Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Olmert's war, and the next one
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When Israel answered the Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers with air strikes on Lebanon's airport, runways, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, buses, apartment houses and power plants, we who questioned the wisdom and morality of what Israel was doing were denounced as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.

Turns out we were right. In private, even Israeli army generals were raging that Israel was fighting a stupid, losing war.

Ehud Olmert, who gave Chief of Staff Dan Halutz the green light to launch the shock-and-awe air campaign, cannot survive the moral, political and strategic disaster his country has suffered.

While the Israeli Air Force was hammering Lebanon, Hezbollah rained down 3,000 rockets on Israel and fought off pinprick raids. When the Israeli army, after a month, moved in force against the real enemy, Hezbollah, Israel had already suffered irreparable damage to its reputation as a fighting nation and a moral country.

As the war began, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the war. But with Hezbollah's defiant resistance, as Israel smashed up Lebanon, the Arab street rallied to Nasrallah. Arab regimes followed.

The losers?

Lebanon, which suffered 800 dead, thousands injured and 1 million made refugees, saw its infrastructure destroyed and nation set back 20 years. If the government falls or Lebanon becomes a failed state, it will be an even greater calamity for the Lebanese, and for Israel and the Middle East. For the mightiest political and military force in Lebanon, and likely heir apparent to power slipping away from Prime Minister Siniora, is now Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah.

Says Walid Jumblatt, savage critic of Hezbollah and its Syrian alliance, "Hassan Nasrallah has won militarily and politically, and has become a new leader like Nasser."

Another loser is Israel, and Olmert, who seized on the border skirmish to launch his Lebanon war. Writes Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz:

"Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeats and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close and then say, oops, I made a mistake."

Olmert and Halutz are history. The Kadima Party regime will fall. Left and right are already tearing at its flanks.

What does this mean? The Sharon-Olmert policy of unilateral withdrawal from the territories is dead. The Hamas-led Palestinian authority, the creation of the freest and fairest elections ever held in Palestine, is on a death watch, after Israel's starvation blockade and ravaging of the Gaza Strip, which has left 150 Palestinians dead.

A new Israeli regime will not withdraw from any more land, nor shut down any more settlements, nor vacate any part of Jerusalem, nor negotiate with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, or by a PLO that is unable to disarm Hamas. We are at dead end, as George W. Bush will not push the Israelis to do anything, nor will Congress. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Merrygoboy, I agree we need to do something soon.

Regarding the Constitution, you are 100% correct as far as the U.S. Federal government went. It was the states that had state religions until 1833, religious tests for office, denied atheists the right to testify under oath because they didn't believe in God, thus the oath was no threat to them.

The states funded the state religions with tax money. The reason that the Federal government was denied this is because there were different state religions. Congregationalists didn't want to risk the Federal government supporting the Anglican and vs. versa. "Pluralism" didn't exist in the state as much as in the nation for a few decades after the Constitution was ratified but even when it did, the pluralism was not of different religions but different denominations of the same religion. As stated, you had to be a Christian to hold office in many places and a member in good standing of the Community church. Some of this was written and other was simply carried out by the will of the voters who all went to the same church and wouldn't vote for someone of another faith or in some cases, denomination of the Christian faith.

Remember that the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution didn't apply to the states on 1st amendment and article 6. Even as late as 1833 the Supreme Court said it didn't because the states have their own Constitution to protect rights and set the limits the people of the state want. For 175 years the first amendment wasn't applied to states on religious issues, nor the press, nor speech. States were free to and did, limit speech and press though their Constitutions protected speech and press that was "respectful" in its protests of anything. The restrictions were in the type of language used, not the topic. Thus, profane, slanderous, and obscene language was restricted. Religion was open to influence government and did. Religious displays, prayer, oaths on the Bible, religious holidays and hundreds of religious laws were common in all states including the ban of certain business operation on Sunday. (Blue laws).

Even today, we are not a very diverse population in number. About 82% in 2002 (down from 84% in 1996) claimed Christianity as their base religion but we have something like 2,000 denominations, I read. I suppose many of them are independent "non denominational" churches like the one I belong to but still, there is diversity even though they share a core belief and usually a common bond in the Biblical teachings. Those with "no preference" number about 11%.
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

Religion still has great influence in some states as we see in some of the State sanctity of marriage issues. However, much is also changing. If we continue down the road of NAFTA and CAFTA, I believe we will join Europe in its decline. I love how France is complaining Irelands low taxes aren't fair because business and investment is leaving France for Ireland which went from welfare nation with 120% national debt, to 2nd wealthiest in Europe with 27% national debt with all the extra tax revenues lower taxes created.

But, it isn't "the religion" as much as the unifying nature of common values in a nation's population that make it strong. Multiculturalism may be well intended but it seems that when done in the manner we and Europe attempt to do it, it becomes a weakening and not strengthening factor. Diversity is important but so are common values and expectations.

Pat makes compelling points.
I agree with Buchanan here. Hezbollah has emerged stronger from this altercation. The only caveat to this would be if the Lebanese people themselves concluded the actions of Hezbollah in attacking Israel were responsible for the destruction of much of southern Lebanon. To date I see no evidence of this. In fact, from what I have gleaned from television broadcasts, most Lebanese blame Israel for this, not Hezbollah. It is what it is. There is widespread sympathy for Hezbollah among many Lebanese. Maybe part of the reason why is at least 60% of Lebanese are Muslim, and overwhelmingly Shia. Why should we be surprised there is sympathy for Hezbollah there?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.