Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

tallus

I'd lean more towards a terrorist being someone who spreads terror, regardless of who they are tied to. Legitimate armed forces and subversive alike.

A Dub in Glasgo

Same here although some terror apologists who justify spreading terror will not be happy with this definition therefore they go to the nth degree of definitions so the actions they support will not be branded terrorism. In the end, for the civilians being bombarded and slaughterd, it matters not a jot as the consequences of spreading terror are all the same.

lostexpectation

did ya see the guy returning home in the airport who said its like if Britiain had bombed Dublin during the 70's....

?

well its about how much the government is doing to suppress the paramilitaries, and it seems to me hezbollah control a lot of the country unlike the IRA...

but we did have senior government figures involved in gun running up north so. maybe they should have bombed us

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Not really.

Yes really....although it should be acknowledged that Israel is by no means alone in this type of activity. Its a fairly common practice, but you'll always see the perpetrators of it having the same criticism levelled against them.

Infrastructure always has been a valid target because of the dual-use nature:

There is absolutely nothing which is not dual-use in some form or another. There is nothing which a military cannot turn to some use, beit landscape, infrastructure, or something else. Hell, even civilians themselves are dual-use to an extent.

Thus, the argument that something is dual-use is simply not a strong enough reason for it to qualify as a target. THere must be some other qualifications.

Bridges, telecoms, electricity, railroads etc can all be used for military purposes just as easily as civil purposes.

Armies need to drink too. And they need hospitals. Thus, water supplies and hospitals are also dual use. I'm pretty sure, however, from other comments you've made that you'll agree at least one of these isn't a valid target despite being dual use.

This can be anything from using the national grid to power air defense radars

No, it can't. While I have no dispute that this is the line of logic employed by the US, that doesn't mean its in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The US has frequently been criticised for employing such tactics - the problem is that there is no-one both willing and able to bring them to task, or even to test the argument in court.

Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits collective punishment. The targetting of so-called dual-use facilities is a direct contravention of that. Even the logic used - you can live without electricity - is an admission that hardhship will be endured, but will simply not be fatal. Thus, the civilian population are deliberately being made suffer in order to achieve goals which disdvantage the opposing military forces - in short, the civilian populace is being collectively punished because "their" military force is in the field.

We're not talking unintentional collateral damage. We're not talking about the "normal" level of disruption taht war inevitably brings. We're talking about deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure, and then justifying it under a flawed (because it would also justify the targetting of water supplies, hospitals, and ultimately even the civilians themselves) line of logic.

Macha

Manic Moran wrote:

Water I might agree with you on, but people can live without electricity indefinitely. Living without water is a lot more difficult. At any rate, I can't see any reference to Israel bombing water facilities either in Lebanon or Gaza, though I am open to correction.

I was referring to the general rule that according to the Geneva convention, undue suffering to civilians must be avoided. Water was merely an example. And yes, electricity is important. How do you expect hospitals to function without electiricty?

Manic Moran wrote:

Not that either of our opinions matter very much.

True

Manic Moran wrote:

If you look at it from the Israeli point of view, the responsibility of the Israeli government lies solely to the Israeli people. Their question isn't "Why shouldn't anyone else suffer as much as us, if not more?", it's "Why should Israeli people be suffering at all? If the policies and leanings of other people indicate that they should suffer greatly compared to us as we fix our own situation, that's their lookout. Whilst we've no great objection to the Lebanese people, if they're going to look the other way while an organisation dedicated to our destruction lives and arms itself in their midst, they're going to have to look the other way as we destroy that organisation in their midst"
Or something to that effect.

The proportionality argument holds little weight with me. I have no doubt that if Hezbullah were capable of wreaking mass destruction on Israel (and if Israelis weren't spending a lot of time recently in bomb shelters), that they would do so. The intent is there. Israel is in a defacto state of war with Hezbullah, and obviously neither side is holding back too much. Neither would one expect them to. To quote First Sea Lord Fisher: "Moderation in war is imbecility." I don't know if this reaction was what Hezbullah was aiming for (Per Frisk) but as a Lebanese chap on BBC said, "If you tickle a sleeping tiger, you will get eaten." This has gone way beyond the punitive raids that Israel usually does. (And which have gotten very little press other than "Oh, business as usual...") This is gloves-off, old-fashioned warfare, not a police action. As I said earlier, the Israelis are pissed.

What you are effectively saying is that all is fair in love and war, that there are no rules in warfare. However there are international laws governing warfare, which specifically refer to the suffering of civilians. As quoted from the Intl Red Cross website, which does a good job of summarising the essence of the laws:

"Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering."

Whatever sympathy I have for Israel's position diminishes with every civilian death they cause.

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

I have no doubt that if Hezbullah were capable of wreaking mass destruction on Israel (and if Israelis weren't spending a lot of time recently in bomb shelters), that they would do so. The intent is there.

The capability isn't there.
Any Al Qaeda type groups/cells in the US/Europe would love to totally destroy a US or European city but don't have the capability yet so they are still dealt with mainly by the police in the US and Europe.

Manic Moran wrote:

Personally, I think that Israel's point has been made. I'm not sure what another week of airstrikes is likely to accomplish that hasn't been done already and they are probably approaching a point of minimal return.

Why? I don't think this was just about making a point.

Hizbollah still exists and is not disarmed. Rockets are still landing in Israel, Israels' kidnapped soldiers have not been returned. The war hasn't achieved its goals yet and I'm sure there's plenty more the Israelis can do to Lebanon.
A "cleansed" Southern buffer-zone is now part of Israel's war-aims.

Are you getting a mite squeamish or something?

Sand wrote:

If the Allies had acted swiftly and decisively in the early or mid 30s the Nazis would have been crushed and the full horrors of WW2 would have been averted or mitigated.

True. By 38 it was it not probably already too late though?
My point about my tasteless Nazi analogy was that by the time they started their war more or less on their own timetable they were in a very powerful position. So much so that they had deluded themselves into thinking they could take on the rest of the world in a war to acheive their aims and win.

banaman

found this article today, from her surname I guess she's Jewish . Interesting points raised too.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10595
found this one too
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B121A6B2-3EFF-40F9-B587-F5F39C4DF4B6.htm
which is different but shows that Israel is far from a paragon of democratic virtue and ideals

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

HelterSkelter

Manic Moran wrote:

I think you'll find most people draw a distinction between the legitimate armed forces of a state, and the common definition of 'Terrorist'. ...

Well in my opinion the Israeli Government & army are terrorists.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

If the Allies had acted swiftly and decisively in the early or mid 30s the Nazis would have been crushed and the full horrors of WW2 would have been averted or mitigated.

Guess I need to change my sig.

uberpixie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Dave all this will do is recruit more people to attack Israel.

Bombing Palestine/Lebanon back to the stoneage has not worked in the past, what makes you think it will work now.

Naked military aggression against a civilian population has never worked in the long term for the Britsh in this country.

It didn't work in South Africa, it didn't work in Vietnam, it doesn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in England during the blitz.

All it does is strenghten the resolve of the people attacked and makes them fight harder and truly believe in what they are fighting for: their lives and their freedom.

Honestly where did you think the Hezbollah came from?

New_Departure06

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They failed to defeat Hizbollah in the 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon (1982-2000) so why are they going to succeed now?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Morlar

New_Departure06 wrote:

They failed to defeat Hizbollah in the 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon (1982-2000) so why are they going to succeed now?

It's worth remembering that hizbollah only came into exsistence after lebannon was invaded by israel last time (cant remember the exact excuse of the time).

Also its probable that some of those firing katushas into israel this week were children at the time of sabra and chatila and the last israeli invasion. I wonder in 20 years time will the hizbollah fighters of then have been encouraged to take up arms by events of this last week ? I really think so.

Ps found this link which is to a debate between a jewish professor and the aipac which covers the subject of lebaneese prisoners:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=241

Also this one re the Saturday, July 22, 2006:
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST ISRAELI AGGRESSION ;

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=262

The Saint

There is also an intersting debate between Norman Finkelestein and former Israeli foreign minister during Camp David and Tabba, Shlomo Ben Ami.

Very interesting stuff. Especially on the stuff they agree on.

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm sure your just as capable of finding out what they are fighting for as are the "apologists".

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

if Israel were actually attacking Hizbollah and not Lebanese civilians then one might come to that conclusion. However it's improbable because Hizbollah showed that after 20 some odd years of Israel trying to destroy them they are still a threat.
One might then conclude that a more effective strategy would be peaceful negotiation and a halt to aggression and occupation.

lostexpectation

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

huh Lebanon was liberated when did that happen?

New_Departure06

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

According to a report on RTE Radio 1 in recent days, by the last few years of the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, the ratio of Israeli to Hezbollah casualties was 1:1 - and that was after 18 years. The root cause of all this isn't the capture of the Israeli POWs, but rather than illegal occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights by the Israeli Reich. The NI situation illustrates the futility of a one-dimensional security-only approach to resolving this sort of problem. The negotiating table - abandoned for 6 years - needs to be reactivated to do this.

Quick question can the Hezbollah apolgists explain to me what Hezbollah are actually attacking Israel for? Did they not achieve their aims of liberating Lebanon.

The Gaza offensive might have something to do with the immediate timing, and the capture of Israeli soldiers that in turn led to that could be seen as a reaction to incessant Israeli bombing raids on Gaza for ages after the withdrawl.

The Saint

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well first they captured and killed a number of soldiers probably for leverage in getting Lebanese and Palestinians released from Isreali jails (of which about 850 are being held without charge). Others have speculated that it was done in solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza to open up a second front to alleviate the attacks on Gaza. As for your last question, yes they did drive Israel out of Lebanon.

Israel has also kidnapped civilians from Lebanon before to use them as bargaining chips to release its civilians and soldiers from Lebanon. The last of those held were released in 2004. This is against international law yet was sanctioned under Isreali law, the only country in the world to have legalised kidnappings.

Israeli Human Rights Organizations - B'Tselem, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and Physicians for Human Rights - welcome the High Court's Decision to release the eight Lebanese citizens who appealed against their detention as hostages. These eight are among a group of fifteen Lebanese citizens who have been held in administrative detention for many years in Israel.

In their decision, the High Court judges ruled that the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, which until now served as a legal basis for the State to hold Lebanese hostages, does not, in fact, authorize holding people in detention as hostages.

Human rights organizations demand that the Minister of Security and Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, immediately release all the Lebanese citizens being held in Israel.

Human Rights organizations recognize the duty of the State to target all of its efforts towards the release and return of missing Israeli soldiers. Yet, the use of illegal measures, including kidnapping innocent individuals and holding them as "bargaining chips", cannot be part of these efforts.

The day after Shalit was captured two Palestinians were captured by an Israeli militia yet we hear nothing of this. The day before Gilad Shalit was captured Israel kidnapped a Palestinian doctor and his brother in Gaza yet we hear nothing of this either.

As for people saying that Hezbollah and Hamas use civilians as human shields it seems they are not the only ones. Again against international law.

B'Tselem's initial investigation indicates that, during an incursion by Israeli forces into Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, on 17 July 2006, soldiers seized control of two buildings in the town and used residents as human shield.

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

This is not to mention that the IDF used Palestinians to open doors they suspected of being booby trapped therefore putting them directly in danger. Again against international law. The Israeli Supreme Court finally deemed this action illegal.

Morlar

I just found this link to an interview with robert fisk which gives some behind the scenes background to the logic behind israels targetting policies (for anyone who is interested) I am posting this because this kind of on the ground background info - with a lot of local knowledge is pretty hard to find.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257

Even a small example, I’ll give you. Yesterday, something fell out of the sky over a small area of Beirut called Qurashim [sic]. I think it was part of the wing, the wingtip of an F-16. The Israelis say it’s not, but I think it probably was. And it crashed in a fiery volcano glow and burned trees, bushes, the roadway, and decapitated a young man in his car who was driving home to his family.

I got there in about eight minutes. And there were three very friendly Lebanese soldiers. By chance, I knew one of them, the sergeant, who said, “Mr. Robert, you must be very careful. The Israelis will come back and bomb again, but we’ll take you into the fire and show you as much as we can.” And they stood around me and protected me as we went up the road for about a mile walking -- or running, to be very honest with you, because Mr. Fisk here is not a very brave warrior. And I saw parts of what appears to be a wing. I think it was burning fuel all over the road. I think it came out of whatever the aircraft was. I think what actually happened is a Hezbollah missile probably hit an F-16, and the Israelis didn't want to claim it. They said that it was part of a barrel containing propaganda pamphlets and leaflets, which -- well, I didn't see leaflets anyway, and I know they burn on fuel, but anyway, I saw what I could and got away afterwards and said, you know, waved at the soldiers and thanked them.

And the Israelis did come back some hours later and bombed the barracks of these soldiers, which were members of a logistics unit. Their job was to repair bridges and electrical lines. They weren't combat soldiers. And they killed ten Lebanese soldiers, including the three young men who had protected me the previous day. This was outrageous, because the Israelis know what each individual Lebanese army unit is doing. They know if it's a combat unit, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, whatever.

And they picked on this sole barracks to destroy those men, to exterminate them, because, of course, their job was to keep Beirut alive, to keep the power systems running, to repair the bridges which were being destroyed -- 46 bridges now, according to Minister of Finance, who told me this a few hours ago, have been destroyed in Lebanon. This is the inheritance, of course, of former prime minister, assassinated prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was murdered on the 14th of February last year. He rebuilt this country. He rebuilt the city of Beirut. Now, bit by bit the bridges, the lighthouse, the international airport are being destroyed.

Manic Moran

I'm pretty sure, however, from other comments you've made that you'll agree at least one of these isn't a valid target despite being dual use.

Speaking genearlly, like any of these situations, there's always a matter of degree involved. The relative military benefit of killing the power vs the effect on the population as a whole is much higher than that of destroying water treatment facilities vs the effect on the population as a whole. Whilst both situations are of dual use nature, the one has a much greater impact on a the military situation. A simple, black and white question of "does this cause hardship to the civilian population?"' can't work because as someone mentioned earlier, there is a degree of hardship which is inevitable when there's a war going on. One must view things as a matter of degree, it's the only practical way.

Mr Frisk appears to have a bee in his bonnet about the lighthouse. "What possible military excuse is there to hit a lighthouse?" he asks. Here's a thought: Hezbullah fired at least two missiles at an Israeli ship. Where's the best vantage point to see what ships are out on the horizon? My guess, some tall structure with excellent visibility next to the water. Think a lighthouse might qualify?

Hizbollah still exists and is not disarmed. Rockets are still landing in Israel, Israels' kidnapped soldiers have not been returned. The war hasn't achieved its goals yet and I'm sure there's plenty more the Israelis can do to Lebanon.
A "cleansed" Southern buffer-zone is now part of Israel's war-aims.

Are you getting a mite squeamish or something?

Not at all. The desired Israeli endstate is a disarmed Hezbullah, and I believe it's achievable. I think Israel believes it's achievable. I also think that anyone who believes that Hezbullah can be disarmed purely and solely by Israeli military action is greatly deluded. (Unless the plan is to simply keep the exchange of bombs/rockets going until Hezbullah disarms itself by running out of ammo to lob at Israel).
Remember the old saw about war being an extension of politics by other means. I'm a few ranks lower than General, but I think the idea here is to keep the bombings up until the disarming of Hezbullah becomes inevitable. The more rockets Hezbullah fires, and the more damage Israel can do to Hezbullahs' stores and infrastructure, the easier this job becomes for the central Lebanese government and the international forces that I presume will show up when this finally starts to settle down.
The other thing is that the argument of 'We're going to bomb Hezbullah into oblivion' provides a negotiating point. When the international community finally gets off their collective asses and agrees to send troops to the area with a proper mandate to assist the Lebanese government with the disarming of Hezbullah, Israel has the ability to look like it's being reasonable and accomodating by drawing down a level. "OK.. We will back down from our intention to blow Hezbullah off the map, we'll compromise by allowing international forces to disarm them." The end result for Israel is the same, if not better: They have the UN or whoever doing the gruntwork, and Israel has one less thing to worry about. Rather clever, assuming it works.

NTM

banaman

Hezbollah kidnaps two soldiers, Hamas kidnaps one and Israel is justified in pounding innocent civilians into the grave.
America kidnaps hundreds and flies them who knows where to be tortured and the fair punishment is?
How can anyone take Bush (and his poodle Blair) seriously when the US has been kidnapping people for years.
Oh silly me its not kidnapping its RENDITION! Hypocrites of the world unite!

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote:

Speaking genearlly, like any of these situations, there's always a matter of degree involved. The relative military benefit of killing the power vs the effect on the population as a whole is much higher than that of destroying water treatment facilities vs the effect on the population as a whole. Whilst both situations are of dual use nature, the one has a much greater impact on a the military situation. A simple, black and white question of "does this cause hardship to the civilian population?"' can't work because as someone mentioned earlier, there is a degree of hardship which is inevitable when there's a war going on. One must view things as a matter of degree, it's the only practical way.

You seem to be saying that there is no limit to what can be a viable target for israel to attack in neighbouring countries (on the basis of israel using the 'dual use' excuse), ie the water supply can be used by terrorists and therefore is a viable target, same goes for a milk factory (as has been bombed). Would you extend that same leniency in defining 'viable' or legitimate targets to terrorists as you do to the israelis ?

Manic Moran wrote:

Mr Frisk appears to have a bee in his bonnet about the lighthouse. "What possible military excuse is there to hit a lighthouse?" he asks. Here's a thought: Hezbullah fired at least two missiles at an Israeli ship. Where's the best vantage point to see what ships are out on the horizon? My guess, some tall structure with excellent visibility next to the water. Think a lighthouse might qualify?

Considering that interview was a couple thousand words and 'lighthouse' was one of them I think you have zoomed in on that little nugget with your own supposition perhaps as a means to avoid addressing the main substance of his argument.

Manic Moran wrote:

Not at all. The desired Israeli endstate is a disarmed Hezbullah, and I believe it's achievable.

You wouldnt be the first person to hold that opinion and in my opinion its not realistic - if anything israel are recruiting hizbollah throughout that region for generations to come.

Manic Moran wrote:

I think Israel believes it's achievable.

What they say and use as an excuse and what their actual goals are are not necessarily the same thing and in this case I think they are definitely not the same thing.

Manic Moran wrote:

I also think that anyone who believes that Hezbullah can be disarmed purely and solely by Israeli military action is greatly deluded. (Unless the plan is to simply keep the exchange of bombs/rockets going until Hezbullah disarms itself by running out of ammo to lob at Israel).

Agree with you there.

Manic Moran wrote:

Remember the old saw about war being an extension of politics by other means. I'm a few ranks lower than General, but I think the idea here is to keep the bombings up until the disarming of Hezbullah becomes inevitable. The more rockets Hezbullah fires, and the more damage Israel can do to Hezbullahs' stores and infrastructure, the easier this job becomes for the central Lebanese government and the international forces that I presume will show up when this finally starts to settle down.

Your assuming that israel is actually doing hizbollah any damage here at all. I dont see that as proven at this stage to be honest.

Manic Moran wrote:

The other thing is that the argument of 'We're going to bomb Hezbullah into oblivion' provides a negotiating point.

You could also call it a way of threatening widescale civilian deaths and regional instabillity as a means to blackmailing civilised countries into giving you what you want. Or in other words terror tactics - with no respect for the lives of innocent people in this case mainly of a different religion.

Manic Moran wrote:

When the international community finally gets off their collective asses and agrees to send troops to the area with a proper mandate to assist the Lebanese government with the disarming of Hezbullah, Israel has the ability to look like it's being reasonable and accomodating by drawing down a level. "OK.. We will back down from our intention to blow Hezbullah off the map, we'll compromise by allowing international forces to disarm them."

So you reckon israel is lying when it gives its justifications for killing 300+ innocent men women and children ?

Manic Moran wrote:

The end result for Israel is the same, if not better: They have the UN or whoever doing the gruntwork, and Israel has one less thing to worry about. Rather clever, assuming it works.

If you are right on that then israel has killed 300 civilians in order to manipulate other countries into providing it cannon fodder. So would you be ok with putting soldiers from your own country into the firing line as human shields for the IDF ?

bonkey

The Saint wrote:

WThis is against international law yet was sanctioned under Isreali law, the only country in the world to have legalised kidnappings.
...
This is not to mention that the IDF used Palestinians to open doors they suspected of being booby trapped therefore putting them directly in danger. Again against international law. The Israeli Supreme Court finally deemed this action illegal.

Its hardly fair to compare current Hezbollah practices to practices which were once legal but are now illegal in Israel, unless there's reason to believe the practices are still being used.

Its effectively saying "Israel used to do this, so they can't complain that someone else does it now they have ruled its illegal".

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Speaking genearlly, like any of these situations, there's always a matter of degree involved.

Thats exactly what I'm driving at. Saying something is dual-use is not in and of itself a just reason for targetting it. Saying its dual use and its loss will not cause undue hardship for the civilian population may be just, but one must first establish what the boundary conditions of "undue hardship" are....and I've not really seen that done.

More correctly, I've not seen in done pre-emptively. What seems to be done is blanket statements are issued like "whatever it takes", and then individual actions are later justified on the "well, that one is fair enough".

As for Mr. Fisk:


And the Israelis did come back some hours later and bombed the barracks of these soldiers, which were members of a logistics unit. Their job was to repair bridges and electrical lines. They weren't combat soldiers.

Not being combat soldiers makes little difference. Mr. Fisk appears to be suggesting that not only should one limit oneself to military targets, but one should further limit oneself to only a subset of same*.

jc

* Having said this, I recognise that in reality this should be the case to a certain degree with military medical units.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

And the Israelis did come back some hours later and bombed the barracks of these soldiers, which were members of a logistics unit. Their job was to repair bridges and electrical lines. They weren't combat soldiers.

Not being combat soldiers makes little difference. Mr. Fisk appears to be suggesting that not only should one limit oneself to military targets, but one should further limit oneself to only a subset of same*.

jc

* Having said this, I recognise that in reality this should be the case to a certain degree with military medical units.

I think Fisk was trying to suggest that they were bombed to hide the downing of an Israeli jet.

Manic Moran

Considering that interview was a couple thousand words and 'lighthouse' was one of them I think you have zoomed in on that little nugget with your own supposition perhaps as a means to avoid addressing the main substance of his argument.

The lighthouse has been mentioned in previous Fisk reports which had been either linked to or pasted earlier in this thread. I think it's because he watched the helicopter shoot at it, so it's rather fixed in his mind and comes up a few times. That's why I focused in on it.

Morlar wrote:

You seem to be saying that there is no limit to what can be a viable target for israel to attack in neighbouring countries (on the basis of israel using the 'dual use' excuse), ie the water supply can be used by terrorists and therefore is a viable target, same goes for a milk factory (as has been bombed). Would you extend that same leniency in defining 'viable' or legitimate targets to terrorists as you do to the israelis ?

You must have missed where I said 'a matter of degree.' Unless defined as a protected item, such as a hospital, anything could be a viable target if the situation deems it so. The Geneva Convention describes the definer not in terms of the nature of the target in itself, but if it makes "An effective contribution to military action"

Your assuming that israel is actually doing hizbollah any damage here at all. I dont see that as proven at this stage to be honest.

When the dust from all this is settled in three or four years time, do you think that Hebullah will remain in its present form with large stocks of short and intermediate range rockets, and cruise missiles? This little spat is certainly calling attention to the fact that Hezbullah is slightly better armed than a private militia has any reasonable need to be in a country with a central government and army, and I believe this situation will be rectified.

You could also call it a way of threatening widescale civilian deaths and regional instabillity as a means to blackmailing civilised countries into giving you what you want.

The region is already unstable, and there are already civilian deaths. This is a swift kick up the arse to the rest of the world who have become blind to the usual tit-for-tat cycle of 'bombing here, assasination there' which has become business as usual and a footnote in the newspapers. The only difference is that this is all happening in a two-week period, and people are paying attention all of a sudden, instead of the same casualty level over, oh, say a one-year period that nobody would have batted an eyelid over.
It seems to Israel that the Rest of World has seen Israel pull out of Lebanon, Lebanon's economy generally improves and RoW decided "OK, all looks good on the surface. We'll not dig deeper and look for trouble" Cut back to five years ago, and Irish troops pulled out of UNIFIL because all was now rosy and happy in Lebanon after the Israeli pullout, even though Hezbullah was still known to advocate the destruction of Israel. It's analagous to not keeping a firewatch on an area that had recently been in flames.

So you reckon israel is lying when it gives its justifications for killing 300+ innocent men women and children ?

Its justifications are the disarming of Hizbullah and the return of the two soldiers, yes? I have no doubt that that's the desired end-state, so no, I don't think it's lying.

If you are right on that then israel has killed 300 civilians in order to manipulate other countries into providing it cannon fodder. So would you be ok with putting soldiers from your own country into the firing line as human shields for the IDF ?

I think it's more a case that Israel and Hezbullah together have contributed to the deaths of over 300 civilians because nobody else seemed interested in implementing a less drastic solution which could have been done some time ago. You will note that even the UN is attributing partial blame to Hezbullah for the Lebanese civilian casualties. See remarks by Jan Egeland, UN Relief Co-ordinator about Hezbullah's joint responsibility for civilian casualties for deliberately hiding in civilian areas.

NTM