Evil, the Sequel: Who Wears the Jackboots?

From a CP report: "Jason Kenney (a Tory MP) says the fact that Hezbollah has a politicial wing doesn't change the fact that it is a terrorist group dedicated to the eradication of Israel. He says Germany in the 1930s had a political party which ran in elections and provided social services but it was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people... There is nothing to negotiate with an organization motivated by hate, he says."

You know, there are those who equate Israel with Nazism too. I don't find that terribly enlightening either. Certainly if one looks at who has actually been crushing other peoples of late, one could say that the jackboot is on the other foot these days, but there are levels of oppression that are not quite as bad as that carried out by the Nazis. As for Hezbollah being like the Nazis- if Hezbollah had the power to do to Israel what Israel has just done to Lebanon, I'd be more worried. What capacity does Hezbollah actually have to destroy Israel? None. The only valid point in Kenney's statement is that being a political party doesn't stop a political organization from being hate-filled and perncious. But is there really nothing to talk about with Hezbollah? Simply equating them with the Nazis is not an argument, anymore than equating Israel with Nazi Germany is.

Even worse, Kenney says that "the decision by three opposition MPs - a Liberal, a New Democrat and a Bloc member - to visit Lebanon this week offers political legitimacy to Hezbollah. " Not only do we not have anything to talk about with Hezbollah, we apparently have nothing to discuss with the Lebanese, nor need we concern ourselves about looking at the consequences for them of Israel's attack on them. Nice.

Meanwhile, Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has distanced himself from the Liberal MP who was with the visiting delegation of MP`s (Borys Wrzesnewskyj), saying:

"I think that you can't sanction violence. We have to operate according to principles and one of the principles is not to acknowledge bodies that will not abide by basic human rights and international law," Kennedy said.

Really? Surely this "principle" would lead to us not recognizing Israel- and I am against not recognizing Israel, by the way. Do I really need to trot out all the examples of Israel`s human rights and international law violations? Furthermore, we could also not, as a matter of principle, recognize China, Syria, Iran, and...the United States. As for "not sanctioning violence", allow me a moment to break into derisive laughter- unless Kennedy is a strict pacifist he is talking gibberish. If to recognize a body was to sanction its violence, then our mere recognition of a country like Israel (or the United States) as a legitimate body would sanction all its acts of violence. I`m not into realpolitik. I am into dealing with the reality of how the world actually is, and not getting diverted by"principles" that no one has any serious intention of applying across the board, and which are therefore not principles at all, but rather a whole lot of rhetorical hot air.