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

banaman

I post this link to an article that is at odds with the hype and vitriol that is often passed of as reasoned debate about the "middle east" conflict.
The second bescause it gives lie to the "we're all behind Israel" propaganda.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=10701

from:-www.nkuk.org

Orthodox Jews Demand End to Zionist Atrocities in the Middle East


The brutal and indiscriminate attack upon the people and infrastructure of Lebanon by the Zionist State "Israel" is a crime against all basic standards of decency and humanity.
The excuse given for this murderous invasion was the attack by Hezbollah on the IDF. What this might have to do with the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese innocent men, women and children, who are subjected to an ongoing living hell, is beyond comprehension.
Indeed, this current aggression is only the second chapter of the recent viciousness; the first being the furious reinvasion of Gaza and the onslaught on its civilians and the ruination of its basic human services.
Of course, voices may be heard that the IDF are simply responding. This, of course, ignores the question of the evil, implicit in punishing blameless people for the deeds of others. And it totally ignores the root of the problem, the dispossession and subjugation of the Palestinian people which began in 1948, was expanded in 1967 and continues unabated to this day. The crux of the matter is that beyond the immorality of the Zionist treatment of the Palestinians is the ultimate fact -- the ideology of Zionism and ensuing establishment of the Zionist state conflicts with the basic teachings of Judaism.
Zionism is the transformation from Judaism, a G-dliness and spirituality, into a G-dlessness, materialism with nationalistic aspirations. Theodor Herzl and his cohorts, the fathers of this relatively new ideology of Zionism (approximately 100 years), have taken the Almighty out of the equation.
The ultimate establishment of the Zionist State, the fulfilment of the Zionist ideology, takes this blasphemy a step further. The Jewish people were sent into exile by Divine decree. They where then expressly commanded by the Almighty, not to attempt to leave their exilic existence through any human intervention. They were expressly forbidden to create their own state, such as the Zionist state of "Israel". (Talmud, Tractate Kesuboth, p.111).
The Jewish people are forbidden to oppress another people. The creation of the State of "Israel" came about through, the theft from, subjugation and oppression of, the Palestinian people.
Torah Jewry, therefore, condemns the horrifying suffering inflicted upon both the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Because of all of the above, all attempts to achieve peace and stability for "Israel" are destined to fail. The Creator cannot be defied with impunity.
The Rabbis stated, that the State of "Israel" will result in unending pain, suffering and bloodshed. May the Almighty protect His creations.
The State of "Israel" does not speak in the name of Jews, they have stolen the name "Israel" from the Jewish people. Jews are commanded to be loyal citizens in every country in which they reside.
Zionism and the State of "Israel", is the main cause of the exacerbation of anti Semitism universally.
The government of the illegitimate State of "Israel", continually attempts to uproot the Torah and its statutes. They persistently oppress the Torah true Jews who reside in its borders.
We pray that all misery in the Holy Land and Lebanon, shall come to an end and that Zionism, the root of the suffering, continue to fade from Jewish consciousness, to be replaced by the faith of Torah. We shall all witness soon the peaceful dismantlement of the Zionist State "Israel". May we merit seeing the day when all humanity will serve the Almighty in harmony and peace. Amen

Mick86

New_Departure06 wrote:

LOL The Israelis are bombing indiscriminately and that is obvious. They bombed a truck filled with fruit according to reports yesterday. You fall for it every time obviously. A report in the Jerusalem Post carried a claim Gen. Dan Halutz has ordered 10 high rise appartment blocks to be bombed for every Katyusha Hezbollah fires into Haifa. This is 10 eyes for an eye, 10 teeth for a teeth. It is collective punishment.

I don't think there are that many apartment blocks in Lebanon. But I can't deny that the bombing is indiscriminate and it is collective punishment. It's called war. (No lectures on the Geneva Conventions please). Hezbollah are of course rocketing Israel indiscriminately and they might think twice before attacking Israel again. I suppose from an aeroplane a truck load of fruit could be a truck load of rockets. C'est la guerre.

oscarBravo

Mick86 wrote:

No lectures on the Geneva Conventions please

Why not?

fly_agaric

Retaliation Threat rumour

Deleted User wrote:

I wonder if ye guys believe the IDF know everything, and are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of taking out something of no military value, loving the political backlash, and using a weapon likely more expensive that the target.

klaz - absolutely everything has some military value.
Arab lives, and of course property, infrastructure etc are, of course, of negligable value to the IDF compared to their military objectives.
And the Israeli's have their trusty shield (the US) to protect them from any pathetic "backlash".
I mean, if they can deliberately drop a guided bomb right on a UN position [presumably so they can stop Hizbollah using it for cover] and there is barely a geek from anyone what hope do a few joe-soaps have?

New_Departure06

I don't think there are that many apartment blocks in Lebanon. But I can't deny that the bombing is indiscriminate and it is collective punishment. It's called war. (No lectures on the Geneva Conventions please). Hezbollah are of course rocketing Israel indiscriminately and they might think twice before attacking Israel again. I suppose from an aeroplane a truck load of fruit could be a truck load of rockets. C'est la guerre.

I will lecture on the Geneva Convention because it is international law. Once you start exempting countries from being bound from it in a war, we are on the slippery slope to the barbarism that characterised the Middle Ages.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

klaz - absolutely everything has some military value.

Arab lives, and of course property, infrastructure etc are, of course, of negligable value to the IDF compared to their military objectives.

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread, but I don't think you're right on this score. They've targeted buildings where they suspect enemy forces to be. They've dropped warnings as to where they were going to bomb, rather than just bombing the place regardless. That shows a certain degree of concern either about the civilian casualties or the political backlash that comes from killing civilians.

Hizbollah dress as civilians, and can appear to be civilian casualties simply by removing their weapons, and directing a camera crew to them. Simple. Not so simple to distinguish between Hizbollah & the civilians for the Israeli's except that rockets are being fired from some areas, and not from others.

I'm not going to defend the Air campaign. Thats been wrong from the start. A ground force, either with commando's backed up with the Air force, or a full ground invasion was the answer if they really wanted to go in after Hizbollah.

And the Israeli's have their trusty shield (the US) to protect them from any pathetic "backlash".

And Hizbollah can hide behind their being a terrorist front, or they're simply resisting the invaders (regardless of starting this conflict).

And the US will only support Israel for so long. Once their interests are compromised they'll drop israel like a stone.

I mean, if they can deliberately drop a guided bomb right on a UN position [presumably so they can stop Hizbollah using it for cover] and there is barely a geek from anyone what hope do a few joe-soaps have?

Don't really understand what you mean here. Precision weaponry isn't all that precise as we've seen from both this conflict and from the US's experience in Iraq. We seem to believe that these weapons have pin-point accuracy, but they don't. Also the blast radius of these weapons increases the risk of innocents being killed.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

I will lecture on the Geneva Convention because it is international law. Once you start exempting countries from being bound from it in a war, we are on the slippery slope to the barbarism that characterised the Middle Ages.

The Geneva convention is followed when it suits countries to do so. When they want a "gentlemans" war. The Allies in WW2 failed to follow the Geneva convention many times, and they were the very countries that pushed for its creation in the first place. Nowadays, we've seen how much the Geneva convention can be ignored simply by labelling resisting soldiers as terrorists, and carrying them off to some base in Cuba.

The Geneva convention is like the UN. A great idea but it needs to be backed up by some serious firepower before it becomes universal, until at least that firepower is withdrawn, because its no longer convenient for the country providing it.

bounty

go George Galloway on sky news... if that interview was a boxing match, the sky news reporter would have been disqualified for cheating and then knocked out

Morlar

bounty wrote:

go George Galloway on sky news... if that interview was a boxing match, the sky news reporter would have been disqualified for cheating and then knocked out

Yep - he completely floored her alright. I am thinking the http://giyus.org people will have busy day ahead of them.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

The Geneva convention is like the UN. A great idea but it needs to be backed up by some serious firepower before it becomes universal

It is already backed up. If you want your soliders+civilians to be murdered indriscriminatly all you have to do is ignore the Geneva convention for the other side.

Hey presto. Likewise with assinsations. Why do you think assinations of figureheads/country leaders is outlawed (and generall enforced?). Quite simply because it would be open season otherwise.

Just because some people ignore said laws is not a reason for us to ignore them ourselves. Unless you like becoming the monster it is you are fighting.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread

Yeah. Sorry. I'll stop dragging it off topic after this reply.

Deleted User wrote:

Don't really understand what you mean here.

I mean that the fact that when it comes down to it, Israel would not let a UN post stand in the way of a military objective [Note: I don't think even the Serbs had this kind of brass neck - but then they didn't have the US backing them up] shows that the possibility of "collateral damage":mad: has a minimal effect on how they fight their war.

Deleted User wrote:

Precision weaponry isn't all that precise as we've seen from both this conflict and from the US's experience in Iraq. We seem to believe that these weapons have pin-point accuracy, but they don't. Also the blast radius of these weapons increases the risk of innocents being killed

The bombs are very precise (assuming the technology doesn't foul up) - but may not be accurate because of human targetting errors, and may be indiscriminate - because at the end of the day - a large bomb = a very big explosion - guided or not guided.

HelterSkelter

Deleted User wrote:

They've dropped warnings as to where they were going to bomb, rather than just bombing the place regardless. That shows a certain degree of concern either about the civilian casualties or the political backlash that comes from killing civilians.

Klaz, can you tell me why the Israeli army would drop leaflets to tell everyone where they plan on bombing. Now maybe I am missing something here but I don't see the point in doing this. If you were a member of Hezbollah and saw these leaflets are you really going to stick around? No you are going to get out of that area. Do the Israeli army really believe, or expect us to believe, that when they drop the leaflets in a town that all the civilliant get out and Hezbollah stay behind justing to be bombed to pieces?

Hobbes

They dropped leaflets after bombing the cities telling people to get out of the city as they planned to bomb it. They didn't say "We are dropping bombs, here, here and here".

Add to that after dropping the leaflets they proceeded to bomb/missiled/shelled people trying to flee the areas in cars, in some cases even Red Cross vans.

Doesn't show any concern whatsoever.

anthony4335

For anyone talking about the geneva convention. Have even israel signed up to it? ,as far as I know they have not and are therefore not bound by its articles.
Israel have the right to protect its citizens and borders from attack. Lebanon started it by invading israel and commiting murder and kidnap. I have little sympathy for Lebanon on this.

oscarBravo

anthony4335 wrote:

For anyone talking about the geneva convention. Have even israel signed up to it? ,as far as I know they have not and are therefore not bound by its articles.

Well, that's alright then.

Mick86

oscarBravo wrote:

Why not?

I don't need to be lectured on it.

New_Departure06 wrote:

I will lecture on the Geneva Convention because it is international law. Once you start exempting countries from being bound from it in a war, we are on the slippery slope to the barbarism that characterised the Middle Ages.

I didn't ask that anybody be exempted from the Geneva Convention, I asked people not to lecture ME on it.

Mick86

bounty wrote:

go George Galloway on sky news... if that interview was a boxing match, the sky news reporter would have been disqualified for cheating and then knocked out

Sky News reporters have been asking some daft questions of interviewees. Yesterday somebody in Tyre asked a Lebanese man standing beside a crater what he thought of Israel. Great question. Similarly asking Mr Galloway anything about the Middle East will elicit the stock responses. Personally I thought he was a bit loutish.

gandalf

Posts moved from the "Protests against Israel?" thread.

Sgt. Sensible

Rock Climber wrote:

I see so you are partisan in this dispute[not that you were leaving much doubt]
Thats ok,you're entitled to be, but why dont you just out and out say that,rather than couching in such tones?

I suppose your only answer to that again wil be what about , what about, what about those Israeli no goods and all the bad they are doing?? Such a standpoint (the anti Israel one) is very justifiable but I havent seen one ounce of justifiability of the not so subtle stance taken that oh the Israeli's are at it so lets all be at it [read: breaking recognised UN codes of conduct/resolutions etc] in response.

Not one ounce of course other than thinly veiled partisanship.
Theres nothing wrong with being partisan you know ergo theres no need to couch it in thin veils.
Couched or not,you should expect inteligent posters to take you up on it when the veil is as thin as it is appearing here.

Well excuse me for actually having a reasoned opinion instead of trotting out utterly conceited intellectually dishonest woolly minded nonsense about how both sides are as bad as each other. Anyone who adopts that sort of fence sitting pose with regard to any conflict is objectively on the side of the aggressor in my view. And believe it or not, most conflicts have an aggressor and a victim. Frankly I find it offensive to accuse someone of being 'partisan' for being appalled at the slaughter of UN observers, red cross staff and innocent men women and children no matter what nationality they are.

The allegation that I'm anti-Israeli is too disgusting to merit a response. I thought personal attacks were not allowed here.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

It is already backed up. If you want your soliders+civilians to be murdered indriscriminatly all you have to do is ignore the Geneva convention for the other side.

Hey presto. Likewise with assinsations. Why do you think assinations of figureheads/country leaders is outlawed (and generall enforced?). Quite simply because it would be open season otherwise.

Just because some people ignore said laws is not a reason for us to ignore them ourselves. Unless you like becoming the monster it is you are fighting.

But leaders have been targeted in the past. Admittedly by the US, but I'm sure other countries have had their fair share of both successful and unsuccessful assasinations in the past.

fly_agaric wrote:

I mean that the fact that when it comes down to it, Israel would not let a UN post stand in the way of a military objective [Note: I don't think even the Serbs had this kind of brass neck - but then they didn't have the US backing them up] shows that the possibility of "collateral damage" has a minimal effect on how they fight their war.

And I daresay most countries if placed in a similiar position would do the same. If the UN forces are being used as a shield at some stage that shield will need to be forced. Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean that other countries wouldn't do the same. I daresay both the US and most of the main powers consider such a risk acceptable to stop attacks coming out of that area.

I also believe it was in part the UN's own fault for having troops in there unable to remove the forces using them as a shield, and unable to leave the area under their own steam. War is a risk.

This is not me saying that they right in doing what they did. I can understand the logic behind it. However another side of me winces at the thought of it.

The bombs are very precise (assuming the technology doesn't foul up) - but may not be accurate because of human targetting errors, and may be indiscriminate - because at the end of the day - a large bomb = a very big explosion - guided or not guided.

So what I said, but reconstructed.:D

HelterSkelter wrote:

Klaz, can you tell me why the Israeli army would drop leaflets to tell everyone where they plan on bombing. Now maybe I am missing something here but I don't see the point in doing this. If you were a member of Hezbollah and saw these leaflets are you really going to stick around? No you are going to get out of that area. Do the Israeli army really believe, or expect us to believe, that when they drop the leaflets in a town that all the civilliant get out and Hezbollah stay behind justing to be bombed to pieces?

Unless Hezbollah are using the civilian situation to boost their own publicity by forcing civilian casualties. By forcing the media to see civilian casualties to further decrease support for Israel. Seems to be working, considering some of the stories from some reporters that they're told where and what to report.

Do I believe that they drop leaflets? Yes. I've seen too many reports of them doing so to doubt it. Perhaps you can disprove it? Do I believe that they think it;ll work? No Idea. Do I believe its enough? Nope, not in the slightest.

Hobbes wrote:

They dropped leaflets after bombing the cities telling people to get out of the city as they planned to bomb it. They didn't say "We are dropping bombs, here, here and here".

Add to that after dropping the leaflets they proceeded to bomb/missiled/shelled people trying to flee the areas in cars, in some cases even Red Cross vans.

Doesn't show any concern whatsoever.

Thats a bit much to swallow. Why would they give their enemies precide co-ordinates so they can set up their anti-aircracft weapons in mass ready for the Israeli planes...? Come on. Be a bit serious. :rolleyes: They do however drop for the section of the city/town that they're going to attack beforehand. As I've said its not enough, but its better than just going in without doing anything.

And I said I believed they had some concern for either civilian casualties or political backlash. Probably more the former. I have no intention of defending their air strikes against civilians leaving the area, thats just terrible.

Jimboo_Jones

The BBC had an interview with one of the heads of Christian Aid yeasterday, he was saying that as they are unable to bring in aid, due to Isreal blockade / blowing up roads stc that the displaced people (about one million people) have been getting most of the support from Hezbollah, clothing and food etc. He was saying that every day that the conflict goes on, more and more moderate people are being drawn into Hezbollah's side. Apparently Hezbollah has also been saying that they will help rebuild their houses as well (something the Christian aid guy was a bit dubious about).

It would seem that Hezbollah will come out of this stronger, politically if not militarily, which will be bad for Lebanon and bad for the area as a whole.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

But leaders have been targeted in the past.

And that has helped when? Another way to look at it is.. If you have a total disregard for the geneva convention do you think soliders+civilians on the opposing side are going to be more accomdating to you?

Thats a bit much to swallow.

What exactly is hard to swallow? That is exactly what happened.

So far we are at..
- Infrastructure destroyed.
- 30:1 ratio of deaths of Lebonese civilian vs Israeli civilians.
- over 30% of civilians killed in Lebanon have been children.
- over 800,000 people displaced.

and the only people winning in this is Hezbollah. They have more support now then they did four weeks ago.

edanto

Deleted User wrote:

Thats a bit much to swallow. Why would they give their enemies precide co-ordinates so they can set up their anti-aircracft weapons in mass ready for the Israeli planes...? Come on. Be a bit serious. :rolleyes: They do however drop for the section of the city/town that they're going to attack beforehand. As I've said its not enough, but its better than just going in without doing anything.

Yeah, they really thought this through allright.

step 1 Bomb all bridges and other travel infrastructure.

step 2 Instruct all civillians to leave their villages.

step 2A Drop leaflets.

step 3 Bomb the hell out of the villages, anyone that is left must be a terrorist. (everyone knows that civillians are able to float several inches above the ground and don't need intact roads or bridges to travel)

step 4 Oh, bomb some people on the roads too, particularly those travelling close to ambulances and large fruit lorries. (everyone knows that terrorists like fruit and medical supplies)

step 5 Make a big fuss about Hezbollah's weapons and their support from other countries, but label any criticism of US support and/or Israeli nukes as 'anti-semitism'.

Repeat conflict as necessary, it's always better to have a war or two than to build relationships with your neighbours.

Pocari Sweat

It probably not just as simple as playing good neighbours in that neck of the woods.

Benyamin Netanyahu was getting interrogated by a bbc journo on a prog called hardtalk this morning and put the journo through his paces with the obvious stuff like the lebanese are getting the hell bombed out of them.

Ben Net, went on to say the british bombed the feck out of 100,000's of germans in WW2, and most of it was civilians and indiscriminate, so what was he on about.

He also claimed the force of 10,000 israelis had not gone in fully but were only pin pointing hezbollah positions and the whole sale destruction of the country was simply not happening like the brits went all out in WW2.

The journo said you can't use the WW2 scenario, things have moved on.

Right then Ben Net, cut in and said what about the brits and yanks in iraq and afghanistanm carpet bombing, wholesale slaughter of thousands of civilians, how recent an example do you want?

The journo was on his back foot and said the main part in lebanon were civilians, but they agreed so far it was about 900, and ben was pushing for the brits/yanks being far worse recently.

bonkey

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Right then Ben Net, cut in and said what about the brits and yanks in iraq and afghanistanm carpet bombing, wholesale slaughter of thousands of civilians, how recent an example do you want?

At which point, ask Netanyahu what he had to say to people who maintained a consistent criticism of all such actions regardless of who it was perpetrating them.

Sure, he has a point that its hypocritical to support the US bombing the crap out of whichever civilians they like and to then criticise someone else for doing likewise.....but with the exception of the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing(ly Led) the vast majority of people criticising the current Israeli actions didn't give the US two thumbs up for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And lets not forget that Afghanistan/Iraq have been a watershed (so to speak) in that there's been a fairly constant stream of "shifters" who have concluded that not only was Afghanistan/Iraq not acceptable, but that they themselves were wrong to previously support it. Are such people not entitled to criticise Israel subsequent to their change of heart, or must they be condemned to only offering words of support for causes they no longer believe in?

Id have little time for Dubya Criticising the Israelis...but he isn't actually doing that. With the possible exception of Tony Blair, I'm hard pressed to think of any Iraq/Afghanistan fanboy who is now saying anything critical of Israel's military actions.

But it would take a tough reporter to turn around and point this out, as then it would be the press in the crossfire, asking why they don't reflect this ongoing public criticism of the war in Iraq half as much as they do the goings on in Lebanon.

To that, unfortunately, the press would have little answer and thus they will continue to be walked over. Let us not for one minute, however, see this as a sign of weakness in anything but the press. It is not an invalidation of the criticism of Israel, merely an invalidation of the right of the press to claim to be objective.

jc

jc

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

So what I said, but reconstructed.:D

Yeah. I suppose so.:)

Anyway: from the Irish Times Today

Olmert on negative efects of the war on Lebanese opinion of Israel/Israelis:

"They hated Israel anyway - they gave shelter to Hizbollah"

A refreshingly honest break from the bullshít about how this war was going to turn all those Lebanese who Israel really, really want to bomb with love rather than explosives and live in peace beside against Hizbollah!

Megan85

fly_agaric wrote:

Yeah. I suppose so.:)

Anyway: from the Irish Times Today

Olmert on negative efects of the war on Lebanese opinion of Israel/Israelis:

"They hated Israel anyway - they gave shelter to Hizbollah"

A refreshingly honest break from the bullshít about how this war was going to turn all those Lebanese who Israel really, really want to bomb with love rather than explosives and live in peace beside against Hizbollah!

Don't believe anything you read,don't know if this particular thing is true but lately when I read newspapers on Israeli/Arab conflict I don't see much fairness,I don't see that Israel is right but I also don't understand how can they say that all they do and their logic is complitely wrong,while showing not much material on what happens and how much damage was caused to north Israel too,all Israel does they don't just do to recover missing soldiers but to try and defend country against future attacks from Hesbollah,I do not agree with the hurting of the civillians on both sides,I think some sorts of agreement should be reached and immediately,actually many of you might be surprised by how many Israeli people themselves think they should cease fire.

LostinBlanch

fly_agaric wrote:

Yeah. I suppose so.:)

Anyway: from the Irish Times Today

Olmert on negative efects of the war on Lebanese opinion of Israel/Israelis:

"They hated Israel anyway - they gave shelter to Hizbollah"

Even the Maronite Christians who were their (Israeli) allies! They bombed them last week. Doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure if the Israelis know what their plan is.

It's a pity that someone like Mandela* isn't around to shame all sides into stopping.

*Yeah I know he's alive but he's retired from public life, more's the pity.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

And that has helped when? Another way to look at it is.. If you have a total disregard for the geneva convention do you think soliders+civilians on the opposing side are going to be more accomdating to you?

No i don't, but then Hezbollah don't exactly follow the Geneva convention either. I'm not supporting not applying the geneva convention to this war or any future wars. Its a great agreement, but its still an agreement that needs to be backed up with force. And the problem is that it needs to be supported by both sides for it to have a chance of working.

The problem exists that Israel sees itself as being under attack from a number of foes who are exempted already by the Geneva convention. Doesn't the Geneva convention have a section about using civilians or civilian areas for use in war? Hezbollah has intentionally placed itself in civilian areas, and used those positions for attacks on Israel. Or another with using civilian dress for attacks? (not sure about the dress/uniforms)

In the end, it will be the Lebanese that pay for Hezbollah's ignorance of the geneva Conv, through using Israel to plow through them to get to Hezbollah's positions.

I still say its a lovely idea (the GC). And I still say it needs to be enforced.

What exactly is hard to swallow? That is exactly what happened.

That you would expect israel to drop notifications of the co-ordinates of their attacks and when they would happen. My example is realistic. Hezbollah have access to anti-aircraft weaponry, and would use such opportunities to create death-traps for Israeli planes. At the end of the day, Israel will look to limit their own casualties over that of foreign civilians.

Frankly, I think you're being extremely unrealistic. Personally I'd prefer them to call off their air war, and focus on a ground offensive. But either way civilian casualties will occur. I'm just hoping a ground offensive would be better controlled.

So far we are at..
- Infrastructure destroyed.
- 30:1 ratio of deaths of Lebonese civilian vs Israeli civilians.
- over 30% of civilians killed in Lebanon have been children.
- over 800,000 people displaced.

and the only people winning in this is Hezbollah. They have more support now then they did four weeks ago.

Indeed they do. And Israel is seen in even a worse light than before, along with a war their economy didn't need. However an Israeli response was needed. Not this one I totally agree with you on. But a response was needed regardless.

edanto

edanto wrote:

Yeah, they really thought this through allright.

never said they did. Plans don't always work. Thats for the movies.

step 1 Bomb all bridges and other travel infrastructure.

Which I can understand to reduce Hezbollah's mobility, since they use the same travel infrastructure the civilans use. Actually such destruction is pretty standard with most prep work for invasions. Not that an invasion actually happened. Instead this horrible bombing campaign.

step 2 Instruct all civillians to leave their villages.

Yup. Not the best thought out plan. Guess they thought people would walk out. Not sure where they thought those people would go though.

step 2A Drop leaflets.

And broadcast through the radio. I don't really see what your issues with the warnings is. Would you prefer if they didn't do any of it at all? Perhaps the death toll would be higher, if they hadn't.

step 3 Bomb the hell out of the villages, anyone that is left must be a terrorist. (everyone knows that civillians are able to float several inches above the ground and don't need intact roads or bridges to travel)

Yup. Not the best idea either. Guess they believed that people would prefer their lives over their property and take any means possible of leaving, including walking/running.

step 4 Oh, bomb some people on the roads too, particularly those travelling close to ambulances and large fruit lorries.

No reasoning there at all. Bloody awful.

(everyone knows that terrorists like fruit and medical supplies)

I've already spoken about mistakes, but I'm not going to repeat myself because we all know that the IDF never makes mistakes.

step 5 Make a big fuss about Hezbollah's weapons and their support from other countries, but label any criticism of US support and/or Israeli nukes as 'anti-semitism'.

They've played the anti-semitism line waaayyy too many times. Enough is enough. I've never held too much backing for them on that score.

Repeat conflict as necessary, it's always better to have a war or two than to build relationships with your neighbours.

Right. This is what gets me. You fully expect Israel to sit there, be attacked, and brush it off.. It really is amazing. A kidnapping (and a number of previously failed kidnappings) and a number of rocket attacks were made before Israel responded beyond the initial failed rescue attempt.

While i agree that the response that Israel made was way overboard, and terrible to behold, an answer needed to be made to Hezbollah. Its not as if Israel was holding on to lebanese land, which Hezbollah are pledged to fight over, but rather the land they held was Syrian. Am I wrong? Is that land not Syria's to argue over?

If there had been no attack on lebanon would you be complaining about the 33 odd israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah? Just a question. [I'm NOT labelling anyone pro-whatever, before this gets thrown at me again]