Why are so many on the Left condemning Israel for a "disproportionate response" to attacks by Hamas and Hizballah? Is there a better way to defeat an enemy when it comes down to combat? After all, the object of war is not to play "tit for tat" games with the enemy, but to beat him. It's just another symptom of Leftist insanity that they believe the stronger combatant should be handicapped to make things "fair"... especially when the weaker force started the fight, and deliberately murders civilians as standard operating procedure. Did Patton leave men behind to make battles with the German army more "fair" during his push across Europe?

Of course, one has to wonder whether we'd hear the same rhetoric about fighting fair if Israel were among the weakest of Middle Eastern countries, instead of being one of the strongest. The prevalence of anti-Israel rhetoric among the Left seems to indicate that most Liberals wouldn't shed a tear over the fate of an occupied -- or destroyed -- Israel. 

The Israelis did everything they reasonably could to purchase peace with their enemies. They withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. Hizballah, Iran's sock puppet army, used their claim that they had driven Israel out to win political power. Israelis even uprooted their own people and withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, an offshoot of the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al Qaeda, turned the claim that they had forced Israel to leave into a part of their own winning campaign platform. Instead of peace, all Israel got was Hamas firing Qassam rockets from one direction and Hizballah firing Iranian Katyushas from the other. Finally, both Hamas and Hizballah began conducting raids right into Israel itself. What could the Israelis do, if not fight back? No one who condemns Israel's response seems to offer a reasonable alternative.

This fight was never about land, occupation or peace, as the world should finally be able to see. This has always been about the destruction of Israel, pure and simple. Israel's enemies chose this fight. There is no "proportional response" to the threat of a nation's utter destruction.

The timing of this flare-up was no accident, either. Iran was facing UN sanctions over their refusal to halt their nuclear program, and needed as much time as they could buy in which to develop a bomb. If Iran's leaders ordered Hizballah to attack on the heels of Israel's reprisal against Hamas incursions, they have sacrificed a rook for nothing. Israel struck back, with a determination to crush Hizballah that surprised that group's leaders.

Those behind Hizballah's attack must have been even more surprised when most Arab nations refrained from using the opportunity to attack Israel again, even rhetorically. Consider what happened at an emergency meeting of the Arab League. Despite attempts by Lebanon and Syria to condemn Israel for attacking Hizballah on Lebanese soil, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and several other Middle Eastern countries chastised Hizbollah for "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts"... which is more than most of the mainstream media can do. Perhaps they (Middle Eastern nations, not the media) are capable of learning from their repeated failures. 

Maybe they've simply grown weary of backing the terrorists in their fight to return the world to the 7th century. It's not going to happen, although they can (and do) make the world a pretty miserable place sometimes. More likely, most Arab nations simply don't want to be dominated by Iran. Now that Saddam can no longer provide a check on Iran's ambitions, it may be that at least some Arabs fear Iran more than they hate America. Removing Saddam from power may have been the first step in dismantling Arab support for terrorism, after all.

Negotiating with Hizballah is not a valid option, unless we want the terrorists to gain legitimacy while remaining a danger to innocent people. The main item on the terrorists' wish list is the destruction of Israel, which happens to be about the only thing Israel hasn't already offered them. If Israel expands the war to the north of Lebanon in order to stop Syria from supporting Hizballah, Syria may become directly involved... and then, so might we. If Israel decides to halt their offensive, their best move would be to create a terrorist-free "buffer zone" inside Lebanon, then turn it over to the Lebanese military backed up by NATO... but not UN "peacekeepers." If they do pull back, however, Israel will merely gain a breathing space, after which Hizballah will return with even more Iranian support.

The UN failed to respond to Hizballah's disregard of UNSC resolution #1559, in which Hizballah was ordered to disarm or be disarmed by Lebanon. Hizballah's response: "By whom?" Lebanon's reponse: "Err... they must have meant some other Lebanon." Hizballah was so cowed by the UN's demand that they imported approximately 13,000 Katyusha rockets to fire into Israel. The presence of UN peacekeepers would be more likely to encourage Hizballah to tighten its grip on Lebanon than retreat from it.

The UN and other Leftists demand that Israel and Hizballah simply cease fighting, as though that's a solution. They seem to think that peace is merely the absence of war, instead of the absence of enmity. Returning to the status quo, in which Hizballah (and Hamas) attack Israel at will while Israel is practically forbidden to defend itself, is not an option. At least, not if Israel intends to survive. And after fighting for their survival for nearly sixty years, no one should doubt their intention to do just that.

The split this conflict has caused among Middle Eastern nations is nothing less than an opportunity to dismantle some of the world's worst terrorist groups one by one, instead of facing a united terror network backed by every country in the region. It would be a shame to squander that opportunity by allowing the Left to dictate our response. If we're serious about the War on Terror, we should back Israel all the way to Damascus... or even Tehran.