Do you honestly believe that Israel still isn't stirring up shit in the Gaza Strip? I direct you to the front page of B'tselem. Let's argue the facts.

It doesn't matter who started it. If Israel is the so-called "nation of restraint" that you claim it to be, they would be taking better measures to insure that civilians aren't dying. Regardless of who started it, Israel has escalated this crisis higher than Hezbollah could have ever hoped to.

And every Lebanese citizen who isn't a part of Hezbollah dying from a bomb attack increases Hezbollah's support and solidarity among the Lebanese people. By STARTING THIS WAR, Hezbollah has made progress against Israel because it knew that it would respond such disproportionately, as it has done in the past. Israel took the bait.

No, because this conflict isn't about those two soldiers only. However, those soldiers were the scapegoats. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. Israel would have been in Lebanon eventually to stop Hezbollah. But like I said before, maybe a solution could be reached if both sides actually NEGOTIATED, but with people like you who are too hell-bent on war, we'll never know.

No, again, YOU don't get it. Israel's not that stupid. Israel can get away with a lot of things, but not that. Israel may not give a damn about civilians, but they aren't going to wipe out an entire country because of this. It's not "restraint"... it's common sense.

Thank you for the kind words, "Master Genius." As I said before, negotiate, which Israel has not and is not going to do. And if you haven't read the news, the Lebanese government CAN'T do anything because its already a weak government to begin with, and with torn up roads, transportation routes, and lack of supplies, what would you expect them to do? Don't blame the Lebanese for not being able to defend their country. Blame Israel for not letting them.

No, that's not what I'm saying. But of course I question at this point if you are even listening.

I explicitly said that in addition to what you said, Israel should:
1. Give back Lebanese land
2. Give back Lebanese prisoners

and then, talks can start. If Hezbollah still decides to stir up stuff, then we'll talk war. Read my posts, please. You are doing me, Israel, and the people of Lebanon a great disservice.

No, but you have to consider the fact that with the IDF planes sweeping the area, it would be awfully hard for planes to move Hezbollah members. And besides, where are they going to go? The smarter option would have been to secure the airport, not destroy it. And THEN, if Hezbollah was moving men across the country, Israel would have been justified in destroying it, because it would have been considered a military target. But let's face it, the Rafik Hariri Airport was not a military target when it was bombed. People were trying to flee the country.

I never said Israel was killing government officials. I said they were "victims." Face it, they are. HOWEVER, Israel is killing soldiers, as reported in an interview with Robert Fisk, a reporter for the Independent stationed in Beirut:

And, in regards to Hezbollah hiding in your house and firing rockets, from what Human Rights Watch has reported (which I sourced in my earlier post directed at ofirov), I direct you to this post yet again. I know you read it, but it's the evidence you're asking for:

I gave you sources. Now it's your turn.

No, it's not an invasion. It's called "abduction" or in lamen's terms, "kidnapping." Pardon my sarcasm. But if you can prove the soldiers were abducted behind the border of your country, then we'll talk.

...Acquiring lands as an act of war is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. Israel played in the Gaza Strip, now they should pay, according to your standards. And give me sources and examples of these "very very" specific reasons, and tell me why they are justified. Otherwise, you don't have an arugment.

Israel. For its atrocities in the Gaza Strip, that alone classifies it as an unfriendly neighbor. Especially in a region where nationality means nothing to Arabs when they are threatened by a foreign aggressor.

In case it slipped your mind, "occassionally" means every once in a while, according to society. And no, it doesn't justify those people dying. Not when they aren't related to Hezbollah. Ask a Lebanese person what they would do if Hezbollah knocked on their doorstep and launched a rocket from their house? They can't do shit, and they're screwed, because they're either going to 1) get killed by Israel 2) get killed by Hezbollah for objecting.

We can blame everybody in the world, but the one people that we cannot blame is the Lebanese people. Don't blame them for sealing their fates. We can blame Hezbollah for exerting pressure on them ("occassionally") and Israel for not discriminating civilian targets.

Once again, I want to see YOUR examples and your facts to prove me otherwise.

So what measures, exactly, should Israel be taking? Should there be a plain-clothes Mossad operative on the ground in every single Southern Lebanese city making sure that there aren't rockets in each and every building?

How convenient it is to criticize Israel for bombing villages when you don't have to do anything about it, nor particularly want to, I'd imagine. Your government apparently doesn't. That would be convenience as well, though.

You talk about how people don't have all the facts when you cite the Munich Agreement and Germany's fictional invasion of Great Britain as meaning that Netanyahu has no comparison to be made. Maybe if Munich concerned German aggression on British interests as opposed to the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakian) you'd have something there. Especially if it didn't mean that the victimized party (Czechoslovakia) wasn't even invited to the negotiations. I suppose the Firebombing of Dresden didn't make Great Britain a terrorist state because the Nazis bombed London. The British were also one of the winners. How convenient.

War crimes themselves are constructs designed to make it that much easier to prosecute the losers in any conflict. Since there aren't any winners when it comes to Arab/Israeli conflict, though, the international body gets to play a fun game of finger pointing and reach arounds, accusing Israel of "war crimes" and "disproportionate force" with one hand while mainting its right to "defend itself" with the other. Isn't it so convenient? It's like, having your cake and eating it too.


I like how words like "indiscriminate" get thrown around in reference to Israeli attacks on civilian targets. This couldn't be further from the truth. Israel is intentionally attacking UN targets, Civilian targets, Hospitals, Schools, Roads, etc., etc., etc. Why? Because the nature of Hezbollah's operation makes them a party to the conflict. Does it excuse the civilian deaths? Absolutely not. Yet that's what's happening, and it happens because of how Hezbollah wants to play the game, not Israel.

It's easy to say that Israel's attacks are unfounded while not doing anything about it. Especially when Hezbollah uses UN Ambulances as APCS.

But yes indeed, Hezbollah wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Israel left the Farms and released all of their Lebanese prisoners. To you, perhaps. I don't think Iran, Syria, or the Shi'as in Hezbollah-built housing would particularly notice the difference. Especially when Hezbollah knew that abducting Israeli soldiers would spark a conflict. Israel began operations in Gaza a week in advance of the Hezbollan attack. They had plenty of time to figure it out, and yet the abduction went through.

Hezbollah doesn't have a leg to stand on much like Hamas doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is because despite the suffering of their people at the hands of the Israelis, neither party makes an effort to attack the tools of their oppression. Instead, they indiscriminately kill Israelis and each other over petty grievances, while not doing anything to better themselves or their people.

You didn't mean to imply that the state of Israel shouldn't exist when you said they should give Arabs back their land. Yet that's essentially what you've suggested. Or have you forgotten that Hamas considers the entirety of Israel and the occupied territories as Palestine?

Israel has ceded land back to the Arabs, and they do treat their neighbors as more than animals. They've been able to create and maintain decent relations with the Egyptians and Jordanians, after all. They even ceded the Sinai back to Egypt after they proved themselves as being no longer a threat. Of course, the West Bank wasn't given back to Jordan, but the Jordanians didn't particularly want it back. Particularly since the Arabs in the West Bank no longer thought of themselves as Jordanians.

I guess, though, we can continue to talk here about issues that we're not a party to. Making easy talk and vindicating our world views based on criteria that ultimately have no meaning. I guess that's convenience.

Well, at the very least, Human Rights Organizations have clearly stated Hezbollah doesn't hide amongst civilians as much as we'd like to believe. However, we know that civilians are still dying at an astonishing rate. It leads one to ask questions, don't you think?

Just because you aren't a party to a conflict, should that stop you, or anyone from discussing it? I mean, you are the person who started this thread. Or is it just convienance for me because I'm not on the right side?

Hey, I said the treaty was screwy. I didn't go into the details because it would have confused the issue. But the grounds that ofirov sourced Britain on were ridiculous to begin with, so it was worth the comment.

The historical context on war crimes certainly is enlightening, but that doesn't change the definition of what they are. Whether it was Israel doing this or Great Britain, wouldn't you still argue that at least a few of the acts I listed above classify as war crimes?

But can you prove to me that the people who are dying are related to Hezbollah? Can you even prove if Hezbollah was even in the area? Because Human Rights Watch has released a document that could prove you otherwise. This is important to remember when talking about these "indiscriminate" or "intentional" Lebanese civilian casualties. I'd argue that many of the Israeli attacks are both.

Wait a second. That video supposedly took place in the Gaza Strip, and there's no proof that those men are members of Hezbollah, or even that that took place in the Gaza Strip. I also have to ask you: that scene was captured from all angles. Don't you think those cameras were a little convienently located? The video was no doubt shocking, but of little relevance to Lebanon.

Hezbollah wouldn't have a leg to stand on if those conditions were met. Not just to me, but probably to the international community, because Hezbollah wouldn't be able to justify itself.

You can't condemn me for using "indiscriminate" and then use it yourself in the same context. Yes, Hezbollah is being "indiscriminate." But so is Israel.

I'm not going to defend myself on this issue any more, because I shouldn't have to. Me "implying" or me "suggesting" is different than what I said, and what I said is what we're debating about here. Hamas considers the entirety of Israel to be occupied territories of Palestine, and they're right. It does rightfully belong to the Palestinians. But to just kick all the Israelis out would be impractical, as we all know, just like kicking all Americans off Native American soil would be. There are other solutions.

I stand by what I said before, because the claim that Hamas made is true. Actions, however, are a different story.

Do you feel differently now than a few weeks ago about this crisis, because you started this thread. If all we're doing here is small talk, then everyone's guilty of that. If nothing we are talking about has meaning, then what does? Why don't you just close this thread, then?

Not really. Lebanese are dying at a high rate because every single structure in Lebanon has been made a potential target. I'm not sure what classifies as "hiding amongst civilians" to human rights watches, but if they're firing rockets in front of hospitals and hiding them in and around civilian sites, you'd think that would count, wouldn't you? Besides, how exactly are they going to tell that Hezbollah is or isn't hiding amongst civilians if they're not wearing Body Armor?

I started the thread because I thought it would be interesting to follow, and so far it's proven to be so. I'm just starting to think that maybe the whole thing has gotten out of hand. Too many quote wars, get my meaning?

i.e. it would have meant you didn't have a rebuttal. It's ok if you don't have anything. You can always address a topic later when you come up with something good, this isn't team debate, and there are no judges that are going to review your performance.

Absolutely. It's practically impossible, though, not to commit warcrimes when you're fighting an organization that makes use of the civilian infrastructure. I don't think War Crimes really mean anything, but I was still outraged when we indiscriminately used White Phosphorus in Fallujah, because it demonstrated that those in our military command, perhaps even at the very top, don't give two shits worth a damn about the Iraqis, which caused me to question the reason we're over there to begin with. So far, the Israelis haven't been using chemical agents on civilian targets, and they've made considerable efforts at fore-warning, if not entirely consistant. They used WP in the 80's though, so I guess it may just be a matter of time. Depends on how far the whole shebangabang escalates.

I can't prove that they were Hezbollah anymore than you can prove they weren't. That's the kind of conflict that's occurring here, where plain-clothed militants make the entire country a warzone due to their reluctance to play the war game like the big boys. They do a better job uniforming themselves when they fight the IDF, but otherwise they aren't exactly trying to paint gigantic bullseyes on their rocket stockpiles so that Israeli F-16s can congenially bomb them into oblivion. Besides, every new dead kid serves Hezbollah more than it does Israel.

As for the Human Rights Watches's "proof"
Apparent is the key word here. What makes a site of apparent military value to Human Rights Watch? Do they need to be flying Hezbollah flags from their roofs to be of apparent military value? What about South Beirut? It's clearly not apparent that anything there has military value considering that everything is covered in rubble in an area that was off-limits to outsiders before the conflict.

I also wouldn't be so quick to buy emotional accounts of whether or not one's place of work or residence was a target considering the following:
It would also be good to know how Human Rights Watch gathered this proof, and what that proof is.

Isn't it? Hezbollah has a similar modus operandi as Hamas. The difference between the two is that Hezbollah is more capable of fighting in the open. It's because they operate on such similar levels, that a lot of "neutral" vehicles have become military targets. There's a reason behind each and every action of the IDF, though you'll be hard pressed to prove that reason as being pure malice towards the Lebanese people. It doesn't particularly excuse it, but it isn't right to paint the Israelis as bloodthirsty animals, either.

Not really. There's a lot of gunfire, but no real indication of where it's coming from or what is the target. I guess there's a lot about it that can't be proven, but it is an evidence of a sort, which is more than I can say for Human Rights Watches's reports.

Hezbollah already doesn't have a leg to stand on to the international community. Why do you think Israel catches so much flak for their warcrimes when Hezbollah doesn't? It's because one of the two can be negotiated with, and I think you can guess which one I'm talking about. If Hezbollah has a leg to stand on, why haven't we seen anybody support them openly? Any government whatsoever? Hmm? Iran aside.

Hezbollah doesn't need to justify itself. They've already got a set amount of constituents that will support them come rain or shine. So long as they advocate the destruction of Israel, and act in a manner which indicates they will, the money and weapons keep coming in from Iran, and the people of South Lebanon are cowed into submission.

It's interesting that Israeli methods of detainment have been compared to Apartheid. Why isn't it, then, that there hasn't been an Arab Nelson Mandela?

I will admit that assassination is a possibility.

Quite the contrary. The point I'm making is that Israel does not indiscriminately target civilian structures. They pick and choose targets based on their perceived usefulness to Hezbollah. Hezbollah on the other hand, indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel, not with the intent of hitting anything of military value, but to attack civilians for the sake of killing civilians. The use of ball-bearings and nails in the Katjushas is clear evidence of this. Have the Israelis used WP? Have they used Cluster Bombs? Until the munitions reflect intent, you have no proof.

Are there? What solution is there when it comes to dealing with an entity that would love nothing more than to drive you and your loved ones into the ocean and take everything you hold dear? You said to "give the Arabs back their land." If certain Arabs in Palestine believe that all of Israel is theirs, then there is no other option. There either can be no Israel, or there can be no Palestine. This is the solution that Hamas is striving towards, and if you give an inch, they will indeed take a yard.

While that can be said for Gaza and the West Bank, it can hardly be said for the majority of Israel. The Jews bought that land fair and square from the Turks and the British. If any of that land was "stolen" then complain to the British for not upholding their bargains, not Israel. In fact, a lot of land that was to be a part of the Jewish state cordoned off from Palestine is now a part of the West Bank. Whose land has been stolen by whom? It doesn't really matter at all. The entire thing is an artificial construct, and if Israel didn't exist, Palestine would just be a part of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

Israel won its right to exist by force. Saying that they "stole" the Arab land is irrelevant. They land they worked and payed for was going to be seized by the Arabs, and as a result, Israel was forced to expand for the sake of Strategic Security. This is why the Sinai is possessed by Egypt and the Golan Heights are still occupied by Israel. If Syria wasn't hostile to Israel there would be no reason to hold the Heights, just as if there was no Hezbollah, there would be no reason to occupy the Farms.

In any case, you're giving Israel shit for being a player in a game they never wanted a part of.

I'm just trying to bring this whole thing back into perspective. You guys are becoming too emotionally involved in this, and while I can't blame you for it, the thread will be closed if there are too many posts like this. Of course we're all guilty of engaging in meaningless banter. I didn't exclude myself from that fact. What's more important, however, is the debate not the issue. This forum exists so that people could engage themselves intellectually and politically, and if we start endlessly throwing mud at each other and making unfounded arguments and accusations, then we haven't really gotten anywhere. It's the reason we don't allow anymore relgious threads.

If you want to accuse me of emotionally detaching myself from the situation, then that's fine. I'd rather look at things logically and reasonably than emotionally.

Reuters photo doctored
 

Reuters has suspended a Lebanese photgrapher for altering photos to show more smoke and destruction in the aftermath of an Israeli raid. Make you question how accurate all of the other dead baby death and destruction accounts are that are coming out of Lebanon.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ews-TopNews-10

I'm not surprised in the least.

Clearly this discredits everything. =/

Great. Blame Israel for not trying to do things which will obviously not bring the end of this conflict, but will rather, leave us more vulnerable to attacks. Israel has occupied these lands for strategic depth. We are willing to retreat, but if all we’ll get in exchange is terrorists closer to our homes and cities (and by “close”, I mean 5 minutes walks, and even less than that), then it clearly wouldn’t be a wise move to retreat without an agreement.

First of all, even if I don’t mention 100 years of history in every post of mine, it doesn’t mean I lack knowledge of it. Though, in this specific case, some would say that you’ve presented a very one sided opinion. But I’d rather not go into this argument here, because clearly, all that your statement is proving, is that no matter what Israel will do, there will always be “one last” other thing we have yet to do.

So if we just released all of the Lebanese prisoners, it still wouldn’t have pleased the Hezbollah. That’s all I wanted to hear. Or else why would you have brought the subject of the Palestinian prisoners to a discussion about the Israel-Lebanon conflict.
We have arrested many Palestinians, what’s your point?

Arresting terrorists is a human rights violation? Also, my point was that no matter what we do, the Hezbollah will never give up fighting us. Some conflicts can’t be ended around the negotiations table. Especially if you’re fighting against a terrorist organization. But, if the Hezbollah will be disarmed, we will definitely be willing to negotiate with the Lebanese government.

I was obviously being sarcastic. Don’t mis-quote me.

Personal offenses will not help you make your point clear.

I do know about that, but by arguing about details, you’re missing the main point: some enemies cannot be negotiated with.
If you are displeased with the WW2 example, comment about the 2 other examples: Iran, and maybe even more similar to the situation at hand, Al Queda.

“1” – proves nothing.
“2” – proves nothing and is incorrect. The correct number of casualties in Qana according to the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch is 28. The initial death toll was an "estimation".
Link:hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13899.htm
Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Qana_airstrike

Though, even then, this proves nothing.

“3” – this was dealt with within Israel, without the world’s intervention. Which only proves that Israel is trying to operate under Human Rights Laws.
Also, not only is this report unrelated to the conflict at hand, it’s 4 years old.

“An interesting article” – if a pilot chooses to abort a mission because he fears that civilians may get killed, it only shows that Israelis do care about civilains’ lives.

That’s just a wild assumption on your part.
And as the article says, it’s not black and white. It’s a war. Mistakes happen. No one in Israel is gaining anything from the deaths of innocent civilians. In fact, the only one who do gain something of it, is Hezbollah.

1 – Has any country in the world managed to fight against terror with no civilian casualties? No. It’s not because they don’t want to, it’s because it’s impossible. Terrorists are the ones who choose to hide among civilians. A lot of Palestinian “arch-terrorists” surround themselves with civilians, because it will bring one of 2 consequences:
- 1. Israel might choose to not attack because of the number of expected casualties (and it has happened in the past).
- 2. Israel will decide to attack anyway, thus causing civilian casualties.

Anyway, they win. And that’s only one example. They shoot rockets out of their own cities. They build tunnels that lead to Egypt in order to smuggle weapons. Those tunnels are dug from within civilian buildings, and there are many more examples. You can't really expect a country to give up its right to defend itself just because other civilians may be hit.

2 – there are many evidents that prove that Hezbollah uses civilians as human shields. The fact that most of the ground battles between Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah terrorists are taking place inside cities and towns proves that. Israel is trying to take the battle away from its civilians, Hezbollah is trying to bring the battle close to the Lebanese (and Israeli) civilians. And as Bradylama has mentioned, the survivors of the air strikes don’t always speak the truth.

3 – I didn’t go through the all thing, but:
I think this sums up most of what I think about this human rights report.

Also interesting to note is that:

When security allowed…
Is that the same security that influenced Nic Robertson’s report?
Link -newsbusters.org/node/6552
Quote from the article: “This morning, Hezbollah showed journalists around the ruins of its former stronghold, but Hezbollah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.”
Another one:
“In fact, beyond that, it [The Hezbollah] has very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. They can turn on and off access to hospitals in those areas. They have a lot of power and influence. You don't get in there without their permission.”

Seemingly Hezbollah is not the focus of Human Rights Watch at all. They half mention the Hezbollah’s obvious and undeniable war crimes. And then go into a full in-depth reports about Israel’s so called “war crimes”, which are mainly based on what they hear from the victims themselves, and what they see, often long after the actual incident. There are mistakes made by Israel, sure enough. But from what I’ve seen, you focus on 2 or 3, well covered by the media, obvious mistakes which Israel has apologized for, and then ambiguously explain that there are many other like this (“countless”), but your only proofs are questionable.

We’ll be in much deeper shit than we already are.

I fear you're right in assuming this. Because whatever happens, the overall situation in the middle east is getting worse with every day of this conflict.

Not a single goal was achieved since the war started almost a month ago. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is alive, so is Hezbollah itself, most of their rocket launchers are intact, they still hold southern Lebanon and the IDF has seemingly lost their capability of achieving quick military victories and thus, the power of deterrence. On top of all this, we have hundreds of dead civilians and close to a million displaced people without food, water and health supplies.

Without starting another quote-war and citing countless sources, I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Israeli government has gotten themselves into a very bloody mess.

Fists of all, the Israelis haven't gotten themselves into this mess, the unprovoked attack by Hezbollah is what started this mess. The very fact that the IDF hasn't just rolled all over Lebanon, occupying the entire country is not evidence of a lack of IDF capability but a demonstration of the extreme restrait thta has been used by the Israelis. Had israel wanted to they could be in Damascus now and there is not much Lebanon or Syria could do about it militarily. Isreal, if anything is guilty of following a Rumsfeldian concept of limited war, which, as we see in iraq, is seldom successful. They would have been much better off to roll into southern Lebanon in full force, instead of on a tit for tat basis.

I guess I'll jump into the fray. First of all, I'll say flat-out that I'm against Israel on this issue. I was fairly neutral, but Israel's actions in this latest conflict is mindnumbingly irrational.

First of all, Hezbollah captured the soldiers with the intent of freeing it's own troops that were captured by Israel. You can't call something like that unprovoked.

Also, Israel hasn't occupied the country because it knows that would enflame the Middle East to such a degree that something truly dangerous could break out. How do you justify yourself to the international community after invading a country because of what an extremist group of its government did independently? At least, when the US attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban controlled Afg completely. In this case, the Lebanese gov't and Hezbollah are distinctly different, with different policies. Likewise, the majority of Lebanese citizens had nothing to do with Hezbollah, yet are paying the price. It's not restraint, it's common political sense.

Israel has completely ignored the civilian lives that are being harmed. Airports, bridges, power plants, and more are being leveled, reducing the quality of life in the area to nil. And all this to avenge the death of 8 SOLDIERS and the capture of two? I don't see the annihilation of civilians their way of life a fair response to captured troops.

I find it pathetic that America is taking such a feeble stance on this. I doubt Bush would ever condemn Israel for anything, but he should at least call for a ceasefire or something similar. One of my classmates, a Lebanese girl, went to visit her grandparents, and almost got killed in the bombing. She finally managed to escape to Syria days later. This is an American citizen and her family, who are in danger for something a militant group did? Outrageous.

Sadly, the Jewish lobby is too powerful in the United States for anything concrete to get done. The US pumps Israel full of weapons, yet complains when Iran sells weapons to a beleaguered Lebanon (and since when is purchasing weapons when you are being attacked some sort of taboo?) I feel that this will only enrage the Muslim world more. As soon as Iran gets its nukes up, there will be hell to pay.

It's troops? You mean that Hezbollah is allowed troops seperate from the Lebanese government? Last I checked Hezbollah isn't allowed troops. In fact Hezbollah should only exist as a political party and not a militia. Now if Lebanon had wanted to go after Israel for it's holding of Lebanese prisoners that'd be different. But Hezbollah is not Lebanon. Yet it's dragged the entire country into a war with Israel that Lebanon can't win.

What Hezbollah is are a bunch of terrorists. Nothing else. They're specifically targetting civilians because that does the most damage to Israeli morale. Israel has no choice but to hit Lebanese civilians because Hezbollah has hidden itself among the civilians. Hezbollah has also bragged about Israel killing more civilians than Hezbollah fighters. Pretty sad protectors of the people when they're bragging about more innocents dying than their own people huh?

Hezbollah is the only militia that didn't disarm after being told to and as a result it's posing a threat to Lebanon's stability and possibly survival. All this work put into rebuilding Lebanon and all of it gone along with over a thousand lives just because Hezbollah had to show they could fight Isreal. It was a pointless war that Hezbollah began and that everyone had to suffer for both on the Lebanese and Israeli side.

Here's hoping that the Lebanese army and UN Peacekeeping force will actually disarm Hezbollah but somehow I doubt it. As I understand it, the UN has chosen to keep the peacekeepers under the stricter rules of engagement which is part of why they didn't get involved in trying to stop Hezbollah in the first place. What good are extra peacekeepers if they aren't allowed to actually do their job?

Neither can Israel. It's funny that they're actually starting to realize this now that they've essentially levelled an entire country, killed hundreds and displaced millions of civilians. If anyone, terrorism wins this war due to the increased hatred towards Israel in the entire region.

Like somebody holds their commanding officers at gunpoint and forces them to launch airstrikes on civilian targets with supposed Hezbollah fighters. Oh please, come on. They do have a choice to risk these insane amounts of civilian casualties just like everyone else in this pointless war has a choice to stop fighting it.

Where do you even get this from? They didn't "brag" about this and they don't need to because it's a fact. Is Israel bragging about Hezbollah bragging about their losses?

Good job blaming the Lebanese people for the destruction of their country. Note that Hezbollah is and remains a dwindling minority among the people of Lebanon. Is it fair to destroy an entire country because some fanatics chose to attack yours?

Well Israel could win it, it's just that they're showing this amazing thing called "restraint" and not carpet bombing all of Lebanon. Here's another amazing fact, most other countries wouldn't show half the restraint that Israel has in this way. Heck, most countries wouldn't even announce what they're planning on hitting since that'd also warn their enemies that they're about to hit it. Contrary to popular belief the only real rule of war is to win. There is no way to have a war without civilian casualties and whoever thinks otherwise is deluded.

Hezbollah could've stopped the war that they started at any time. Return the two kidnapped soldiers and stop firing rockets at Isreal. Israel even said it'd be over once that happened. The first shot was not fired by Israel. Nor was the second. Israel is finishing what Hezbollah started. When your enemy hides among civilians guess what happens....civilians are going to get hurt. Hezbollah could fight in the open, but it's chosen not to. For one thing it'd lose. Not to mention this way Israel hits more civilians which works in Hezbollah's favor. Hezbollah wins when Israeli civilians die. Hezbollah wins when Lebanese civilians die. Really the only way it can lose is if either Lebanon and the UN actually get their act together(unlikely) and use the Lebanese army with support from UN peacekeepers to root Hezbollah out or Israel finally runs completely out of patience and switches over to the burn all, kill all, destroy all method of warfare(thankfully, this is even less likely than the UN and Lebanon getting their act together).

MSN article back during the second week of the war if I recall correctly. I'll see if I can find it and link it. A Hezbollah fighter said that Israel was killing more civilians than fighters and that by doing so was creating more Hezbollah fighters. Utterly unconcerned about the fact that they're doing so because Hezbollah is hiding and fighting from among the civilian buildings. Don't know about you, but that sounds like a man happy about civilian deaths since it makes more of the civilians fight alongside him.

Don't you mean a whole lot of fanatics who the government refuses to do anything about? Fanatics who attack Israel with frequent rocket strikes and the occasional kidnapping? So yes, this is the Lebanese people's fault. They could've moved against Hezbollah, asking for aid from the UN if necessary. They chose not to. Especially if Hezbollah is the dwindling minority you say it is. And if it isn't then all the more reason for Isreal to act. Israel finally ran out of patience and is doing what the Lebanese government should've done instead. Remember when some terrorists flew an airplane into the WTC? The US went after Afghanistan with a vengeance when it chose not to do anything about the fact that it was harboring Al Queda. And Israel has been under attack far longer than the US was. Granted nothing as big as the WTC but I'll bet that they've lost a lot more people collectively than the US did, just more spread out from various rockets, suicide bombings, etc.

Basically it took a war with Israel to get the Lebanese government to finally look up and say "Hey, we can't ignore Hezbollah any longer." But as I said before, I honestly don't expect the Lebanese army or UN peacekeeping force to really try and enforce peace on the border. Things will quiet down for a bit, Hezbollah will restock and rearm, and then we'll hear about more rockets being fired into Israel and the UN and Lebanese army not doing anything about it. And if I'm wrong and they do do something, I'll be glad to be wrong. I just don't expect to be.

So, if a thousand dead civvies from a month of fighting is insane, how would you quantify when Israel used WP rounds on refugee camps and dropped cluster bombs on Beirut in the 90's and 80's?

It doesn't really matter, Brady. What matters is that by choosing to attack these sites where Hezbollah troops are supposedly hiding, they deliberately risk killing a lot more civilians.

I agree that this is some sort of dilemma, because Israel wouldn't be half as successfull with their campaign if they didn't, but the point is that they very well do have a choice of risking these casualties or not: nobody actually forces them to kill civilians! But by making their choice, they are to be held morally accountable for the human tragedy that other nations now rushing in have to try and avert.

Now waiting for the next person to barge in and argue with Hezbollah deliberately attacking civilian targets. Well, good job comparing the state of Israel to a terrorist organization.

The problem with your stance, though, is that Israel has no other choice except not reacting at all, or engaging in prisoner exchange. I think you'd understand why that isn't an option, and why 1000 dead people in a month's fighting is hardly "insane."

Yeah, consider the term "insane" withdrawn from my original post.

Still, you're now relating Israel's choice to the very basic reasoning of the war itself, while I was merely thinking in tactical campaign dimensions. Let's say the IDF was a bit more prudent in choosing their targets, wouldn't that be a choice they have in reducing civilian casualties? Of course, it'll put them at a strategic disadvantage over their enemy, but considering Israel having one of the world's most powerful and well-equipped armies fighting a "bunch of criminals" as they like to call Hezbollah, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

Or have they just underestimated the Hezbollah's capabilities?

How is Israel going to be more prudent in choosing their targets? Hezbollah is really only attacking from civilian buildings. We've heard of at least two incidents where they fired from UN buildings or the yard in front of UN buildings(and people ask why Israel is firing on UN targets). There is no prudent targets for Israel because their enemy insists on hiding within buildings. Yes, Israel has a very powerful, well trained, and well equipped army. But that doesn't make Hezbollah incompetent or poorly equipped. Hezbollah itself is quite capable of fighting in the way it's trained to fight. Namely through traps, ambushes, and via terror.

But I do think Israel underestimated how much damage they'd have to do to civilians and thus the backlash of the world towards it to get at Hezbollah and is just now realizing how much they'd have to commit if they really want to root out Hezbollah. In the end it's not cost effective which is probably one reason they're accepting this UN peace despite not having their soldiers returned which they originally stipulated as one of the two requirements. Now the two sides will either probably do a backroom deal prisoner exchange or Hezbollah will just behead the two prisoners. Who can say other than Israel and Hezbollah?


I would like to know this from all the people saying that Israel should show more restraint. Suppose thousands of terrorists are kidnapping your soldiers, firing rockets into your cities, and supplying bombs to people who are walking into schools and cafes and blowing themselves up taking out dozens of people(all civilians) each time? The government of the country that these terrorists are sitting in refuse to do anything whatsoever about them. So what do you do? So if you're American suppose these attacks were coming from Mexico. Or if you're German suppose they were coming from France. And so on. Would you really just let them keep doing it and say "oh well"?

More like understated, I think.