Israeli Strikes Resume After Brief Lull

Maybe they are. I've heard suggestions that they give civilians enough time to leave the cities of southern Lebanon (like maybe 48 hours or so) and then they go in and flatten villages that have rockets coming from them with air strikes. Then they send in ground troops to mop up the remaining Hezbollah fighters. That might be more effective. What do you think about that plan?

Regarding your comments:

1) Civilians will ALWAYS get in the way of war. There is no way to 100% avoid civilian deaths. The civilized countries don't target civilians specifically but all countries at war have civilian casualties.

2) You might be right that 48 hours might not be enough time. But you have to realize that this 48 hours is possibly the largest amount of time that Israel feels comfortable with allowing the enemy to regroup. 48 hours might be too little in the civilians transportation world but in the military strategy world it's a huge amount of time.

3) The reason to flatten villages is to expose the Hezbollah fighters so that when ground troops go in there won't be 300 Hezbollah fighters hiding in the building waiting for an ambush.

I think they should withdraw, apologize and keep mum.

If you honestly believe that then you support Hezbollah which is just sickening. You can disagree with Israel's military strategy but to say that Israel should retreat and apologize before solving the problem of being attacked on a daily basis is a pro-terrorism stance.

If you honestly believe that then you support Hezbollah which is just sickening. You can disagree with Israel's military strategy but to say that Israel should retreat and apologize before solving the problem of being attacked on a daily basis is a pro-terrorism stance.

Get a grip. Accusing a pro-life or pro civilian stance with being a terrorist supporter is extremely offensive.

Why? Am I making a false assumption? Israel is under constant attack by Hezbollah militias. Hezbollah's mission is to destroy Israel. By telling Israel they should pull back and apologize is basically saying that you (or anyone who says that) hope Hezbollah wins this war. You can argue about how Israel should go about attacking Hezbollah whether it be militarily, politically, economically or other, but to say that they should go back and apologize is basically saying you think Israel should be destroyed.

If Guido finds this offensive then maybe he or she should explain further as to how Israel withdrawing and apologizing does not necessarily mean that he or she supports Hezbollah and their activities.

Look I am not goiung to argue with you as you just won't get ot, but your post was offensive. Most of us who deplore both Hiz and the IDF try and explain our feelings.

It wouldn't be very helpful if I just start calling you (an IDF supporter) a baby killer, would it?

Ignore button on.

chill888,

Ignore me all you want but I still don't see how what I said was offensive. If Guido doesn't support Hezbollah then he can explain to me how Israel retreating and apologizing aids those who don't support Hezbollah. Guido has yet to comment on this. You however seem to be commenting on his behalf so I guess I will ask you.

Do you think Israel should pull out and apologize?

If the answer is yes, please explain how this does not show support for Hezbollah.

I await your answer.

Guido,

You make some points that I think are worth discussing. But the tone and the general attitude where those points conclude in seems off base. Let me explain:

If Israel thinks that I am going to support their killing hundreds of civilians over the capture of two Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil while Israel the week before captured two Palestinian civilians on Palestinian soil then they are going to have to think again.

Do you honestly believe this is JUST about two captured soldiers? This war is about national security. The captured soldiers was the straw that broke the camel's back but is not the sole purpose of this mission. If Israel found the soldiers tomorrow they wouldn't just retreat.

As for labelling Hizbollah as a terrorist organization, I laugh at you because Israel was founded via terrorist attacks. A case of pot calling the kettle black.

While I disagree with your statement I think there are examples that could support your theory of Israel's creation being helped by terrorist-like actions. When I think about it though, I can't think of any country whose creation didn't come from some sort of revolution which in times can lead to violence here and there. But in this case, where is the revolution? If Hezbollah was kidnapping Lebanese soldiers, then that might be a call for revolution in Lebanon. But their plan is to destroy Israel. The circumstances are totally different.

I think Hizbollah is a legitimate resistance and I hope that they kick Israel in the butt so that it can get off its high horse and start treating people like people, and not like cattle. I condemn Hizbollah for attacking civilians, especially via the rockets, and I condemn Hamas for the suicide bombers. I think it is completely unacceptable to target innocent civilians.

This comment to me feels contradictory. You speak about Israel losing the war so they'll treat people better. But if Hezbollah truly won the war and had their way, there wouldn't be an Israel. There are factions and governments out there that want to see Israel treat people better but don't use suicide bombers or civilian attacks. They use political pressure and non-violent actions. By attacking Hezbollah's only tactics, you're attacking Hezbollah. That's the point I'm trying to drive home. Getting rid of Hezbollah is in EVERYONE'S best interest; even the Arabs who hate Israel's policy. If you truly believed what you said about your hatred for civilian attacks and suicide bombers, then you would be rooting for Israel in this fight, even if you think Israel is fighting the war the wrong way.

Israel screwed up the situation and they would be better as a nation if they could admit it and apologize to the Arabs for how they have treated them. And also pay compensation for the lands and lives lost and property destroyed. If they don't do this, then they deserve whatever they get.

Can't I say the same thing about Lebanon. Lebanon should apologize for harboring a terrorist organization and letting them attack another sovereign nation. If the Lebanese government doesn't help Israel capture this terrorist organization, pay for any damage Hezbollah has ever caused, and apologize than Lebanon deserves what it gets. Would you agree with that statement?

Israel started this whole mess and just keeps on making it worse. I would bet that it is not just me who likes the idea that Hizbollah is playing David to Israel's Goliath. But as for supporting Israel's stupid and miscalculated war, forget it.

I'm not asking you to support Israel's tactics because honestly, I have some strong diagreeing opinions about how Israel is attacking as well. But what I am saying is that supporting Hezbollah IS supporting civilian attacks and suicide bombers. Support Israel's goal of the war (to eliminate Hezbollah) even if you don't support their military or diplomatic strategy. Otherwise, you support Hezbollah and suicide bombings and civilian attacks, and yes, I still find that sickening.

It sure would solve the problem. There wouldn't be an Israel for people in the area (and out of the area) to hate. It would be blown to pieces.

Hezbollah (or Lebanon) faces no threat if it is disarmed. However, Israel faces more threats than just Hezbollah.

Guido,

Israel has had a large and powerful army for decades now. By not attacking anyone other than major threats they have proven to be responsible with their power. What we're asking is for the disarming of a terrorist organization that aims to destroy another sovereign country.

Why is that so wrong? It sounds so rational when I read my own words over.

Bruce,

You bring up a good point. But remember that Lebanon's government was 20% Hezbollah before the conflict. The Lebanese government had also refused to confront Hezbollah to disarm. These conditions gives a good indication that the Lebanese government always hated Israel, and always agreed with the basis for what Hezbollah does, but only 20% of the country agreed with the approach that Hezbollah took in destroying the state of Israel.

So what has this conglict taught us? Maybe that Lebanon and not just Hezbollah are a true enemy of Israel and therefore Israel's response seems more justified than previously thought.

Guido,

What I was pointing out was that Israel is in a catch 22. 20% of the country wants Israel to be wiped off the map via force. The majority of the rest of the country will blame Israel for the consequences brought on by that first 20%. So if Israel doesn't stop Hezbollah from attacking them on a daily basis then they have to deal with constant terrorism and the growing threat that bigger attacks may come. Or.....they go in and fight these attacks which in turn helps diminish and crush the armed side of Hezbollah but grows support in Lebanon for Hezbollah. Either way they lose. But with fighting, they're attacking the current threats instead of ignoring them. That, to me, seems like the best option.

Normal human beings want to live in peace.

You don't read the news much, do you?

Guido,

Maybe one day Israel will finally realize that it is not in the interest of Israel to make sure that there are people who want them wiped off the map via force, and that it is not in their interest to perpetually increase the number of those people.

I don't think any Israeli wants more people to hate Israel. But sometimes hard choices need to be made. Personally, I'd rather have 8 out of 10 people in a room who want to kill me and no guns around then 1 out of 10 people in a room who want to kill me with one gun around. The idea behind Israel's strategy is to eliminate the immediate threats. Sometimes there are consequences to doing that and the alternative might be a smaller number of people hating Israel, but that smaller number of people being many times more powerful.

Normal human beings want to live in peace. What do you think you have done to these people to make them want to kill themselves and you in the process? I suggest you honestly think about how you have actually motivated large groups to want Israel off the map.

Muslim extremism is not just a Middle East problem and it is not just an Israel problem. I suggest you look at the muslim extremists around the world and ask them that question because it is obviously not isolated to Israel or the Middle East.

Think about each little detail, of how settlers were sent into these people's land. Of living with bulldozers coming to demolish homes. Of helicopters sending missiles into people's cars. Of disregarding the UN resolutions.

First of all, settlers didn't just walk onto other people's land. Land was gained in the 1967 war by Israel. I don't see settlers in Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon. That's because this isn't land that Israel gained during the 1967 war. Regarding the helicopters, bulldozers, and such, these are all elements of rooting out terrorists that seek to kill Israelis. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other terrorist organizations stopped attacking Israel, Israel wouldn't retaliate. Don't blame Israel for fighting back.

Of having overwhelmingly firepower, so that there is nothing the people can do but to use themselves as a weapon.

I personally value life more than anything else. If you told me to either move from my house to Siberia or get shot in the head and I see no alternative, I'm packing my bags. There is one thing they can do. Give up. Stop the endless pursuit of a dream that will never be. Only then will there be peace. And that Guido, is the point of ALL of this.

This from from Wikipedia about Operation Opera where Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility back in 1981:

At the time, the attack was widely criticized. Israel responded that its actions were self-defensive and thus justifiable under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Many critics, however, rejected the idea of "pre-emptive self-defense". France, in particular, was outraged over the loss of a French national as a result of the attack, and since the raid diplomatic ties between France and Israel have remained strained.

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 487, calling upon Israel "to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards", and stated that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it [had] suffered". Israel has not complied with these requests.

The United States supported the resolution condemning the Israeli action, and, temporarily, withheld a contingent of aircraft already promised to Israel.

Since that time, opinion has altered somewhat. Most notably several prominent US politicians — now that the United States is engaged in her own conflict with Iraq — have "retroactively supported" the operation. Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980's view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if the legality of such action under international law is a contested point.

Israel can't worry about being liked in the short term. Whatever military action they do they get criticized for. But do you think that Operation Opera was a bad idea now?

I don't see how Israel is expected to make peace with people and governments who aim to destroy it. Do you think Sadam Hussein would have made peace with Israel? By looking at the two past peace agreements made with Israel (Egypt and Jordan) I see two factors that led to these monumental agreements:

1) War - After they continually fought and lost against Israel it seemed like Egypt and Jordan had decided that eliminating the Jewish state was not a feasible option

2) Economics - Egypt and Jordan wanted to become part of the world economy and therefore had to start acting like a civilized country. By making peace with Israel they were relinquishing their agenda of destroying another state and was able to focus on building up their countries into sustainable economic powers (relatively speaking to where they used to be).

Israel is now adding the war aspect to the equation. If Israel can hit Hezbollah hard enough and the Lebanese people truly want to become a sustainable economic power, then the world can help them rebuild, make peace with Israel, and create a stable nation.

Guido,

You argue that war is an option to settle the peace. What would happen if Israel were totally nuked? Would you accept that as a resolution to the conflict, because you were 'forced' to do so?

If Israel were totally nuked. Gone. And No other country did anything in retaliation, then the attacking country (let's just use Iran as an example) would win. So Iran wins the war and now can state how they want the region split up. So the answer to your question would be yes, there now would be a resolution to the conflict. If Israel deployed all their nukes onto the surrounding countries and every anti-Israel person was killed, and no other country retaliated then yes, their would be a resolution to the conflict. Every resolution of conflict throughout history that I can think came through some sort of violence or war.

You also argue economics. What would happen if America stopped subsidizing Israel? Would Israel spend as much on armaments or would it invest more in peace (which means trade, not war).

Israel has probably the most stable economy out of all its surrounding countries in the Middle East. It is one of the world leaders in science, technology, and medical research. If any country would not only survive, but thrive if the entire Middle East would be cut off financially from the rest of the world, it would be Israel. America gives money to Israel for many reasons but in general because Israel is America's ally. America isn't promoting themselves to be equal opportunity lenders. I think the entire world would be willing to help these poorer Arab countries build up their economy but first they have to give up their goal of the destruction of Israel and make peace.

The other difficulty is that this has happened before, and they were never allowed back

So you think Israel has an expansionist policy, wanting to occupy more territory and create an Empire of Israel?

You don't think it has enough on its plate with the results of the 1967 war that it wants more ocupied lands full of terrorists to worry about.

Israel attacked Hizbullah because the latter was a threat to Israel. Israel does not want or need any more land thank you, just would like to be left with some land at all.

If you mean Israel thinks it has enough territory, that depends who you ask... the sane Israelis or the settlement creators. Sorry to anyone living in West Bank settlements but I do question your sanity in wanting to do that.

What I meant, though, was in reference to 1948.

Its another pack of Zionist lies. They wont stop for a second. If they do its because they need to restock their magazines.

Hizbollah orchestrated an international disgrace for Israel? Wow. What a victory of brain over brawn

Good characterization, Guido. I'm sure that's how Hizbollah sees it to. Am I to also assume that you do not care about the civilian deaths taking plac on both sides: that this is somehow a vicotry for you?

Do you think about what you post?

Hezbollah:
- charter calls for destruction of Israel (source)
- uses civilians
- constantly attacked Israel

Israel: "Give soldiers back and stop attacking us and we'll leave you alone."

How is Israel an aggressor? And how can any sane individual still claim that Israel is "most responsible" for civilian deaths when Israel goes out of its way to prevent civilian casualties even if it means higher number of Israeli deaths?

The civilian deaths are terrible and the fact is that Israel is by far the party most responsible for civilian deaths in this conflict

Adn here's where we differ. You myopically blame Israel for Lebanese civilian deaths, I blame Hizbollah for callously using civilian areas to fire rockets in their ongoing PR war against Israel.

Again I would ask you, how long would you let someone fire rockets at you, your family, and your home before you responded? Would it matter that your neighbours down the street were fighting as well?

It appears to be okay for Israel to detain nationals of another country but Hizbollah cannot do the same?

For the most part, Israel is holding prisoners with just cause: why would they go to the expense of holding someone who's done nothing to them. Further, Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, not a state. That's why they can't expect to have prisoner exchanges. AND Hizbollah wants to trade soldiers for terrorists. You can't see the obvious disconnect here? Not to mention the pitfalls of negotiating with terrorists?

Israel purposely set forth on the present course of bombing the Lebanese into submission, except it just (and predictably) didn't work

That has yet to be seen.

Israel had other options

Like what? Like your other suggestions of giving Lebanon "more time" or wait for the useless UN to come in and further botch things up?

Given that Israel appears to have decided to choose a most painful option for Lebanon, you cannot help but come to the conclusion that Israel is being the aggressor while coyly claiming self-defense.

Actually you can: Hizbollah has been attacking Israel for six years. Israel has a responsibility to its citizens to defend them. They are defending themselves against an enemy that know no shame, that willfully targets its own civilians to swing public opinion in its favour, and that is comitted to the destruction of Israel. Israel is defending itself in the only way possible against an enemy that plays by no rules exxcept it's own macabre ideals.

Israel is most responsible for civilian deaths purely on the count of civilians killed on both sides and who scores more in that (shameful) regard.

Why is Israel responsible when Hizbollah deliberately targets its own civilians? Give me a break.

Israel is to blame to Lebanese civilian deaths. There is no question about that.

In fact, there is a question of culpability here that has to do with who do we blame more: those who pull the trigger or those who orchestrate the act? I think Israel is being largely forced to attack civilians in Lebanon (despite their best efforts) by Hizbollah's callous rocket launcher placement: so you see, despite your claim to the contrary, there are some questions. You just don't want to see them.

Hizbollah is to be blamed for its methods? Tell me what alternative they have? Assume they have decided to fight Zionism. How can they achieve their goals given Israel's state of its armed forces?

I've heard good things about non-violent resistance, negotiations, and NOT USING TERROR ATTACKS.

I guess I wouldn't like rockets on my home so I would make sure that I didn't drop bombs on other people's homes

You're getting your chronology confused again here, Guido. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. They did not drop any bombs on Lebanon proper between 2000 and 2006. Hizbollah, on the other hand, was firing rockets into Israel this entire time, despite having the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon that they had wanted in the first place.

Let's get to the root of this: Do you think terror attacks against Israeli civilians are justified?

But that's just me again, right?

Yep.

Guido, your arguments are just mindblowing. No entity in our day should be allowed to exist that wants destruction of a democratic state and its people. Your question amounts to "If they want destruction of Israel, what other choice do they have but to use civilians?" First of all, they have a choice of simply not using civilians. But, however immoral, using civilians furthers their cause and they could have been destroyed if they had not done so, so perhaps they have no other choice, but that doesn't absolve them of being immoral. Although, since their intention is immoral, it is not surprising that so are their methods.

They must not seek destruction of Israel. And if they do and employ immoral methods at that, Israel has not choice but to respond with an attempt to destroy them.

Guido: One of the Israeli prisoners that Hezbollah wants released is a man convicted of killing a 4-year-old, among others by bashing in her head with a rifle butt. Hezbollah has said it will not step back from fighting for this man's release specifically. (Source: Washington Post)

Do you see why Israel refuses prisoner exchanges?

Hizbollah is forced to attack Israel because of Israel's callous nuclear weapon placement threatening the whole Middle East? It means Hizbollah is being forced to attack Isreal? I would agree with that.

Hold on, Guido. Hizbollah has a right to attack Israel becase Israel holds nuclear weapons? Do explain: include facts and sources on when Israel has threatened to use nuclear ordinance against Lebanon.

I didn't hear of rockets of this intensity before Israel bombed Lebanon.

We've been over this, Guido. I don't know if you're slow on the uptake, or what, but the fact that "you didn't hear about rockets" doesn't mean they didn't happen well before Israel started its current campaign.

Further, It sincerely bothers me that you ask the same questions, get solid answers from me, ignore them, and then ask the questions again. You've brought nothing new to this debate in your last 10 posts: only the same juvenile logic about "he who kills the me most is automatically the most evil". Explain your points.

Israel has been attacking the Arab world for about fifty years. The Arab world has a responsibility to its citizens to defend them. They are defending themselves against an enemy that has vast international support, that willfully manipulates appearances to swing world opinion in its favor, and that is committed to an enterprise of expropriation of Arab lands. The Arab world is defending itself in the only way possible against an enemy that has no compassion or mercy and is overwhelmingly armed to the teeth.

A) Read a history book. Aggressions go back and forth for the last 50 years.
B) Your analogy sucks: has Israel been employing terror attacks against major civilian centers across the middle east for the last 50 years?
C) How does Israel manipulate world opinion, because it seems to me Hizbollah's current strategy of orchestrating Lebanese civilian deaths has swung world opinion in quite another direction.
D) Your last quoted sentence implies that you endorse terror attacks against civilian centers. Do you not see the double standard you're enforcing here?

How you can claim that Hizbollah targets civilians when Israel is dropping the bombs just makes me laugh.

I usually laugh everytime I read one of your ridiculous, misinformed posts. Lately though, your apparent inability to "get smarter" has troubled me.

One of the Israeli prisoners that Hezbollah wants released is a man convicted of killing a 4-year-old, among others by bashing in her head with a rifle butt. Hezbollah has said it will not step back from fighting for this man's release specifically.

This is a difficult decision to make. To set your enemies free, or to make even more while keeping the ones you already have. Do what it takes to achieve peace.

This would make sense if Hezbollah had called for all prisoners to be released, without saying which ones specifically should be released. However, I don't think any reasonable person would claim that this cruel person should ever see the light of day.

There is nothing wrong with Israel freeing 15-year-olds arrested for throwing rocks, but it is immoral to free someone who kills children in cold blood.

Guido,

I am confident now that anyone of any intelligence will be able to read down our thread of conversation and make the right decision as to who is informed on these questions, and who is entirely useless. In other words, I'm done with you.

Chris

Guido, you treat Hezbollah as an entity that has a different moral position and is consequently expected to

You had said

think Israel is being largely forced to attack civilians in Lebanon (despite their best efforts) by Hizbollah's callous rocket launcher placement:

and I responded

So by the same argument, Hizbollah is forced to attack Israel because of Israel's callous nuclear weapon placement threatening the whole Middle East?

If Israel says it is threatened by Hizbollah's rockets, then the entire Middle East can say they are being threatened by Israel's nukes.

Uhh, maybe not because Hezbollah is actually using its rockets, while Israel is, you know, not using its nukes?

I just ask myself, how can they go on and justify this lopsided retaliation for two lousy soldiers when they capture civilians ALL THE TIME, on foreign territory, no less.

Lousy soldiers, eh?

I'm sure their families feel the same way. Along with the families of the soldiers killed in the original attack on Israel.

Would Israel's retaliation be better if more Israeli civilians had died in rocket attacks due to a lack of bomb shelters? It would be less "lopsided" and more "proportional" then.

You make the accusation that the Israeli soldiers were not captured/killed on Israeli soil but rather on Lebanese soil. I highly doubt that, considering the only sources given were a few blogs and a French news aggregation site. I will trust the AP, AFP, Reuters, LAT/Chicago Tribune,Washington Post, and Newsweek over a few non-particularly-credible sources, one of which I can't read.

Sorry for the mispost. Guido, you inspired me to do this.

LOL ther espite was so short that AP had to change this seeded story to not look silly.