Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[russ_watters]

But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence?

I'll say it again: 'give peace a chance' is a slogan, not a course of action. You can't try peace, it either exists or it doesn't. What you can do is try courses of action that can lead to peace. And these courses of action can involve force of arms or diplomacy. So what you are really asking is why doesn't Israel try a nonmilitary course of action?

The answer is, Israel has, tried both military and diplomatic courses of action in attempts to achieve peace. All attempts have failed.

The PA/Hamas/Hezbolla have never tried a non-military course of action aimed at achieving peace. And yes, I recognize that they have sat at bargaining tables before and that there have been truces, but truces are temporary stops of fighting (not peace) and the position taken at the bargaining table has always included the distruction of Israel.

 

[kyleb]

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders.

What do you call Palestine's borders? If you think the Israeli actions in Lebanon are excessive, what do you think about the Muslim world's behaviour towards Israel? Would you call it proportionate? Why is it when Kurds, Shiites, Sunnys, Assyrians are killed by other Arabs it goes unnoticed and when a Jewish state defends itself it's the root of all evil the modern world?

What do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders, surely you must have a reasonable answer for that question yourself?

 

[russ_watters]

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders.

Besides not being a sentence, that is so vague as to be meaningless. Since the borders themselves are in dispute and the most coherent thing the PA and Arab countries say is Israel needs to disappear entirely, Israel can't say it will "fully remove presence" unless everyone in the country decides to commit mass suicide. But Israel has stated that they are willing to withdraw to some negotiated position. They've even gone to the spectacularly unique step of unilaterally withdrawing from some occupied territories.

And the Arabs have not even said they will agree to any peace.

We keep getting back to that: you guys say Israel needs to do more. More is arguable, but what you like to ignore is that the PA/Arabs has/have done nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what coherent peace plans look like: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-25-peace-points_x.htm Please notice step 1:

Phase One: Begins with statements by both sides renouncing violence and affirming the right of the other side to a state.

And therein lies the reason 'peace never gets a chance'. Quite simply, only one side is willing to accept it. The other refuses to renounce violence.

 

[kyleb]

So Russ, specificly, what do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders? I can provide a map for you to mark your opinion on if need be.

 

[devious_]

We keep getting back to that: you guys say Israel needs to do more. More is arguable, but what you like to ignore is that the PA/Arabs has/have done nothing.

That's quite a statement.

By the way, you seem to really enjoy using bold to emphasise your points. I've noticed this in all your posts. I don't want to attack you personally, but it's very annoying.

 

[Yonoz]

Israel had the choice to ask for help too.

Whome?

I'm glad to see you admit that those were just strawmen in your list.

As far as I'm concerned they're all strawmen. They're strawmen because the only way Israeli civilians are safe is if our own government takes care of that.

Now specificly, when and what was the last valid effort Israel made to resolve the problem of Hezbollah by working with UN or UNIFIL officals?

Stop stalling.

Prior to the hostilities of July 2006, Israel had been lobbying for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIFIL#Debate_over_UNIFIL_presence" apprised of incidents across the Blue Line. The incidents are not insubstantial.

No, I'm explaining the strong relationship the whole Muslim world has with the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict.

So regardless of the undeniable realities, does Israel's occupation of the west bank justify Hizbullah's attack?

 

[Yonoz]

What do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders, surely you must have a reasonable answer for that question yourself?

There never existed a country called Palestine so I really don't know what borders it would have. I consider the "green line" to be a fair settlement.

 

[kyleb]

I thought it was clear that my opinion is that there is no reasonable means besides force. You, not me, are the one claiming a reasonable means exists and so it is up to you to argue that point. You're trying to get me to argue your point for you!

I asked Yonoz for clarification on his claim that Israel pursued reasonable means prior to this attack, and you took issue with my request. I'm not asking you to argue for my point but rather your contest gave me the misunderstanding that you were backing Yonoz's argument, I apologize for my confusion there.

 

[SOS2008]

Worthless liberal B.S. rhetoric. Tell me: how did that work for dealing with Hitler?

When someone wants nothing less than your death, you have a simple choice: kill them or let them kill you.

If you disagree, explain how what you just said can actually be implimented. How exactly can Israel "take away their reason [for anger]" without committing mass suicide? What can they reasonably do? How can Israel provide hope? How does not punishing a criminal help ensure that criminal won't commit the same crime again?

Of course you would see positive idealism as liberal BS. If you read everything I stated, I said that now Hezbollah must be dealt with via force (as well as other rogue militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), just as Hitler had to AFTER years of neglect--or in this case poor policies. Nonetheless, it is never too late to begin efforts toward real change, and I was not referring to just Israel but primarily to U.S. foreign policy, which should show leadership in an international effort and preferably without Christian bias--for a change. Please don't twist my words.

 

[kyleb]

Whome?

As far as I'm concerned they're all strawmen. They're strawmen because the only way Israeli civilians are safe is if our own government takes care of that.

Stop stalling.

That Wiki article you quoted doesn't list a date or much of any detail at all. I asked for specificly, when and what did Israel last pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack; am I to take your response here to mean you do not have an answer for my question?

So regardless of the undeniable realities, does Israel's occupation of the west bank justify Hizbullah's attack?

No, and neither does Hezbollah's attack justify Israel's response.

There never existed a country called Palestine so I really don't know what borders it would have. I consider the "green line" to be a fair settlement.

I consider that fair as well, but I have yet to see Israel offer that much.

 

[Skyhunter]

The reason that the US has not led an effort to end the conflict, is because Rove did a poll of the fundamentalist base and discovered that they want to see Armageddon soon, so they can get on with the rapture.

Seriously though, I don't see this ending until Israel is satisfied that Hezbollah is disarmed.

I hope it is soon before other nations get involved.

 

[Anttech]

UN are claiming, that 1/3 of all casualties are children in Beruit. I'll find a source, I just heard this on the News. Absolutley disgusting!

 

[Hurkyl]

How on Earth did you conclude that?

Well, I first heard what they said. I then processed the words to extract meaning, and then I analyzed the meaning to extract an impression of what was said. (All automatically, of course)

Aside from your comments, none of what I heard left me with the impression that they were confusing Hezbollah with Lebanon, so therefore I concluded that they're making a clear distinction.

So, since I've heard nothing in the media that confuses Lebanon with Hezbollah, it surprised me that there might be people here who cannot make the distinction.


As to the point you didn't bother actually making:

Target hit:
Convoys of civilian Trucks
Airport
Bridges
Roads
Civilian Buildings
Hezbollah hide outs

Since you seem not to be aware of such things...

When in a military conflict, it is a standard objective to disrupt the transportation network your enemy is using.

And Hezbollah is accused both of caching weapons in civilian buildings, and firing weapons from the same.

So, everything you listed would, in fact, be a natural target for a war against Hezbollah.


Even if you are right, and Israel does not distinguish between Lebanon and Hezbollah, the quoted list is not proof.

What a joke. Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebenon is going to enforce the control of the Lebenon goverment?

I'll assume you meant:

"Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebanon will help the Lebanese government gain control?"

Well, there's an obvious factor in favor of it -- the weaker Hezbollah is, the easier it will be for Lebanon to exert control over them. And there's another one -- the more damage Hezbollah causes by provoking wars with Israel, the more pressure Lebanon will feel to stop Hezbollah.

There are, of course, factors working against it. Which will win out is yet to be seen.

But frankly, since Israel is specifically aiming at Hezbollah targets, I find it difficult to believe that Lebanon will be weakened more than Hezbollah will.

I guess the reason you concluded that was because

Nope. In fact, I gave the reason I concluded that in my parenthetical. I thought it was clear what the parenthetical was describing; my mistake.

UN are claiming, that 1/3 of all casualties are children in Beruit. I'll find a source, I just heard this on the News. Absolutley disgusting!

No, the (alledged) fact is not disgusting on its own. Something you are inferring from it is what you find disgusting.

(At least... I hope you haven't been tricked into believing the fact itself is disgusting)

 

[SOS2008]

The reason that the US has not led an effort to end the conflict, is because Rove did a poll of the fundamentalist base and discovered that they want to see Armageddon soon, so they can get on with the rapture.

Seriously though, I don't see this ending until Israel is satisfied that Hezbollah is disarmed.

I hope it is soon before other nations get involved.

Hezbollah is just a current symptom of an ongoing problem. To find a long-term solution, we need to be honest and reasonable about a few things.

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. I believe it is not so simple to just say they want to annihilate Israel. It's much deeper than that. As I said, take away the reason to be (anger, frustration, humiliation, etc.) that has resulted from unbalanced, even racist treatment by the U.S. and Israel. This is due in large part to cultural and religious affinity between the U.S. and Israel. It not only is wrong, it is not logical.

Aside from a powerful Jewish constituency in the U.S., many people like my youngest brother are Christians who believe in the prophecies of the Last Days, and like him most such believers also are neocon Republicans. My brother has argued that he supports Israel over Arab countries because Israel not only is a trusted ally in the region, but most importantly is a democracy. Let's not forget that Arab nations have been and are allies too, and I find it interesting to watch conservatives struggle with the hole in the neocon theory regarding democracy. With the election and declaration of Lebanon as a democracy, they now must show support for a government that includes members of Hamas (oops). And I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I would prefer that U.S. foreign policy not be based on the Rapture and that it was just a laughing matter. I'll bet you the Israelis who are accepting donations for the rebuilding of the Temple Mount think it's ridiculous, but why ruin a good thing?

If people want to be so simplistic or irrational, why not suggest that we just nuke them all (probably what Bush really believes)? We need to be preemptive in our policies, not military might if we want groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Mehdi army, Ansar al-Islam, etc. in Iraq, and of course Al-Qaeda to permanently disappear. As I said, Hezbollah is just another radical militia that is a current symptom of a larger, ongoing problem.

 

[Anttech]

But frankly, since Israel is specifically aiming at Hezbollah targets, I find it difficult to believe that Lebanon will be weakened more than Hezbollah will.

Israel's intelgence isn't all its cracked up to be, many inccocent lifes have been lost and (for the unpteenth time) the infrastructure of Lebenon is being targeted which is crippling the country and thus the goverment.

I'll assume you meant:

"Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebanon will help the Lebanese government gain control?"

Well, there's an obvious factor in favor of it -- the weaker Hezbollah is, the easier it will be for Lebanon to exert control over them. And there's another one -- the more damage Hezbollah causes by provoking wars with Israel, the more pressure Lebanon will feel to stop Hezbollah.

Sorry, but destroying the fabric of Lebenon ,which is what is happening, is not going to strengthen the goverment, its a rediculas statement.

No, the (alledged) fact is not disgusting on its own. Something you are inferring from it is what you find disgusting.

The fact is disgusting what ever I am or I am not inferring is irrelevent.

(At least... I hope you haven't been tricked into believing the fact itself is disgusting)

was this another high brow joke, like your introductory statement in your last post?

 

[Anttech]

Israel may get there charged for war crimes when this is all over:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians... Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable

"I do believe that on the basis of evidence that is available in the public domain there are very serious concerns that the level of civilian casualties, the indiscriminate shelling of cities and so on, on their face raise sufficient questions that I think one must issue a sobering signal to those who are behind these initiatives to examine very closely their personal exposure," she told the BBC.

 

[selfAdjoint]

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. I believe it is not so simple to just say they want to annihilate Israel. It's much deeper than that. As I said, take away the reason to be (anger, frustration, humiliation, etc.) that has resulted from unbalanced, even racist treatment by the U.S. and Israel. This is due in large part to cultural and religious affinity between the U.S. and Israel. It not only is wrong, it is not logical.

I can't really buy that. Hezbollah are Shiites and clients of Iran. Whatever rational issues Iran may have had over Mossadegh and the Shah
are way in the past, and we are their Great Satan just because we're us. LIkewise the Lebanon Shiites are not reacting to anything current, it's just a tradition that formed decades ago and is very carefully taught to young people. Evil Israel and evil US.

I don't think Israel is evil for defending its existence. This saturation attack on the part of Lebanon close to the border sounds like preparation for an invasion. If so, I for one would be hard put to criticze; unlike the US with Iraq, they have neen attacked from that precise location.

 

[Cyrus]

Whatever rational issues Iran may have had over Mossadegh and the Shah
are way in the past, and we are their Great Satan just because we're us.

It's not because of who we are, it's because of what we have done to them. That's another thread entirely though .

 

[Anttech]

I don't have a problem with Israel going for hezbollah. What I have a problem with is that they are completely tearing Lebenon apart! Or as Lebanon PM put it "Lebanon has been torn to shreds".

whats happening is completely disproportionate, Even Annan thinks this and Said it! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199088.stm

Have you seen some of the pictures of beruit? And Hezbollah are unscaved!

 

[Yonoz]

That Wiki article you quoted doesn't list a date or much of any detail at all. I asked for specificly, when and what did Israel last pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack; am I to take your response here to mean you do not have an answer for my question?

Is the security council report not enough for you?

No, and neither does Hezbollah's attack justify Israel's response.

So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?

I consider that fair as well, but I have yet to see Israel offer that much.

That's why it's called negotiations... If there was a sincere response from the Palestinians, most Israelis would support such a concession.

 

[Anttech]

So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?

Yes it absolutly does have the right to defend itself, but not by crippling Lebanon, and killing civilans. Its gone way beyond and anti-terrorism opperation now.

 

[Yonoz]

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. I believe it is not so simple to just say they want to annihilate Israel. It's much deeper than that. As I said, take away the reason to be (anger, frustration, humiliation, etc.) that has resulted from unbalanced, even racist treatment by the U.S. and Israel. This is due in large part to cultural and religious affinity between the U.S. and Israel. It not only is wrong, it is not logical.

You "believe" it? Can you base your belief? Why don't you listen to the NPR shows Astronuc linked to. You'll find this has less to do with Israel and more to do with internal Arab affairs.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes it absolutly does have the right to defend itself, but not by crippling Lebanon, and killing civilans. Its gone way beyond and anti-terrorism opperation now.

You keep making these accusations but you've yet to support any of them. Israel is not targetting civilians or the Lebanese infrastructure.

 

[Astronuc]

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity.

Post 208 on page 14, one will find two links looking at the current situation with Hizbullah.

The US has had an effect of destabilizing the ME - and certainly the policies of the Bush administration have been misguided, incompetent, . . .

Many in the ME see Israel as a proxy for the US, which is just not the case, but Israel certainly gets significant support from the US.

The big issue for Hizbullah is that they backed Syria's occupation of Lebanon and when Syria left, they lost face. Furthermore, the Shiia population is under-represented in the Lebanese government. So the way to regain popularity and flex it's muscle is for Hizbullah to attack Israel, which is what Hizbullah has done. BTW, it was an 'unprovoked' attack.

Israel cannot negotiate with Hizbullah, because there is no good faith on the side of Hizbullah.

As for Israel's response, they really don't have much of choice. Perhaps they need to be more careful, but they are not doing what any other major power has been doing recently - US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia in Chechnya (Putin's comment about Israel over-reaction is absurd and hypocritical - Israel's response in Lebanon is much more restrained than the Russian response in Chechnya).

Over the years, Israel has offered reasonable terms to the Palestinian, but Arafat has sabotaged the process. The current Palestinian Government didn't have chance to do anything constructive by the time Hamas members were elected to the government. The biggest problem for the Palestinians has been the corruption of Arafat's government.

The main fault of Israel has been the settlements in the West Bank.

As for the security wall - that would be entirely unnecessary if it wasn't for the suicide bombers and the complicity of the Palestinian government in allowing terrorists to operate in the territories.

 

[Rach3]

You keep making these accusations but you've yet to support any of them. Israel is not targetting civilians or the Lebanese infrastructure.

Of course they're targeting infrastructure! Bombed roads, bombed bridges, bombed airports, a total blockade - that's "infrastrcture" in my dictionary, and it's causing a humanitarian crisis. Obviously IDF does not target civilians directly (unlike Hizbollah), that's almost tautological.

 

[ukmicky]

Israel may get there charged for war crimes when this is all over:

No they won’t. this is a war so

1. They can’t be charged as long as the action was taken because they honestly believe they are targeting Hezbollah or
2 if steps are taken to prevent the injury or death of the innocent civilian population in the area they are targeting.

Israel is not indiscriminately attacking civilian areas or buildings they are attacking known targets and so if a bomb hits a building and due to collateral damage a civilian is injured or killed then under international law Israel have no case to answer.

Also bearing in mind the second point above Israel are actually dropping leaflets in the areas they are going to attack warning the civilian population of the action they are about to take telling them what they are going to bomb and advising them to leave until the bombing is over .So if they don’t leave (I would wouldn’t you )then its not Israel fault under international law if they are killed , As they say what other country in the world has ever dropped leaflets warning the residents good or bad that they are about to be bombed so get out.

Also the other problem is that Hezbollah are being allowed to masquerade as civilians by the locals in the areas they are organising their attacks from, so what is Israel supposed to do not bomb something that is responsible for killing their civilians because theirs no way to prove that the people they've bombed are Hezbollah and not civilians, its a case of if i allow someone to organise the death of someone else from my house then I'm just as guilty.

I’m sorry but anyone who lives next to a building which is part of an organisation attacking another country and you know that the chances are that it’s going to be bombed and you don’t leave even after reading a leaflet warning you that it is going to be bombed then they deserve what they get.

IT’S SOUNDS NASTY BUT IT’S TRUE

 

[Astronuc]

The Marshall plan required the conquering and unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany before it could begin.

Sort of.

. . . . You can't have a Marshall Plan until you conquer the country that you are going to implement it in.

Not quite. The US did not conquer (of course, it did invade most of them to drive out the German invaders) most of the countries invovled in the Marshall plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The Marshall Plan, known officially following its enactment as the European Recovery Program (ERP), was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for United States Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.

The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states in July 1947.

. . . .

Truman signed the Marshall Plan into law on April 3, 1948, establishing the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) to administer the program. ECA was headed by economic cooperation administrator Paul G. Hoffman. In the same year, the participating countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States) signed an accord establishing a master coordinating agency, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (later called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD), which was headed by Frenchman Robert Marjolin.

The Marshall plan not only involved Germany and Japan, but effectively all of Europe.

Certainly the Marshall plan required an end to the War. One cannot do much economic development while people are blowing up the infrastructure and killing one another.

On the other hand, a Marshall type plan could have been initiated before war, before Hitler came to power, or just after WWI, or before WWI, but the US was not as strong as it was after WWII. And besides, the US was grabbing territory in the Pacific and Central/South America itself.

Sound economic trade and trade policies are among the requirements for global stability, in addition to non-corrupt governments among others. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that has not been the case, and hence the mess we have now.

 

[SOS2008]

Post 208 on page 14, one will find two links looking at the current situation with Hizbullah.

The US has had an effect of destabilizing the ME - and certainly the policies of the Bush administration have been misguided, incompetent, . . .

Many in the ME see Israel as a proxy for the US, which is just not the case, but Israel certainly gets significant support from the US.

The big issue for Hizbullah is that they backed Syria's occupation of Lebanon and when Syria left, they lost face. Furthermore, the Shiia population is under-represented in the Lebanese government. So the way to regain popularity and flex it's muscle is for Hizbullah to attack Israel, which is what Hizbullah has done. BTW, it was an 'unprovoked' attack.

Israel cannot negotiate with Hizbullah, because there is no good faith on the side of Hizbullah.

As for Israel's response, they really don't have much of choice. Perhaps they need to be more careful, but they are not doing what any other major power has been doing recently - US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia in Chechnya (Putin's comment about Israel over-reaction is absurd and hypocritical - Israel's response in Lebanon is much more restrained than the Russian response in Chechnya).

Over the years, Israel has offered reasonable terms to the Palestinian, but Arafat has sabotaged the process. The current Palestinian Government didn't have chance to do anything constructive by the time Hamas members were elected to the government. The biggest problem for the Palestinians has been the corruption of Arafat's government.

The main fault of Israel has been the settlements in the West Bank.

As for the security wall - that would be entirely unnecessary if it wasn't for the suicide bombers and the complicity of the Palestinian government in allowing terrorists to operate in the territories.

By no means am I defending Hezbollah and certainly not attacks that are unprovoked. I agree Israel like any sovereign nation has a right to self defense, but they could have responded in a way less likely to escalate into a wider conflict. Both sides have agendas that are questionable and likely detrimental to the entire world, which is weary of it.

And I agree with much of what you've posted except the comment about reasonable terms and Arafat. I consider Jimmy Carter to be someone well versed in Mideast affairs, and he himself said that had Arafat agreed to the terms, which were not reasonable, Arafat would have been assassinated. But dwelling on this kind of history only gets in the way of finding solutions for the Mideast.

So I would like to redirect my post to the matter of groups such as Hezbollah, and why such groups emerge and are able to gain popularity. The point about corruption is a good point, and a problem particularly in the third world, but it is everywhere on some level, even the U.S. What is fuelling the hatred? Just internal Arab affairs, or generations of propaganda? That plays a part, but that doesn't explain all of it.

The U.S. has had a negative effect in many countries all around the world in an attempt to control local politics for self-serving reasons. In the case of the Mideast there is oil of course, but there also has been growing racism against Arabs and Islam in America. I don't listen to NPR to know this, and it's much more mainstream then racism against Jews has ever been. And all you have to do is look at UN resolutions to see consistent U.S. bias in favor of Israel. Would this upset you if you were Arab? I think it would. The insurgents in Iraq did not emerge and/or gain power until after the U.S. illegally invaded the country. If a more powerful country did that to us, would we like it? I don't think so.

I'm not saying Syria or Iran or what ever is pure as the driven snow. I'm saying we need to do some analytical, objective thinking of how to really improve things. Just arguing about a current sympton gets nowhere.

 

[Hurkyl]

the infrastructure of Lebenon is being targeted which is crippling the country

Crippling?? Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and still emerged to be powerful countries. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

The fact is disgusting what ever I am or I am not inferring is irrelevent.
...
was this another high brow joke, like your introductory statement in your last post?

No. It's my perception that you've been suckered. You thought things were bad before, then someone invoked the word "children", and suddenly you think things are even worse!

The simple fact that there are civilian casualties suggests that there are children dying. If the report said that a mere 1%, or a whopping 75% of the casualties were children, that would be surprising. But that "1/3 of all casualties are children" is roughly what you should have already been imagining.

So, the statement "1/3 of all casualties are children" contains essentially no content, so it's not really meant to inform. It's meant to remind you that children are dying, thus evoking an emotional response. A classic appeal to emotion.


IIRC, I know that you find any number of civilian casualties, be it one or one million, is unacceptable. I know you find the situation disgusting -- but I very strongly suspect it's the mere fact that there are civilian casualties is what you find disgusting... that those casualties involve children is just a red herring.

 

[kyleb]

Is the security council report not enough for you?

I asked for your explanation of when and what Israel most recently did to pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack, "the security council report" isn't an answer at all. Calling for a security force strong enough to acomplish the goal would be, but did Israel ever try that?

So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?

Israel has a responsibility to defend it's civilians and that is why it should have called for a security force strong enough to remove Hezbollah's presence form the boarder long ago. Calling on international help to secure the routes to Iran would have been well with within Israel's rights as well, but blowing up whatever you think you need to most certainly is not Israel's or anyone else's right.

That's why it's called negotiations... If there was a sincere response from the Palestinians, most Israelis would support such a concession.

A sincere response requires a fair offer, and like you said the green line would be a fair offer; but you can't expect a sincere response when you haven't made a fair offer.

 

[clj4]

"The soldiers need to be returned." - Bush

What about the 10,000 Arab prisoners, including Palestinian officials, held by Israel?

You mean the arrested terrorists?

 

[clj4]

Most certainly some of them were.

The Palestinian raid that produced the initial kidnapping was motivated at least partially by recent incidents in which Israelis killed Palestinian civilians.

You lie.

Palestianians kill Israeli civilians. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Israelis kidnap Palestinians.

You lie. Again.

Palestinians kidnap Israelis.

And have as a charter the destruction of Ireal. wake up from your apologetic state.

And, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html" , they are the same people.

Not really, you need to check your facts.

 

[clj4]

Is it common belief that a group of terrorists can "escort" a pair of Israeli captives past the check-in, airport security and the flight crew without having to worry about being detained?

I can easily imagine extraction over ground - but boarding an international flight?

Wake up, Hezbollah are nothing but part of the Lebanon people. The Lebanese government has been pandering for them for ages.

 

[clj4]

Regarding having claims to a land I suppose by that logic the American Indians should claim the U.S. If one loves one's country one stays there and fights till the end for it, not departs and comes back after 2000 years and lays claims due to some claims in a religious book.

They never departed. There was continuity. Try reading history.