Tuesday, August 01, 2006

 

The Catechism Of A Ceasefire

In "The Catechism Of A Ceasefire", Dean Barnett writes about the idiot left's need to be, as Churchill put it, "humbugged", the result of which is known today as "surrendering to slavery under fascism":


In his magnificent biography of Winston Churchill, “The Last Lion – Alone: 1932-1940,” William Manchester used the term “the catechism of appeasement” to describe the European powers’ irrational faith in their ability to appease Hitler. In spite of Hitler’s belligerence and plainly evil objectives, the wise men of Europe labored at convincing themselves that their program of appeasing Hitler would be successful.

Regarding the Middle East right now, we have something similar – call it the catechism of a ceasefire. There is nothing that suggests that Hezbollah or its state sponsors want any kind of lasting peace with either Israel or the United States. But the cries for a ceasefire continue. If only the bombs would stop falling, ceasefire proponents seem to argue, we could once again comfortably insert our heads into the sand and pretend all is well.

The fact that we would only defer the true day of reckoning to a later though likely bloodier date seems not to be a consideration.

...it’s tough to bounce about saying “twiddle-dee-dee” and focusing exclusively on Ned Lamont while Katyushas are falling by the hundreds on Northern Israel and the United Nations has worked itself into a lather over Israel’s purportedly disproportionate response.

Besides, a serious intellectual engagement with the Israel-Hezbollah war requires the contemplation of a whole host of downright unpleasant issues. After all, Hezbollah did not produce the Katyushas that rain down on Israel. Without their state sponsors, Hezbollah would not have these weapons. Equally unpleasant is the fact that neither Hezbollah nor its state sponsors seem to have any interest in peace.

True, a ceasefire will be a break in the action, but a break in the action to what end and to the benefit of what parties? Or is such a question too unpleasant to consider?
I noticed long ago the "koombayah" nature of leftist thinking, deliciously parodied by Jack Nicholson as President James Dale in Mars Attacks!:


Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?

The Martians killed the President on the spot. The nugget here is that people head straight leftward when they fall prey to the infantile plead, why can't the world be the way I want it to be?

FNC's Alan Colmes, referring to the Israel-Hezbollah war, declares that "I have to believe there's a peaceful way out of this." Sorry, Alan, but there isn't. In fact, there is most certainly not a peaceful way out of this because only one side, Israel, is interested in peace. That's not how Colmes wishes it would be, but that is certainly the way it is. What makes a grown man think that way? I'm convinced it's first because Colmes is simply unable to accept the true nature of the enemy, a failure of intellectual rigor that not only permeates the wishful thinking of the left but is in fact its very foundation. I also believe it is because, like so many of his liberal brethren, Colmes suffers from BDS, but that's not the point here.

So deep is the leftists' need to be insulated from reality that they don't even want to know the answer to their own question, which is why they must never regain power before the end of the war against Islamofascism. Because if they do, everybody cries.

Now that's reality.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?