Mark Brumley takes on the accusation by one of the writers at the First Things blog, that Benedict’s words imply moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel:

In any case, Professor Miller concludes with a different point: that following the pope’s appeal will amount to giving Hezbollah what it wants. He bases his judgment on comments Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, made in an interview:

Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine…. The victory that we are talking about-If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory. If Lebanon is not humiliated, if its honor and dignity remain intact, if Lebanon continues to face all alone the strongest military force in the region, and if it perseveres and refuses to accept any humiliating terms in the settlement of this issue-this will be a victory. If we are not militarily defeated, this will be a victory. As long as a single missile is launched from Lebanon to target the Zionists, as long as a single fighter fires his gun, as long as someone plants an explosive device for the Israelis, this means that the resistance still exists.

Concludes Professor Miller:  "So, although this is not Benedict’s intention, if he gets the ceasefire he wants, he will have contributed to what Hezbollah sees as a military victory over Israel."

Or at least to what the spin machine of Hezbollah says it would see as a military victory over Israel.  In any event, are we to suppose that unless Israel completely obliterates Hezbollah, humiliates Lebanon, completely incapacitates any hostile forces in Lebanon, including the ability of a "single fighter" to fire his gun, Hezbollah will be able to claim a military victory over Israel? And if so, is Israel justified in doing whatever is necessary to stop Hezbollah from achieving any such victory, including annihilating huge portions of the civilian population?