printWhen Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, piously pontificates that the actions of the Israeli government are for the benefit of the Lebanese people (of which, in his atomistic mind, Hezbollah is not a part), and aimed at “freeing them of the cancer of Hezbollah,” I feel bilious.
It’s the same sickness rising one gets when Genghis Bush promotes his actions in Iraq as of benefit to the Iraqi people, a million of whom are now impoverished, displaced, aid-dependent refugees in their own country.
If these pols are such populists and democrats, why did they not let the beneficiaries of their humanitarian humbugs vote to accept or reject their ‘good deeds’? Why not ask the people you are supposedly helping if they want your liberating bombs? Or is this ‘charity’ compulsory?
I’d disrespect Gillerman less if he cut the treacle, and said, “We hate what we’ve become, but we have no option but to kill more innocents than guilty?
Israel in Lebanon is coming across in a worse light than is America in Iraq, even though the reverse is true. The first incursion, as bad as it is, was a response to provocation; the last, nothing of the sort. Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam and Osama never sat in a tree kissing.
But so stupid are the Israelis that they keep commandeering the American rhetoric with respect to Iraq to justify their actions. I guess their thinking goes something along the lines of, “Iraq: hmm, that went well, so let’s take that ‘experience’ and its language and put it to work for us Lebanon.”