American conservative commentator Mark Levin sharply criticized diplomatic efforts involving Hezbollah, questioning the exclusion of Israel and Lebanon from negotiations and condemning the role of outside mediators.
"Has anybody ever heard of a negotiation where the two countries directly affected, Israel and Lebanon, are left out of the negotiation?" Levin wrote, referring to what he described as a Hezbollah renewal negotiation involving Qatar, Pakistan, and the United States.
Levin argued that the outcome of such talks would be imposed on both countries and asked, "Have we ever forced a democratic ally to endanger its own citizens by supporting a terrorist organization that has murdered Americans?"
"Honestly, this is an abomination. What kind of bull***** is this," he continued.
Levin accused the negotiators of undermining Israel's security interests and strengthening Iran's influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah.
"Even worse, we are smearing Israel for refusing to abandon its security, we ensure Iran’s control over Lebanon via Hezbollah, and we have done absolutely nothing over the 45 year period Hezbollah has slaughtered Americans," he wrote. "Only Israel has. Why are we helping Hezbollah? Pure appeasement to Iran."
He also questioned the involvement of Qatar and Pakistan in the negotiations.
"And why the hell are Qatar and Pakistan lead negotiators?" Levin asked. He described the two countries as "corrupt, brutal, terror-tied regimes with ties to Iran and hate for Israel."
Levin further claimed that the reported arrangement was "certainly far worse than Obama’s nuclear deal."
"I can’t think of another time in American history where we’ve done anything as preposterous as this," he wrote. "Israel must completely reject it. For its country’s security AND ours!"
He added, "Qatar and Pakistan are doing a better job representing Iran than we are supporting our ally."
Levin also questioned whether congressional Republicans would support the effort. "I wonder how many congressional Republicans support this? No way this escapes scrutiny. Something is going on here that stinks to high heaven," he wrote.
Concluding his remarks, Levin argued that public support for the initiative would be low if its details were widely understood. "If the public were actually polled on specific major parts of this, like the above lunacy, and it was explained, the polls would be in the toilet."