Memo to the Australian (and indeed, international media).
When large groups of people protest with signs saying, "Israel is a cancer that must be destroyed" and "Victory for Hezbollah", believe it or not, these people are not "anti-war".
They're pro-Hezbollah - that is, pro-war, but just for the other side.
Similar point raised by Gerard Henderson in the SMH, at the absurdity of these "peace rallies".
Meanwhile, Stephen Pollard identifies China's fingerprints on the whole mess, and Scott Burgess wonders why the Independent and the Guardian are shilling for genocidal imperialists.
All the while, Israeli Arabs say Finish off Nasarallah
Posted by Quentin George at August 8, 2006 09:25 PMI had to point out last night to a passionate uni student that Israel isn't fighting Lebanon, per se, they're fighting Hezbollah. I am correct, aren't I? From what I can gather, Hezbollah is Lebanon's answer to the IRA.
I also sad that I highly doubt a country, such as Israel, will give a damn if a bunch of middle-class brats are protesting in Oz. Still, I think Israel may have opened a large can of worms. What is their goal? To blow Lebanon up until the last remaining Hezbollah dies? Surely that won't achieve anything. The hydra problem.
Posted by: Engels at August 9, 2006 04:42 PMP.S. I like the Orwellian reference in your post title.
Posted by: Engels at August 9, 2006 04:44 PMCorrect. Israel has no interest in fighting Lebanon, since Lebanon poses no threats to Israel's existance.
Hezbollah is a different matter altogether, and, yes, it can be likened to the IRA, except ratchet up the religious intolerance a few notches and through in some good old fashioned racial bigotry.
Posted by: Aidan at August 9, 2006 05:11 PM