Apologists for genocide planners, Part I

August 23rd, 2006
Email This Post  Print This Post  

At what point does naïvete descend into psychosis? Two naifs of the Opposition parties, Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj and NDPer Peggy Nash, went on a “fact-finding” tour of Lebanon, viewed the area’s busted-up buildings with the requisite horror and declared that Canada ought to play a role in promoting “negotiations” with Hezbollah. To facilitate that, they suggested, Hezbollah should be removed from Canada’s list of prohibited terrorist organizations.

Although at yesterday’s party caucus meeting a few senior Liberals clucked their disapproval, it was less over the substance of this position than that the “freelancing” (as leadership candidate and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae called it) was harming the party’s image. You can always spot the liberal in a poli-sci crowd: any issue, no matter how broad or how foreign, boils down to domestic partisan politics.

Iran’s maskirova (as the Soviet’s [Aug. 25/06 CORRECTION: should read "Soviets"; thanks to alert reader Scott H. for pointing out the Stupidism] used to call it) – Hezbollah operatives and their Iranian handlers were no doubt delighted at finding another two willing Western dupes to add to their already voluminous roster. It was perhaps expected of a post-modern NDPer. But Wrzesnewskyj, who is apparently of Eastern European heritage, might appreciate something not merely of totalitarianism in general, but of the numerous mechanisms and means it uses to mask its true nature.

Apparently not, given that Wrzesnewskyj directed his accusations that “terrible crimes were committed” at Israel.

So, a brief primer. Hezbollah is a grotesque organization. It’s goal is the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews. In fact, its various officials and Iranian sponsors have delighted in devising new formulations of how and why they want to go about this. The organization is almost certainly unreformable.

Hezbollah’s “political” and “social” wings are, to upend Clausewitz’s dictum-cum-cliché, mere “war by other means” fronts. They are designed to normalize the deformed, divert a gullible public’s attention from the group’s real objectives, and incrementally advance its agenda between rounds of combat.

Western audiences seem to have genuine difficulty in distinguishing between Israel, a duly constituted state with a democratic government and a seat at the United Nations that sometimes kills civilians by mistake, and Hezbollah, a militia-within-a-failed-state that, before 9-11, had racked up the largest body count of any of the world’s terrorist organizations, and that habitually targets civilians for death (and deliberately places its own supporters and innocent third parties in harm’s way).

Interestingly, the Israelis are also using the term “maskirova”, as this French article points out.

A Canadian analogy – If you still can’t see what’s wrong with that, let’s try a Canadian analogy. Hezbollah’s situation would be analogous to a Canadian political party – we won’t name any in particular – having (and being directed by) a heavily-armed private militia that outgunned the Canadian forces, was directed by (let’s say) China, controlled (let’s say) all of the Maritimes and mounted periodic violent incursions into Maine, where it murdered loggers and kidnapped state troopers.

Weird, huh? But for Canada’s situation to be as grotesque as the actual Lebanon of today, the Conservative government would have to declare that, since Canuck-bollah was a private illegal militia, its actions did not reflect the policies nor were the responsibility of Canada.

At the same time, prime minister Stephen Harper would have to stand up and declare with self-righteous indication that, his previous stance notwithstanding, any attempt by the U.S. to retaliate would be a gross violation of Canadian sovereignty and an attack on the Canadian state and the Canadian people. Because, of course, Canuck-bollah was a part of the Canadian government and a wing of the Canadian Forces, making Canada’s Governor-General its commander-in-chief. Any resultant casualties or infrastructure damage to Canada would be purely the fault of the United States.

Bizarre as it seems, I can see a certain segment of the Canadian population actually falling for that.

Blogmarks BlogLines del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google Reader Magnolia Yahoo! MyWeb Newsgator reddit SlashDot StumbleUpon Technorati