The analogy is not correct

Submitted by Prashant, Sep 22, 2017 at 08:31

Dear Dr Pipes,

our dear Debanjan Banerjee has tried to draw an analogy. He says, "that if Israel (and the US) are going to support the ISIS against Iran then Iran is justified to give support to the Hezbollah since as long as Israel has to deal with a strong Hezbollah on the Lebanon border, Israel will not be able to divert the resources to fight Iran."

Mr Banerjee's analogy is misplaced. While I do not like the idea of any one supporting ISIS or Iran against anyone (because they both are bad), I can understand if someone chooses to support one against the other. If you must support one or the other, you can basically toss a coin: Heads you can support Iran and tails you can support ISIS and either way you will not gain much.

The choice between Hezbullah and Israel is clear. For most normal people in the world, there should be no reason to support Hezbullah against Israel. Even if we grant that Israel resorts to excesses and violence against those who attack it, Israel is a democratic country and it offers a democratic platform to negotiate with anyone who seeks peace. Israel's existence will be under threat if it does not defend itself. Israel's enemies have no threat to their existence. Any country that supports Hezbullah automatically qualifies itself as a rogue nation.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".