Ignatius maddeningly refers to the Hezbollah war of 
    extermination against Israel as "the horrifying dance of 
    death between Israel and its enemies[.]" He asks: "Are 
    there terms under which Islamic militants might agree to 
    halt their suicide bombings?" The answer is negative, 
    which should suggest even to a moderately intelligent 
    observer that Israel is not exactly engaged in a war of 
    choice -- contrary to Ignatius's metaphor -- with 
    Nasrallah and his ilk.

    If you were invited to speak to a conference of genocidal 
    murderers, what would you do? David Ignatius is a 
    columnist for the Washington Post who doesn't appear to 
    have agonized much over the question. 

    In his column today -- "Hezbollah's success" -- he 
    resolves the question in favor of taking advantage of the 
    opportunity. When invited to speak to a Hezbollah 
    conference in Beirut on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 
    he "accepted -- on the theory that it was a chance to 
    learn about the group and that more information, even 
    about alleged terrorists, is better than less." 

    It isn't clear to me from his column why Ignatius refers 
    to Hezbollah as "alleged terrorists." Is it so that he can
    observe terminological neutrality between murderers and 
    their victims, or because he has some doubt whether 
    Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? The rest of his 
    column shows Hezbollah to be a cold-blooded advocate of 
    terrorism -- "'martyrdom operations,' as Hezbollah prefers
    to call them" -- and Ignatius must know that the group 
    practices what it preaches.