harry rakowski: a tale of two wars and western hypocrisy
both the war in ukraine and israel's war against iran's proxies are essential to defeat the enemies of democracy. why can't the west see this?
5 minute read
left: israeli soldiers take up position in kfar aza, in the south of israel, bordering gaza strip on oct. 10, 2023. right: ukrainian soldiers fire towards russian positions outside bakhmut on nov. 8, 2022, amid the russian invasion of ukraine.
thomas coex / bulent kilic / afp via getty images
there are two parallel wars currently being conducted against enemies of our democratic ideals and freedoms. one has most of the world’s blessing and the other, all too often, has its condemnation. the war in ukraine has nato powers aligned behind that country’s attempt to defend itself against russia’s illegal invasion. russian president vladimir putin, a despotic dictator, has tried to overthrow an elected government and bring ukraine under his thumb in an attempt to restore the past glory of the soviet union. his aggressive bombing campaign has relentlessly targeted civilians and energy infrastructure in order to break the will of the ukrainian people.
the u.s. and europe have rallied behind ukraine, supplying it with well over $100 billion in weapons and materiel. there is lingering concern that if ukraine falls, then neighbouring countries are at greater risk of being subjugated as well. after two and a half years of brutal fighting, hundreds of thousands of deaths and widespread devastation, the war is stalemated with no path to victory in sight for either side. russia and putin have survived economic sanctions, huge casualties, an internal insurrection and pariah status for their oligarchs. their war is being funded by the cheap energy paid for by china and india.
advertisement
the israeli war against hamas and hezbollah, both widely considered terrorist organizations, is also essential to preserving democracy, but has a very different public narrative. israel, despite suffering the brutal october 7 massacre of 1,200 people, the taking of 240 hostages, the incessant firing of rockets by hezbollah and existential threats from iran, is widely seen by all too many as the aggressor.
israel was forced into a war because it can’t accept having terrorist groups that call for its destruction threatening both its southern and northern borders and attacking it at will with thousands of rockets. israel has destroyed most of hamas’s fighting force and much of its infrastructure, but at great cost due to hamas’s disregard for the life of gazan civilians. the war that israel has to win has drawn the censure of world opinion.
israel has now decimated multiple levels of hezbollah leadership in lebanon, including senior commanders and ultimately their supreme leader, hassan nasrallah, who had predicted israel’s demise rather than his own. the attacks have been targeted and civilians have been warned to evacuate areas where they are at risk. yet the world’s reaction has again been very different than that to the war in ukraine. the focus has been on images of destruction and civilian casualties rather than on the benefit of taking out terrorist leaders who threaten us all.
advertisement
leon panetta, a democrat and a former director of the cia, called israel’s brilliant exploding pager attack, which selectively targeted hezbollah fighters, an act of “terrorism.” how can an american call a targeted and strategic attack on potential terrorists whose goal is to exterminate you an act of terrorism? how can he regret that an organization that murdered hundreds of americans should have so many of its fighters disabled in a clever way that minimized civilian casualties? how can he and others not appreciate how iran has been cowed by the threat to its influence? israel’s broader actions may potentially trigger uprisings in lebanon and iran in which radical islam will be denounced and peace, prosperity and hopefully democracy restored.
at the recent vote at the united nations, why did the united states, france and the u.k. all support a 21-day truce with hezbollah in order to avoid further escalation, without fully condemning hezbollah’s terrorism? why call for a ceasefire now, when hezbollah needs to be crippled and pushed back to the border it agreed to in 2006, but which it never lived up to? soon after the 2006 ceasefire, it violated that agreement and deployed troops south of the litani river, entrenching bunkers that could be used for offensive attacks. unifil, the un’s interim peacekeeping force in lebanon, has done nothing to stop hezbollah’s ongoing attacks. so why should israel listen to un secretary-general antonio guterres as he proposes an immediate ceasefire that again has no hope of containing hezbollah?
advertisement
the double standard of supporting ukraine and demonizing israel is all the more disturbing when we consider hezbollah’s goal. nasrallah, before his death, spoke about how he would fight israel. he said, “the jews are vulnerable because they love life. we can take that away from them. we will win because they love life and we love death.” this is the motto of hezbollah, hamas and their masters in iran. they seek death to all jews and ultimately all non-believers, including those in the west. the death of their own people however, elevates them to martyrhood. nasrallah paid for this philosophy with his life.
israel understands that the war has to disable hezbollah’s ability to attack and fire rockets at will, to allow for the return to northern israel of 65,000 displaced israeli citizens. america has finally become more supportive of this aim. but as free press columnist eli lake said: america’s support for israel is “like a hug that comes with handcuffs.” in canada, our response has been handcuffs without the hugs.
there are some wars that have to be fought because the consequences of not doing so are much worse. in the 1930s the world learned the lesson of those who promoted appeasement rather than fighting an enemy that had neither morals nor mercy. british prime minister neville chamberlain thought that he could appease hitler and avoid war until germany invaded poland in 1939. winston churchill knew better. he said, “an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.”
advertisement
iran can’t be appeased. israel may be prevented from going after iran’s nuclear facilities or its military sites for now … however a confrontation is inevitable. hopefully the world will come to realize that only with the destabilization of iran’s current radical theocracy will we find security and will people find peace and prosperity.
we can take comfort in nasrallah’s death and hope that his killing degrades hezbollah’s and iran’s reach. however, jews also mourn the cost to the women and children he put in harm’s way, who had to die as “martyrs” for him.
the anniversary of october 7 provided an opportunity to reflect on the horrors of the atrocities committed and the cost in human life that it inevitably led to. as nasrallah said, jews do love life much more than death. war is often the last resort, but sometimes the only resort. we have learned the lesson of the holocaust. when murderers do as they say they would, we have no choice but to do everything we can to prevent them from doing it again.
national post
share story
