems that if weren't for the fevered scribblings of sociopathic conspiracy-theorists (and the New York Times), leftards wouldn't read at all.


More fun from the folks who brought you institutionalized anti-Semitism, rape-for-refuge, Oil-For-Food, child-porn rings, disastrous disaster-relief and the disarming of Hezbollah in Lebanon per UNSC Resolution 1559.

Okay, so scratch that last one.

Wait: if that's not enough, there's still more fun.


John F'n Kerry to the rescue!


Despite efforts such as this, there will always be things idiots don't get. Dr. Sanity explains.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the seeming absurdities of the proxy war Syria and Iran are waging against Israel from behind the Lebanese and how the Bush Doctrine continues to work where the rubber hits the road.

HT: Hugh Hewitt

Ed Morrissey's essay, "A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?" points readers to Alan Dershowitz' latest challenge to intellectual laziness, presently evident in the almost universal condemnation of Israel for something called "disproportionate force".

...Dershowitz is not discussing reprisals against unarmed civilians, which are rightly war crimes. He wants a distinction made between civilians killed in the course of battles as to their involvement with the engagement, especially in terms of terrorist attacks. That sounds good in theory, and one could easily apply the same concept in Iraq -- where many of those killed during battles harbored insurgents, if not actively assisted them in targeting Americans or other Iraqis. One could also apply the same thought process in Afghanistan, and pretty much any place where terrorists stage attacks that get military responses.

In practice, however, it becomes much more difficult to do. One cannot interrogate dead people, and the bombs tend to destroy most of the evidence along with the civilians. Witnesses, such as neighbors and family, tend to see their loved ones as complete victims. It would be hard to imagine a Lebanese woman telling CNN that her dead husband often helped Hezbollah move arms or ammunition and therefore his death was justified.

Dershowitz obviously understands this. What he wants is the media to recognize the "continuum of civilianality" when reporting on war in general, and the Israeli conflicts specifically. I would find it helpful if the media remembered that the reason Israel attacks residential areas is because Hezbollah hides its operations in those areas to keep Israel from attacking them. That doesn't reflect on the status of the civilians in the area; it puts the blame on the casualties on the correct party -- the ones who base their attacks and hide their command and control positions among civilians.

Those who condemn Israel should remember that whenever images of Beirut flash across their television screens.

Charles Krauthammer has The Only Exit Strategy in the war against Hezbollah.

The Twenty-First Century's First Genuine Historic WTF Moment: The Lebanese military will fight alongside Hezbollah if Israel invades by ground.

JPost reports:
The Lebanese Minister of Defense warned Israel Thursday that if IDF ground forces are sent into southern Lebanon, Lebanese troops will fight along with the Hizbullah against Israel.

I've been pulling for Lebanon, but their leadership is obviously not up to the job at hand; they apparently so hate Israel that they would rather make cause with the very thugs who've robbed them of their sovereignty for twenty-five years than help clean the bastards out and have a chance at rejoining modern civilization. The Lebanese government earnestly painted itself as unable to control Hezbollah (it's not our fault- we're powerless victims), which would imply some measure of disaffection between the two parties, but that excuse for inaction against Hezbollah now appears nakedly dishonest.

This is a most unfortunate judgement by Lebanon's government. They've shown their hand, and they've chosen the wrong side. As things stand now, if its military sides with Hezbollah, Lebanon will be destroyed.

Blame the Jews.

Fighting has broken out between Hezbollah and the people they are attempting to use as human shields. Better get Alan Colmes in there to bring some o' that sweet, sweet surrender he's craving from Israel- lay it on those Lebanese Human Shields For Hezbollah.

Ace empathizes with Hezbollah:

Wait-- you want us to fight without all our protective meat-armor? Hey, we're Warriors of God and all, but we're not crazy Warriors of God. We're the kind of Warriors of God who hide in schools and bravely engage the enemy's most well-trained and technologically-advanced bah mitzvah parties.

I wish all the best to the Lebanese and I hope the Israelis rain Hell on Hezbollah until every last one of the bastards are gone from this planet. Lebanese casualties are on Hezbollah, not Israel; the sooner Hezbollah is killed off, the sooner Lebanon will be free.

They can thank Israel later if that's what suits them.

The NYT gushes over Islamofascist snipers trying to murder U.S. troops.

"Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he's worked," Ms. Briganti said. "From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O'Reilly and all things Fox, it's obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith's recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion."

Fox News spokeswoman Irina Brigante on Keith Olbermann's obsession with O'Reilly.

Where to start after a week's R&R?

I'll open with Hezbollah, fast becoming the ME's newest pariah. Even the Saudis are telling them they're on their own in their "uncalculated adventures". The last few years have shown Arab countries that the U.S. isn't quite the paper tiger Osama thought it was, and they are loathe to mess with a resolute Israel. Given that Arab staying power against Israeli and American forces is historically somewhere between three weeks and three hours, it's safe to say that Hezbollah is right where Israel wants them: stuck in Lebanon, with no way out and no cavalry on the way.

Lebanon faces a choice between taking control of its sovereignty by disarming Hezbollah or allowing the IDF to do their work for them, but that may be moot given Iran's part in all of this as Hezbollah's puppetmaster; the Lebanese government certainly has no say in the matter of Israel vs. Iran, but I wish them well.

***

AP: The Vatican has released a statement that "strongly deplored Israel's strikes on Lebanon, saying they were 'an attack' on a sovereign and free nation."

No mention in that statement about the "attack" on the "sovereign and free nation" of Israel by Hezbollah that prompted Israel's actions. No news here, then: the Vatican still "deplores" Israel's policy of defending herself not with the terror-apologist's shibboleth of "proportionality" but with overwhelming force, which is how to defeat Islamic fascism.

***

Hamas kills two Israeli soldiers and kidnaps a third. Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers, kills eight more, then declares war on Israel. Israel attacks Hezbollah to attain the soldiers' release. H&H cry foul like the cowardly babies they are, while indiscriminately showering Israeli civilians with rockets and missiles. Iran plots. Assad hides. Israel isolates Hezbollah in Lebanon. What to do?

Have no fear; The Old Grey Mare has the solution: send the IDF home, make Hezbollah promise to be nice, and then let the U.N. take over. It might even pass as mediocre satire if its writer, the befuddled Michael Young, wasn't actually serious. The NYT isn't just working against President Bush in the war on Islamofascism; they are now effectively on the side of Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. Give them points for consistency.

***

Serious adult commentary can be found in JPost editor David Horovitz' "Israel at war":

There are those who have branded this latest conflict a continuation of Israel's War of Independence, and there is no little truth in the assertion. On both of the fronts on which Israel has been drawn into heavy fighting, its enemies can make no legitimate claim to be pursuing a territorial dispute: as of last summer, Israel relinquished its hold on the Gaza Strip; in Lebanon, it pulled back to the UN-certified international border six years ago.

Except that, in both cases, the Jewish state's assailants are indeed pursuing a territorial ambition - to unseat Israel from its own sovereign lands.

Israel has watched Hizbullah build up its offensive capability in the years since the security zone was dismantled - watched it, ever bolder, establishing its positions up against the border fence and saw it developing its missile capability - and chose not to act. That stance was misinterpreted as weakness.

Wednesday morning's cross-border attack, complete with the barrage of shelling and rocket fire that served as cover, highlighted the IDF's intolerable absence of room for maneuver in such circumstances. And an Israeli government with a defense minister who had genuinely hoped to oversee a return to the peace path was obligated to militarily "change the rules of the game."

Hizbullah is a wily and well-prepared enemy, all-too-demonstrably capable of wreaking a degree of havoc in northern Israel and beyond, and the goal of dismantling its offensive capacity will not be easily achieved.

Thursday's air onslaught certainly impacted Lebanon's civilian infrastructure; it is less clear how deeply Hizbullah was harmed.

Still, in contrast to the asymmetrical struggles against terror cells and Kassam rocket crews, the IDF has now been unleashed in a context where it can expect to use more of its strengths. And woe betide a nation under attack inside its sovereign borders if it does not decisively prevail.

Also read Charles Krauthammer's Israel's Existence at Stake:

What's the grievance here? Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the U.N. to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon's southern border and retreated behind it. This "blue line'' was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Grievance satisfied. Yet what happens? Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza: turn it into a military base and terrorist operations center from which to continue the war against Israel. South Lebanon bristles with Hezbollah's ten-thousand Katyusha rockets that put northern Israel under the gun. Fired in the first hours of fighting, just 85 of these killed two Israelis and wounded over 100 in Israel's northern towns.

Over the last six years, Hezbollah has launched periodic raids and rocket attacks into Israel. Israeli retaliation has led to the cessation of these provocations -- until the next time convenient for Hezbollah. Wednesday was such a time. One terror base located in fully unoccupied Arab territory (South Lebanon) attacks Israel in
support of another terror base in another fully unoccupied Arab territory (Gaza).

Why? Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake.

The Washington Times' Wesley Pruden notes Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon's comments to the National Press Club:

Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, offered a warning to Iran in blunt, forceful language yesterday at a session with reporters at the National Press Club: "They are playing with fire, and will bear the consequences." This is not the usual diplo-speak, but a warning in language that thugs and primitives better understand.

Mr. Ayalon, choosing his words carefully, calls the present crisis "a historic, dangerous juncture." The threat, as is clear to anyone brave enough to look the ugly reality square in the face, is the radical Islamification of the Middle East, forced by an Iranian regime that is backward, totalitarian and dictatorial. "All this," the ambassador says, "and nuclear weapons, too."

Most of the rest of the world is, as usual, either trying to make Israel the villain, or trying to sleep. The United Nations Security Council, ever on the scout for ways to equivocate in the face of moral challenge, would have adopted a resolution condemning Israel yesterday but for a veto by the United States. Four other nations, displaying the irresolution that is the courage of cowards, abstained. Israel's neighbors, who have the most to lose if the radicalized "religion of peace" prevails in the Middle East, displayed their usual manliness. Greece called the Israeli response to the kidnapping of its soldiers on Israeli soil, and the continued rocket attacks on Israeli cities, "excessive." (The bad guys are only terrorists, after all, not Turks.)

President Bush, in Germany to pay court to Angela Merkel, quickly said the right thing. Israel has the right to defend itself, and the blame for the escalation of violence is rightly on Hezbollah, the terrorists who crossed the border earlier this week to seize the two soldiers. Even Mrs. Merkel, whose government often employs timidity in the face of challenge, agreed that Israel and its tormentors do not share equal blame. "I think that one needs to be careful to make a distinction between the root causes and the consequences of something." (One certainly do, as the Hon. Fats Domino might say.)

Mr. Bush is concerned, however, that in its determination to protect itself Israel
should not destroy the new government in Lebanon, which is distinctly wary of Syria, which has treated Lebanon as its doxy of convenience for a generation. The Israelis shelled Beirut's international airport whence the rockets arrive from Syria, where they are manufactured.

Syria, as well as Iran, is playing the deadly game. Much of the Hamas administration of the Palestinian government, such as it is, has run to hide in Damascus. Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas, preaches now from a Damascus pulpit. Sample: "Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good." Pretty big talk for a fat man on the run, but the Israelis understand that even a fat man on the run is dangerous with his finger on a trigger. It's the lesson the rest of the world has not yet learned.

HT: Power Line

Austin Bay rounds up analysis of the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel.

So does Belmont Club.

***

Just an observation: once the IDF has crushed the last remnants of Hezbollah, maybe they'll do Iran and Syria the same favor they are doing for Lebanon and kill the leadership in Tehran and Damascus.

***

Funny take on the latest leftist-crybaby blogger meltdown. St. Andrew Of The Aching Heart has competition.

***

On Hamden: The Supreme Court has deigned to abscond not only with the President's treaty-making powers but his policy-making powers as well, but Geneva-Conventions-for-terrorists fans shouldn't take much heart from any of it, including the White House's announcement that it would extend Geneva rights to its prisoners. Missing from the discussion is the presence in the Hamden decision of dissenting opinions that set up the pins for a strike down the road against the entire judgement.

An eloquent debate proceeds at NRO, but it largely concerns Hamden's implications vis-a-vis the division of wartime powers between Congress and the President. I'm more interested in the decision as political asset come election time both this year and in '08, and in the possible forms a precedential challenge may take, because that is certainly in the future. Geneva rights for the enemy will have the effect of more enemy killed than taken prisoner, which is a big positive in my opinion, but it also helps set up a challenge to the court's decision, which is open to criticism on so many fronts. The Bad News for Idiots is that the back door out of the Hamden decision is wide open and will remain so.

***

Gillermania!

***

Ace brings it: American politics in a single picture.

The Plame lawsuit.

Duh.

A leftard actually recommended Kos to me a couple of years ago as The Way To The Truth About Bush. Today the Kosturbators are having fun with Jew-baiting.

Layered.

Nuanced.

Thoughtful.

Deep.

The The Jerusalem Post describes how IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit's fortunes are affected by the Third Geneva Convention.

IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit is not a prisoner of war and is therefore not entitled to the full protection that international law affords POW's, Hebrew University international law expert Yuval Shani told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday. "The Third Geneva Convention applies to states and therefore only grants the status of POW when both parties in the war are states, or at least entities that are close to states," said Shani. "In the case of Gilad Shalit, the group that is holding him is not a state nor does it act on behalf of a state, or apparently, on behalf of an entity which is close to being a state." ...

Prisoners captured in non-international conflicts are not entitled to many of the benefits afforded POWs, including the right to be held as a cohesive group in a special facility for prisoners of war, to meet with doctors and ministers and to receive visits by the Red Cross.

...By the same token, however, Israel [is] also not obliged to treat captured Palestinian terrorists as POWs, continued Shani, because the Geneva Accords regarding POWs only apply when two states fight each other. He added that Israel indeed did not observe all of the provisions of international law when it captured and held terrorists.

The Palestinian government, such as it is, seems to believe they may selectively eschew the responsibility not only of governing but of even taking part in civilization. Gilad Shalit is being held by Hamas animals to whom international law means nothing unless it helps to destroy Israel, which is why the Palestinians cling so closely to the U.N.'s apron. His captors by their very act of kidnapping Shalit demonstrated their contempt for Geneva, negating any claim to its protections.

Further, the anti-Israeli argument for "proportionality" is only meant to hamstring Israel against a foe whose every action mocks the concept. In fact, "proportionality" would dictate that Israelis randomly fire rockets into Palestinian territory, commit mass-murder at their markets and restaurants with nail bombs, and call for the destruction of the Palestinian people. In other words, it would mean treating the Palestinians they way Palestinians treat Israelis. Instead, Israeli restraint keeps Palestinian civilian casualties to a minimum by way of assiduous targeting of terrorist assholes. One interesting result: dozens of Palestinian government cabinet officers are in Israeli custody, because they are mostly terrorist assholes.

The Israelis have answered appropriately by going into Gaza to establish a buffer zone against Palestinian rocket attacks until they can exterminate what remains of Hamas' vermin. Some civilians will get killed along the way, but it will be because the terrorists are using them as shields. And the IDF cannot be made responsible for Palestinian war crimes.

That's proportionality.

HT: Belmont Club

"It's not a crime to publish classified information."
The ever-more-clueless Dana Priest 3/7/06

HONORABLE MENTIONS
"It's not an act of war to attack the Pentagon." -Dirka Dirka
"It's not an act of war to destroy the World Trade Center." -Mohammed Jihad
"It's not accurate to describe me as a puffy moron." -Larry C. Johnson

HT: Expose The Left

Also: A Power Line classic.

Am I right, or what? Because the thing was doomed, being the 4th of July and all. Tell me Rove isn't at the heart of this!

Hamas spokesterrorist Abu al-Muthana:

Some think that the groups who conducted the operation (kidnapped Shalit) can kill him, but our Islamic principles stipulate that prisoners should be respected.

If by "respected" al-Muthana means this, then I don't like Shalit's chances. But then I like Hamas' chances even less.

More Islamic Principles On Parade.

On the United States' 230th birthday, Peter Brookes ponders a world without Uncle Sam:

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century - just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.

HT: Austin Bay

James S. Robbins on those lovely wives of the Toronto 17:

Really, who could possibly call mild-mannered Canada "this filthy country?" And who knew that the root cause of terrorism was misfit teenage wives having a cyber-klatch? An article like this makes me wonder why feminists and gay activists are not more interested in the war on terrorism. Also makes a great case for deportation.

Feminists and gay activists still seem largely indifferent to the way their constituencies are treated by Islamists. You'd think they'd empathise with them to the extent that they'd protest that treatment, which includes stoning, public hanging and death by concrete wall, but apparently they're too busy hating Bush. Just don't question their priorities.

Hugh Hewitt calls out Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times during CNN's Reliable Sources. Lichtblau doesn't fare too well, I'm afraid.

UPDATE
Key to the Times' efforts to clean up its image as a bullhorn for secret anti-terror measures is its new insistence that the SWIFT story did not reveal any secrets; never mind the story's very headline. Yet PostWatch finds numerous references in the article to the program's "secret" and "classified" nature. As usual, the left’s answer to legitimate criticism is simply to deny the truth and hope the MSM has their backs. Here’s another news flash: Them Days Is Over.

Andrew McCarthy lays waste to those who think the Supreme Court's grant of Geneva protections to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will hold water. First, Hamdan is not Constitutionally based; second, as soon as Geneva appears to infringe upon American sovereignty, the U.S. will bail on that venerated treaty, which the anti-war idiots have pimped to within an inch of its life. The gloves must come off against enemies both without and within.

Congress absolutely has the power to deny al Qaeda terrorists the right to be present at portions of trial where sensitive evidence is introduced. Let's leave aside that the court's entire Common Article 3 rationale is hooey (the article doesn't apply to al Qaeda and the court owed deference to the president's interpretation to that effect). The salient point here is that when the inevitable argument is made that the Geneva Conventions now require handing over our intelligence to the enemy in wartime, congress — and more properly, the president (who has the authority to cancel treaties) — should make clear that we would withdraw from the Geneva Conventions (or at least any offending portions of them) before we do that.

Internationalist efforts to hogtie the American campaign against Islamism must be smacked down hard, and if that means leaving the Geneva charades to others, then make it so and let's have the lunacy out on the table where everyone can see it.

Bill Keller's attempt to legitimize treason by the New York Times and its leaking sources reminded me of Bill Clinton's mea culpa for indulging in Monica Lewinsky's blowjobs and cigar-magic, betraying wife Hillary's trust: he did it because he could. He just couldn't help himself. He was a victim of temptation, and the devil got the better of him.

Similarly, Keller seems to believe that admitting to a moral weakness ( Must Get Bush) that betrays American citizens' rights to protection from harm absolves him of betraying American citizens' rights to protection from harm.

In both cases, the offender wants you to ignore his responsibility to control his temptations. He wants to claim victim status and absolve himself of responsibility so that you can't criticize him.

I believe what we have here is the left's adoption of the Christian ritual of confession to unburden their souls, but they don't understand that integrity is central to that process.

And Bill Keller lacks integrity.

UPDATE
The Wall Street Journal agrees.