Saturday, August 05, 2006

Hezbollah are people too

Sometimes I find its easier to respond to certain comments on the front page. If you've been following, kevvyd takes exception to the use of the word 'evil' to describe Hezbullah. He says:

To me, what I call "evil" says as much about me as it does about the creature /object/behaviour that I have decried, therefore the term is itself is too subjective to be really useful.
Later in the comment secition of my post, kevvyd quotes me, emphasizing my use of the word 'belief' when I call Hezbullah evil -- as though believing is a no-no in a political discussion, rather than the basis of one. Everything we state on these blogs represents our beliefs. Opinion pieces on blogs mean we recognise that our understanding world events is not an exact science -- but if were to refrain from posting our beliefs we would be news aggregators parroting stale information.

Calling them evil might make you feel better and might even make it easier to do evil things to them in return, but ultimately that just produces more evil.
It doesn't make me feel better to say Hezbullah is evil, it simply means I'm being honest and not allowing myself to cajoled into couching my words in warm-and-fuzzy terms like 'fundamental reasons' and 'root causes' or pretending that these viscious thugs have been driven to this by something that Israel has done (other than existing).

Do you really believe that good and evil are merely in the eye of the beholder? Do you seriously think that sort of moral relativity and ethical equivalency are helpful?

Why are people so afraid of the word 'evil'? Is it because it conjures up religious imagery? kevvyd has said that he objects because the word is subjective, but all judgements are subjective -- it's when we make them relative that makes them useless -- subjectivity is the object of commentary.

Evil is pure immorality (cruelty, violence, ruthless, savagery, depravity, absence of sympathy). It isn't by accident, or without forethought. Evil is repetative, sustained immorality by choice with no positive or constructive goal -- and therein, to my mind, lies the difference between Israel and the terrorists. One can judge whether Israel has a moral right to respond to assaults-- some people believe that all violence, even in self-defence is wrong -- but I think most people would also say they can identify with, and understand the use of violence in response to violence when the underlying motivation of the response is not simply an expression of hatred.

I don't have difficulty with the use of the word evil when describing Hizbollah or Hamas. They and their ilk are violence personified. They initiate, they don't respond. They attack, they don't defend. They are aggressors, not victims. Their aspirations can only succeed when Israel ceases to exist -- not even because they want the land, or because of some long ago perceived injustices -- there is no reason -- just blind hatred and a desire to see Israel gone. That is their purpose and they are proud of it and I won't pretend they and their actions are as you put it: "simply a tactic, it is a method of organizing and waging war - no more evil than that."

Kevvyd went on to say:
Furthermore, the retaliatory attacks by Israel on civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon has created more Hezbollah than existed before -people will rally when facing an outside invader
Hezbollah is the aggressor, the instigator, the ignitor -- the outside invader -- for six years since Israel withrew from the buffer-zone that provided some protection against attacks, Hezbollah has been randomly launching rockets into Israel's towns and cities.

It is the Israelis who have finally rallied against the relentless and unpredictable attacks launched from the very territory they held for nearly two decades in order to prevent this sort of assault. Their withdrawl from Lebanon was on the understanding that Hezbollah would be disarmed and the government would take control of the southern territory -- not only did that not happen -- Hezbollah is officially part of Lebanese government, and the Lebanese PM Siniora's ceasefire plan includes the same old promises -- and the possible 'integration' of the radicals from Hezbollah into the regular Lebanese army.

A negotiated settlement would be nice, but based on history it won't be honoured by Hezbollah. There will be more concessions required of Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah will continue to pick at old wounds to see what festers. Israel's aim is to defend itself and prevent future attacks -- but the 'invasion' is not an invasion to grasp territory or resources -- it is to push back an armed militia whose proximity to the border presents no other choice. The Syrian backed conditions for cease fire open up another front where Hezbullah or some other terrorist organisation can set up a staging-ground and start launching their missles for a new and yet to be determined reason.

As kevvyd suggested earlier, Hezbollah might have some mundane nationalistic goals like borders or territory -- but their main objective is not peace, which is why when the present crisis is over, Hezbollah and Hamas will announce new problems to blame Israel for and more excuses to renew terrorist attacks targeting Israeli civilians.

If their aims are mundane and nationalistic, and terror is just a tactic of war -- then Hezbollah and Hamas truly are evil. Rather than build up their societies, they have chosen to create havoc in another -- what is more evil than destroying your own people, body and soul, in an endless and ruthless attempt to destroy someone else?



Anonymous said...

Lets not overlook the Elephant in the room, Islam is at the base of these 2 terrorist group and Canada has it's share of Middle East supporters that want to bring the hate and evil here to cause division.
Pro-Hezbollah rallies are going on right here in Montreal and Toronto , our Priminster has been threatened and one Muslim said that Canadian flags may be next to be burned if we keep supporting a UN member democracy in the Middle east.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for this forum and your comment.

ALERT: Check out Michelle Malkin's site Aug.4th post where she explains significance of date of Aug.22nd in the minds of Islamic fundamentalists.

Iran has stated on that date it will give answer to UNSC re uranium enrichment.

PelaLusa said...

Good for you to not back down! Sadly, it has become apparent - if polls are any judge - that people like you & I are in the 32% minority here in Kanuckistan.

I refer back to something I posted a short while ago:

"If the Arabs in the Middle East were to lay down their arms tomorrow, there'd be peace. If the Israelis were to do it, they'd be wiped out."

Anyone who disputes the obvious truth of this statement is not being at all honest with themself.

As for the "mainstream" Canadian, I have only disdain. This is a serious time and it requires serious voices, not namby-pamby, wishy-washy politically correct rhetoric.

If you'd like to hear a brilliant, albeit sarcastic, take on the typical neutral, don't-dare-to-offend-anyone Canadian view then go here: and "tune" to Sat, Aug. 5th at 8am. When Windows Media Player appears, move the time selector to 35 minutes after the hour.

bob said...

Yes, Hezbollah may be people, too, but there is such a thing as evil, despite the efforts of your commenter to deny it. Generally speaking, those who hold to no fixed standard of right and wrong are among the first to deny the existence of evil. This is the crux of the problem -- the condescending, holier-than-thou sorts who preach tolerance, except for those who believe in certain immutable moral standards. There's no tolerance for us, eh?
Hope you're doing well. Been busier than all-get-out, typical summertime rush.

Linda said...

Thank you for responding so eloqently to kewyd's moral equivocation, Canadi-anna - you've saved me the trouble. Wisdom is a prerequisite to the discernment of good and evil. And as Bob points out, it is only possible to acquire this wisdom and make judgments of this sort if one actually believes in the existence of moral absolutes to begin with. As the Roman philocopher Seneca said, "Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering."

Ancient Clown said...

I describe "EVIL" as 'Live Backwards' & "LOVE" as the beginning of 'EVOLution'...but then I also say;
"I don't think I know...I just know I'm thinking."
your humble servant,
Ancient Clown

Infidel protecting family in anonimity said...

Thanks Canadianna.

Here's some more gris for the mill.