Israel has a "right to defend itself" but...

When Hezbollah captured Israel soldiers, Israel should've tried to negotiate with Lebanon to try to figure things out. It's as simple as that. Because whatever the outcome, it would come in the favor of Israel because if both countries came up to an agreement, then this would be over. If they went and talked and nothing was solved, Lebanon would REALLY look like the bad egg.

 

Pube and others here like the Vichy France approach, though: Surrender and hope for mercy.

 

Negotiating with terrorists: The Vichy France approach.

 

The way I read it, Israel has to do it this way if they are serious about ending the threat (which, of course, they are). They have to blow out the bridges, etc. to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to escape and communicate and to disrupt the ability of others from outside the country to join in the fighting. THey shell them, cut them off, put them under seige, and then go kill them.

 

Heard this from a colleague who worked in Israel until recently. He was told this by an Israeli General over dinner a while back:

"If Israel lays down all our weapons, we would be removed from the face of the Earth within a week. If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East for years to come."


I believe him.

I'm a left-wing pacifist especially when it comes to the war in Iraq, but I've always considered the Israeli/Arab conflict to be a Cowboys and Indians thing. Eventually, the Cowboys can only win by killing off most of the Indians and all but enslaving the rest. In other words, there will not be peace in that part of the world until the democracies (i.e. Israel, and even India further east) once and for all completely destroy their enemies. We have peace in Europe only becase we were willing to kill a lot of innocent civilians and bomb entire cities to wipe away the Nazis. Those left behind have lived in peace for 60 years. The same will have to be done in the Middle East. The sooner the Western democracies realize this, the better.

 

Why does the 10-1 need an explanation? Just because Hezbollah's aim isn't as good as the Israelis is no reason to hold that against Israel. Yes, civilians who have no association with Hezbollah have been killed and that is a tragedy. But Israel has aimed the majority of its attacks against infrastructure and has warned civilians in advance. By comparison, Hezbollah has been lobbing bombs indiscriminately at Israeli towns hoping to kill civilians. Israel is actually quite lucky considering that on Sunday, Hezbollah used 10 much more powerful missles with only one making a direct hit (that one killed eight). Hezbollah has launched over 700 missiles and rockets, aiming them at the Israeli populace. Their incompetence does not negate their intent.

 

Actuallly, some of those left behind lived under a boot for 50 years, but...
This is not World War III. (And it's really not WWII; the French, for example, were willing to take civilian casualties in order to get their country back. The Lebanese, I guarantee you, see this as invasion, not liberation.) This is one country with an advanced military blowing the hell out of an entire country because it had been targeted by a group of people on its southern borders. Do all of you who are hankering for a general war -- Iran! Syria! -- seriously want to discuss what's going to happen to the 130K US troops that are in Iraq now as soons a that war kicks off? "You have created a desert and call it peace" is the best definition of moral insanity I ever heard, and it's about 5000 years old.
And Your Holiness -- do you honestly believe that the only reason for that 10-1 ratio is that the Israelis are being careful? What you call "infrastructure" is what keeps people -- Muslim and Christian -- alive in God's own worst climate. And, no, I do not consider someone who declines to heed an Israeli order to leave their home to be a "tragic " -- yeah, right -- victim of his own mistakes.

 

Not with Hezbollah, with the Lebanon. But after all of this, I'm still more afraid of Al Qaeda then Hezbollah. And no, I don't think that they are allies. It's another Saddam and Osama situation. If they were in the same room, they would kill each other. : Extremists are crazy.

 

So what is your solution for handling a group of people who have launched over 700 missiles at your civilians and kidnapped two of your soldiers?

 

Hezbollah kindnapped Israeli soldiers, and must pay the price. It's not Israel's fault Hezbollah is where it is, and Israel didn't ask Hezbollah to oppose its existence. The second Israel straps explosives on its citizens and sends them into Lebanese buses or cafes to blow themselves up, then they're as bad as the terrorist groups opposing them. Failing that, I give Israel the benefit of the doubt. Tho I would love to send some of the terrorists we capture to Mossad for "debriefing."

 

My solution is to make war on them, and not on the entire nation where they can be found. There isn't going to be a Lebanon when this is all over. Not for an awfully long time. And, yes, you can do that without slughtering civilians far from the regiuon in question, and dooming others to slow deaths without electricity and hot water, and poisoning relations in the most volatile part of the world for the next 25 years. We have 130K soldiers over there, right now, who are going to have no friends that can help them anywhere in the region when this is all over. We have more skin in this game than we had in 1982, when Sharon let the militias run wild in the refugee camps, and when some idiot drove a truck bomb into a criminally undefended Marine barracks.

 

Yeah, but Hezbollah isn't Lebanon. Listen, I just want the civilians to be ok. If you think Hezbollah is wrong, I understand. But the killing of civilians needs to stop. If Israel would've done some talks with Lebanon(not Hezbollah), this would've been taken care of. War should only happen if it is needed to the highest extent. Example: If Johnny hit Tommy, Tommy shouldn't go and hit Billy.