When Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, it also issued a warning: Any cross-border provocations by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group, would elicit a severe military response. So there can be no surprise at the violent reaction to Hezbollah's ambush of an Israeli patrol Wednesday, in which three soldiers were killed and two others taken captive by the guerrillas. And there can be no doubt that Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's chief sponsors, bear responsibility for what has instantly become the most far-reaching, lethal and dangerous eruption of cross-border fighting in the Middle East in recent years.Hizbollah does not commit terrorist acts, it just provokes, using a word favored by The New York Times.
The editorial does note "the dozens of rockets" that Hizbollah fired at Israel and notes that those who criticize Israel's response tend not to mention them. On a side note, it seems that the Washington Post is as shy about the word 'missile' as it is about the word 'terrorist'. Is Israel the only country in the Middle East that actually has missiles?
The Post also rightly pinpoints Syria and Iran as the force behind Hizbollah and as the ones that should be targeted by pressure and sanctions from the West.
But because the Washington Post does not have the stomach to call terrorism by it's name and back the necessary action, they sound as if they are talking about neighborhood bullies:
The Post condemns Hizbollah for "its wild irresponsibility" (oh, those crazy Hizbollah kids) and figures at best they will be "punished politically at home" (no playing with rockets for a week). Iran should be "called to account" by the UN Security Council (Hizbollah gets punished at home and Iran gets a stern talking-to), because they "instigated the current fighting".
When will they ever learn?
The Washington Post, that is.