Israel Weighing Use of Force Against Hezbollah

[Purveyor]

Israel's defense minister on Wednesday accused Syria of allowing the rearmament of Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and said Israel has the right to act "forcefully" against the Shiite militia to counter the threat.

--snip--

"We can't under any circumstances ignore the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Hezbollah," Peretz said. While Israel remains committed to the cease-fire, he said, "we reserve the right to protect the citizens of the state of Israel and we will do this forcefully without any compromises."

--snip--

Peretz gave no firm evidence of the weapons transfers and did not specify what would provoke Israeli military action in Lebanon. But he said this week's discovery of the bombs along the border showed how critical the situation has become.

--snip--

Despite an advantage in firepower, the army failed to accomplish the two main goals set by Israeli leaders — destruction of Hezbollah and rescuing the two captured soldiers. It also was unable to prevent Hezbollah from raining thousands of rockets onto northern Israel.

A total of 159 Israelis were killed, including 39 civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets. More than 1,000 people were killed on the Lebanese side, according to tallies by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250738,00.html

[Tom Joad]

1. Will there be another million cluster bomblets dropped on Lebanon?

[Totallybushed]

3. Probably.

It's too bad, too. A lot of Innocent people on both sides will suffer. But realistically, you can't expect the Israelis to just sit back and take it.

It's up to the good, decent people of Lebanon to put a stop to these killers

[Porcupine]

7. It's okay with you then? Dropping cluster bombs on children?

Because that's who's hurt by them.

Oh, I forget, those are ARAB children who have to worry about cluster bombs in every patch of weeds. The defenders of Israel are perfectly ok with killing and maiming arab children. It's "regrettable."

[Totallybushed]

10. Not at all.

Any more than, I assume, it is okay with you that little Israeli children get killed by Hezbllah's rockets. All for the sake of "Allah", of course.

All I'm saying is that those that attack others should be expecting retaliation. And if they attack someone bigger than themselves, then they should expect to get hurt more than they hurt the other.

As I said, Lebanese people of good will are the only ones who can stop this, as the Israelis will retaliate to protect themselves, and are unlikely to listen too long to whines of "oppression". Maybe so, but, like any of us, they will be more concerned with the survival of themselves and their friends and families than that of their attackers.


However, I have a question for you. Please answer seriously, and not with an argumentum ad populum (appeal to emotion) or an ad hominem argument (basically, a personal attack, "you don't care if Arab children are killed), as you did in your reply.

Here's the question, why is pointing out the reality of a situation so often taken as evidence that someone approves of the situation?? If I told Susan that she would be fired if she did something, is that evidence that I want her to be fired? Especially if I am not the person who will fire her? If she does it anyway, is it my fault she got fired? Am I happy she got fired? If yes, on what evidence do you base that conclusion?

Think about it.

[breakaleg]

13. the problem is, Israel would have all of Lebanon suffer in their retaliation rather

than going after just the militia. And in doing so, they lose all credibility and their actions while excused my many can never be justified.

I'm all for people protecting themselves. But not if it means that if you kill one, I'll kill 20 to send you a message. That's complete and total garbage.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

16. Well, it's nice to see how little regard you have for innocents.

This is about the most hateful statement I've seen you write.

"The message (that Israel has every right to send) is that Israel will keep raising the cost in death and the destruction of infrastructure until Hisb'allah decides the price is right - and stops attacking Israel."

Is it any wonder the masses don't believe this shit?

[msmcghee]

18. I hardly see how that was "hateful".

I simply described the reality of war - a war that the side you are defending (Hisb'allah) started.

But, that's how war works. If someone attacks you - you either stop them or they kill you and occupy your land. As a defender you have no choice. To stop the attacker you have to retaliate and make it costly enough to them that they quit - hopefully before they kill you and win.

I know you are not familiar with these things but a minimal retaliation on Israel's part would have done nothing but embolden Hisb'allah. The end result would have been even more Lebanese civilian deaths.

There would have been many fewer dead Lebanese civilians if Israel had been better prepared and had delivered a more decisive retaliation in the first few hours. But they were not and Hisb'allah had prepared very well and the Lebanese suffered bacause of that.

Of course, there would have been no dead civilians on either side if Hisb'allah had not crossed into Israel, killed and kidnapped several IDF while launching a massive rocket barrage into Northern Israel towns and villages that killed and injured Israeli civilians - would there?

But, it was apparently worth it to Hisb'allah to see over a thousand Lebanese die for the chance to kill 150 Israelis. It looks like they are arming themselves to try it again. You seem to think that's good.

How many dead Lebanese civilians do you think this next attack will be worth to Hisb'allah for each Israeli they kill.

[breakaleg]

24. you condoned the killing of Lebanese civilians.

[msmcghee]

26. Bullshit.

I said that civilians inevitably get killed when someone starts a war and I tried to explain why. In this case they were killed because Hisb'allah, the side you are defending, started the war.

Try dealing with the discussion and forget the childish games. We're talking about real people's lives here - not scoring points with the moderator.

I don't want to see anyone get killed. I'm against war. That's why I despise cowards and bullies who start them - and their apologists. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

[breakaleg]

31. You said...

"The message (that Israel has every right to send) is that Israel will keep raising the cost in death and the destruction of infrastructure until Hisb'allah decides the price is right - and stops attacking Israel."

You are making excuses for Israel killing innocents on the other side and stating quite clearly that the death will stop when Hezbollah gets the message. It sounds like you are condoning it to me.

[msmcghee]

34. Where in that sentence do you see the word "innocents"?

If you start from the belief that I want to see Lebanese civilians die - then you might read the sentence that way. But you would be wrong in both cases.

Let me say this again. I hate all war and killing - especially of innocent civilians. That's why I despise those who start them and who apologize for those bullies and cowards who start wars. There is no good excuse to start a war - to start killing people.

The best way to ensure that wars will continue is to apologize for those who start them - to say that they had no other choice. I don't do that. I strongly condemn those who start wars. If you really didn't like the idea of innocent civilians being killed and you understood human nature a little better I think you would too.

My discussion with you is based on my belief that you really don't understand human nature and violence very well and that if you did you would condemn those who start wars rather than defend them. The only alternative is to believe that you don't mind seeing civilians killed as long as some Israelis are killed in the process - which is what Hisb'allah (and Hamas, IJ and other militant Arab groups) believe.

I would hate to believe that was the case.

[breakaleg]

35. When talking about this conflict, we are talking about Israelis on one side

and Lebanese on the other. This last conflict has shown that Israel killed more Lebanese civilians than militia. So when you say what you did about raising the cost of death etc. then that cost on the Lebanese side has been shown to be civilians. So, who else would I assume you were referring to? The dead people are Lebanese civilians in large numbers.

You can insult me all you like. It doesn't make your argument or excuses any more palatable. I understand human nature and violence perfectly.

The fact is Israel has very little regard for the lives of anyone on the other side of their conflicts. The numbers bear that out. Time and again we've seen Israel inflict collective damage on masses of people in defense of their stature of the strongest military threat in the middle east. If I were to believe that all of those deaths, whether in Lebanon (Qana ring any bells to you?) or Gaza were accidental, then I would also have to believe that a bunch of untrained idiots are running the IDF.

[msmcghee]

37. Let me try to state this a little more clearly.

There seems to be two modes of thinking in this forum: Those who believe that violence breeds violence and therefore that violence should never be part of relations between people or states. That would be me.

Then there's the other side who believe that if their complaint deserves it - that it is justifiable to kill others to rectify that perceived wrong. IMO that would be you and some others here. I know you will claim you do not - but when you criticize Israel for defending the lives of its citizens that is the practical effect.

Let me explain: I don't believe violence and killing should be part of the "negotiation" process between nations - I believe that the only way to prevent violence and killing - is to prevent it. That is, since someone always resorts to violence first - it is that initiating event that deserves great condemnation.

This means that to prevent violence and killing - those who start wars must be treated as the criminals who they are. They must be soundly condemned by the whole world - certainly by all those who hate death and destruction.

The reason for that is intuitively obvious to most - although many in this forum have a problem seeing it. Once someone is attacked they must have the right to defend themselves however they see fit. Others have no right to decide how much retaliation is not enough, too much or just right. It's up to the defending party to make that decision - because it is their lives and the lives of their families that have been put at risk by the violence - violence that they had no part of.

It is very naive to think that the purpose of retaliation to a deadly attack is simply tit for tat. You kill three of mine - I get to kill three of yours. That's a recipe for never-ending war. It is saying that a little bit of killing innocent civilians is OK - as long as you don't get carried away with it. Right, like each side will be satisfied that the other is being reasonable as their families are killed.

That reasoning also falls apart completely in any situation where one side values the lives of its citizens more than the other side values theirs. It means that an attacker gets an unfair advantage if they are willing to take more casualties. It rewards violence and guarantees it will happen.

That's why the defending side in war has the following rights (obligations actually),

a) First, to retaliate to whatever level is necessary to stop any ongoing attack. That means the initiator could be completely destroyed if they were able to - and decided to - continue their attack until that point was reached. In this last war in Lebanon Israel called Hisb'allah's bluff on that one - and Hisb'allah finally blinked. But only after a lot of damage was done, unfortunately. But, it was Hisb'allah's call. They were the instigator and they were firing a hundred or more rockets every day into Israel - killing and maiming Israelis. The idea that Israel was required to keep a civilian body count score perhaps for some PR purpose is ludicrous. Israel's duty to its citizens was to quickly increase the level of violence until Hisb'allah quit. And that finally happened.

b) Also, Israel's duty was to retaliate to whatever level would guarantee that Hisb'allah could not attack them again for a long while. That means more than just destroying the enemy forces. It means destroying valuable infrastructure too - making them pay some painful price so they will be very unlikely to try it again after they lick their wounds. Some say Israel stopped short of that goal in this case. We should all hope that is wrong - if we don't like the idea of innocent civilians getting killed, that is.

It makes no difference to me whether or not you think I am a cruel person who loves to see innocent civilians killed. That's just your lack of understanding. The world lives by the rules stated above regardless of what anyone thinks about it - because the bullies and cowards who start wars would soon rule the world otherwise - and it would be a dark world we would leave for our children.

Apologizing and justifying Hisb'allah's attack on Israel is a terrible thing to do - if you don't like the idea of innocent civilians getting killed. That's because Hisb'allah knows there are those in the West who will support them and defend them for whatever reasons - who will agree with them that their desire to destroy Israel allows them to violate the "no violence" agreement that most civilized nations tacitly live by.

All I'm doing here is pointing out the obvious and hoping that someone stops those who so fervently hate Israel that they'd gladly see the whole world destroyed if that was necessary to destroy Israel. Otherwise, they are likely to get their wish. It bothers me greatly that "liberals' would be in the forefront of promoting that outcome instead of calling for peace and nonviolence in the ME.

[breakaleg]

38. Before I waste any more of my time reading your post, let's start with your

premise.


You believe violence breeds violence and that it should never be part of relations between people or states. Yet you go on and on about how Israel is defending itself in committing very large number of deaths of their civilian opponent. You routinely make excuses for such behavior. Are you really being honest here?

And I'm supposed to believe that if the opponent deserves it's justifiable. Oh, and I'm so stupid, I don't realize I feel this way (huge chuckle here - wish I had a little smiley to insert at this point).

I think you confused both of our sides.

This is why I usually have you blocked. I won't bother reading past this point, since the premise on which you base your argument is flawed.

[msmcghee]

39. How pathetic.

I made the mistake again of believing you were interested in actually discussing this issue rather than just condemning Israel for whatever happens. I won't make that mistake again.

[breakaleg]

40. What can I say? I tend to get offended when accused of ridiculous shit.

[Andromeda]

56. You have a reading comprehension problem....

When you make statements like you made you can't be expected to be taken seriously.

[Porcupine]

19. Ah, the "It's your fault that I shot all your children" arguement.

If the Lebanese and the Hisb'allah wold just do what they were told....

"The message (that Israel has every right to send) is that Israel will keep raising the cost in death and the destruction of infrastructure until Hisb'allah decides the price is right - and stops attacking Israel."

A parable if you will:

So the prison guard gets hit by a prisoner with a rock. Rather than identify the individual he pulls 2 men, 4 women and 7 children out and shoots them dead. "It's your fault I shot all your children" he says to the prisoners "next time don't throw rocks."

We all know where this kind of logic leads. It doesn't lead to peace.

[Lurking Dem]

20. "We all know where this kind of logic leads."

A failing grade in Intro to Logic?

[msmcghee]

21. Your analogy is ludicrous.

The IDF are not prison guards. They are Israeli citizen soldiers defending their border from an armed militia (not prisoners) that has pledged and acted on that pledge repeatedly to kill Israelis.

Israel retaliated until the rockets stopped - just as any sane nation would have done.

But tell us some more "just so" stories.

[breakaleg]

25. "defending their border". That statement implies that Hezbollah militia were lined up

across the border getting ready to invade. They weren't.

[Porcupine]

28. But they did lob rockets.

So some response should have been expected. A rocket into Israel is fairly responded by an equally sized rocket or artillary shell in return. One for one.

Both sides soon get the idea that this is futile and stop. That is what happens on he Vietnam-China border, the North-South Korea border and several others. When one side escalates due to arrogence or outrage things get out of hand and wars start. The resulting wars always kill more on both sides than the artillary harrasement did.

Likewise the kidnapping charge. All sides in the Israel/Arab conflicts kidnap percieved threats whenever possible. Claiming outrage was just stupid and in contradiction of the facts.

[breakaleg]

33. Yes, I agree. A response was to be expected. I think what Israel did

was way over the top though.

[Porcupine]

27. Remember the apartment building?

The one full of women, old men and children that was destroyed? Tell me the people in that building were a threat to Isreal.

Civilians are frequently the captives of the governments they live under regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. It did not help the civilians in London, Warsaw or Dresden that their governments chose to go to war in WWII. They were afforded equal respect; none.

Unequal response to violence breeds more violence. Unequal response to violence is IDF policy. The civilian populations of both sides suffer the most while the soldiers (prison guards if you will) do the killing.

[breakaleg]

36. Can you imagine if all Americans were to be targetted and held accountable for Bush's policies?

Not a pretty picture.

[msmcghee]

29. I'd respond to your posts but your logic is . .

. . so lacking that your posts are pretty much meaningless. You and Calzone both seem to put out a lot of words with very little useful content. I'll keep watching for some semblance of an argument that deserves a reply but until then don't hold your breath.

[Porcupine]

30. Of course we'd all prefer an echo chamber....

Where nobody disagrees with us but that never, ever solves shit. Addressing others points of view honestly as possible is one way through. The other way involves lots of of flying metal. We know how well the flying metal solution works.

"Your post is meaningless" is not a point, it's a contradiction akin to "is not, is too." Come back later when you have a subject for your posts.

[msmcghee]

32. Actually, I very much enjoy a good argument.

If this place was an echo chamber I wouldn't bother being here. I'm just not into wasting my time on silliness and rants posing as reasonable debate.

[leftynyc]

59. Then how do they protect themselves?

If Hezbollah is going to hide among civilians and attack Israel from neighborhoods, what would you suggest they do?

[Totallybushed]

61. They have

to go after them where they are. And where they are is hiding among their own children.

The Israeli government is responsible for the safety of its own citizens. Lebanon is responsible for the safety of theirs. Hezbollah is responsible for endangering the lives of both.

Israel is at war, not engaging in a police bust.

[Tom Joad]

17. Its up to the people of Israel to take care of its killers.

[Totallybushed]

62. And so they do.

What "militias" are there in Israel? Israel does not condone or practice random attacks on Arab civilians. Give an example.

[oberliner]

4. Not if Hezbollah disbands as a militia

As required to do by international agreements.

[Porcupine]

9. They're not insane.

They know that "international agreements" means AIPAC and the US's toadies. Those same "international agreements" will never take action to save their children from Israeli genocide.

The power of the US is fading fast in the middle east and everbody is taking notes in Iraq in how to deal with armor and helicopters. When, not if, the US pulls out and counts it's losses Israel is going to be in a bit of a fix.

Hezbollah will re-arm and nobodies stopping them. Israel can only kill more civilians and children with it's bombs. Maybe they should learn to live with their neighbors.

[furman]

11. Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking and biased

These "international agreements" calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah are actually UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.

The fact that "Hezbollah will re-arm and nobodies stopping them" sadly demonstrates that Israel needs to arm itself to the teeth in order to protect itself. The UN has once again proven itself unwilling or unable to provide for adequate security arrangements with Israel.


>Maybe they (Israel) should learn to live with their neighbors.

Hezbollah explicitly calls for the the elimination of Israel to be replaced by a fundamentalist Islamic state.
It is Hezbollah and sadly much of the Islamic world that has not gotten over its rejectionist stance on Israel.
These terrorist organizations and states calling for Israel's annihilation are truly genocidal fanatics.

[breakaleg]

14. Since Israel is rathy picky/choosing when it comes to following UN resolutions,

I hardly think they have a leg to stand on in this issue.

[Porcupine]

22. Israel only needs to secure it's borders against infantry.

They have no worries about being attacked with armor since that looks to be suicide with advanced anti-tank weapons available.

Artillery duels across borders have been proven to be unprofitable after a few shells from each side. The Katusha's didn't cause all that much damage and can be answered shot for shot. The international community will not complain about equivalent return of artillery. We notice when Israel destroys occupied apartment blocks.

In all likelihood their border is secure.

Since Israel is not interested in stealing the water in Lebanon they don't have a problem do they? The His'ballah can jump up and down and say whatever they like; they aren't really a threat.

[pelsar]

43. one knows so little....

israeli farmers face a day to day threat from hizalla, those that have farms near the border: katushas, sniping mortars etc...so as i understand: this is ok with you. (2000 to 2006)..and it appears to be starting again.

thats not a secure border, thats terrorism.

but thanks for clearing it up: its a situation that you seem to agree with (since returning one artillary shell on a empty field from where the katushas are shot which are aimed in general directions on israeli cities and farm fields, will hardly stop them)...or is an artillary shell on the house that was used as a sniping post ok with you? (yes families live there too....)...probably not.
but i do like the moral clarity that you propose:

the moral clarity is clear: hizballa can continue to shoot across the intl border and israels "allowed retaliation shall be worthless"

[Totallybushed]

64. Yet why should

Israel tolerate being shelled? That would be insane and a moral dereliction of duty on the part of their leaders. Oh, wait.....

[oberliner]

12. "AIPAC and the US's toadies" were behind the Taif Accord?

The children of Lebanon need to be saved from Israeli genocide?

[frylock]

2. peretz gave no firm evidence of the weapons transfers..

well, there's conjecture and hearsay. Those are KINDS of evidence. </lionel_hutz>

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Nasrallah recently publicly acknowled it...is that good enough proof?

To deny that the illegal Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon are supported by Iran and Syria with money and arms is specious. The real issue is what is the correct reaction.

The new head of the IDF is a infantry officer, not a IAF pilot. I would expect more ground focused approach rather than the air based shock and awe approach taken last year. I would also expect more assinations and terror attacks against Hezbollah.

[atreides1]

8. NO

After all we are constantly hearing how groups like Hezbollah tell lies.

Besides, from what I recall UNIFIL now has the authority to use deadly force to protect civilians in that area of Lebanon, which means unless Israel has developed munitions that can tell the difference
between Hezbollah and everybody else, this could become an international incident.

[frylock]

23. linky?

TIA.

[endarkenment]

6. Yeah 'cause the last effort was a stunning success.

An example of the continual press bias:

"A total of 159 Israelis were killed, including 39 civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets. More than 1,000 people were killed on the Lebanese side, according to tallies by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press."

And of the more that 1,000 people killed on the Lebanese side, how many were civilians? Gee, it seems that this fact was left out, while the civilian to military ratio for Israeli casualties was stated. Wonder why?

[pelsar]

41. cause israel is better prepared...

because israel is both better at killing and better at protecting its own.....its probably best to learn what egypt, lebanon and syria has learned.....dont attack israel.

seems hizballa, their supporters, some lebanese havent figured that one out yet.

[breakaleg]

42. Israel is "better at killing". You must be so proud. nt

[pelsar]

44. in fact i'm satisfied...

my kids once again go to school, to camp, on field trips with the fear of being bombed or killed at the border......

egypt, syria, jordan have stopped with the overt rhetoric of wiping us out, although they still keep up with the anti israel media....and thats only because of the IDF.

maybe lebanon will learn....they seem to be slower at it than the others, until then we'll just have to improve our skills, and my kids will continue to enjoy life under the protection of the IDF

[breakaleg]

45. Do you realize how you sound? You sound just like the extremists that cause Israel

so much trouble. Is it any wonder where they learned to hate?

[pelsar]

46. yes i know how it sounds...

i also know the reality on the ground....my kids dont hate, nor do i.

we also dont like being used as ducks on a shooting range....(as some prefer that we are)

if you would really read the posts they go like this:

everybody can shoot, snipe, mortor, rocket, bomb israel anywhere anytime they feel like it because they either have grievances or they are "outlaws"..... and israel in return is allowed to shoot back only if they can find the shooters and be 100% they will hit them and not hurt anybody else

thats a losing proposition for us..... (technology and human abilities are not that advanced)...any wonder why we dont really care to listen to those who propose that?

[breakaleg]

47. I can read and I don't see what you claim. And the facts on the ground show

Israel to be the party that causes the most damage and casualties.

What I seem to see you say is that Israel can respond any way at all and it's ok. Even if it means killing civilians on the other side. That is never ok. Anyone who thinks it is has a very warped conscience.

[pelsar]

48. your answer lies in israels neighbors...

why do egypt, syria, and jordan protect their borders as best they can and prevent attacks on israel from their territory....

answer that and you have the solution


and when they dont succeed israel does not retaliate against that country...do you know why?

[breakaleg]

49. So basically, it's not Israel's fault, it's the Palestinians. Again with the same shit.

It's not Israel's fault for the deaths, it's the fault of the other side who provokes them.

It amazes me the many ways Israel can defend killing of children. How long more do you think Israel will be able to get away with this nonsense? Israel is protected right now by the US. That won't last forever.

[pelsar]

50. didnt answer the question....

start with that and its easy to continue from there to the pros and cons of the different actions.....

not answering directly is probably what is most telling

(this discussion i believe is about lebanons border, a border that the UN has confirmed, a country as in syria, egypt and jordan)

[breakaleg]

51. I answered it. It's not Israel's fault, it's the other guy. It always is.

[pelsar]

52. no you didnt answer..you avoided it (no surprise there)

let me repeat it, its a pretty simple question.

why are the borders of jordan, syria and egypt devoid of israeli incursions...even though every so often there is an attack from those borders?

its a pretty straight forward question...

---------------------
the answer as we all know is simple, the problem with it, is that it destorys the thesis that israel is always attacking and promotes the obvious: dont attack israel and israel doesnt attack back.....but for some to admit that would really ruin a whole thesis on israel as some kind of water grabbing, land grabbing colonialistic enterprise...so its far better to ignore those facts.

[breakaleg]

53. First of all,

your posts are barely readable. I read this entire thread about 10 times and could barely make out what your point was. So if you are going to criticize me for not answering a question you posed, which was off on a tangent to begin with, at least try to make it clear.

You are now saying that Israel doesn't attack those who don't provoke them. Didn't I say exactly that? Twice? That it's not Israel's fault, it's the other side?

[pelsar]

54. the point and proof is simple

You are now saying that Israel doesn't attack those who don't provoke them

yes that is exactly what the borders of egypt/syria and jordan prove.....

your answer was: So basically, it's not Israel's fault, it's the Palestinians. Again with the same shit....since you obviously disagree with it, i am asking you why do YOU think those borders are quiet...even though there is an occasional attack originating from egypt, syria and jordan

[breakaleg]

55. Because Isreal isn't enclosing Egypt, Syria or Jordan in a cage?

Withholding money that is rightfully theirs... need I go on? I'm sure you are aware of the many collective punishments Israel is waging on the Palestinians.

[pelsar]

57. actually the discussion was about lebanon

and hizballa (i assumed you simple mixed up the palestinians with hizballa...)

the question at hand is why doesnt lebanon simply follow what egypt/syria/jordan have already learned....dont attack israel, guard your borders and israel respects the border?
(or is there some other reason that i dont know about that explains why israel isnt doing recon flights, and attacking jordan, egypt an syria?)

[breakaleg]

58. "better at killing" "neighbors" (repeat many times) ...

I thought you were talking about sending Israel's neighbors a message.

Lebanon didn't "attack" Israel. It was a minor border skirmish to which Israel OVER-reacted. Big time.

As for why Lebanon might not be so friendly towards Israel, are we talking now, after their second war? Or before this latest war? Because I can think of lots of reasons why Israel would not be well liked in southern Lebanon at the moment.

I hope you aren't trying to imply that they have no reason to feel animosity towards Israel?

[pelsar]

60. they have no more reason...

than egypt or syria or jordan.....actually we have good reason for having animosity towards lebanon...they simply dont leave us alone...every since the PLO took over south lebanon we keep getting attacked.....

and yes lebanon did attack israel......lobbing katushas and mortors over the border and attacking a patrol is precisly that...attacking. (that is not a minor border skirmish, there is no dispute over the border)

yes we are better at killing than our neighbors..it wasnt always so, but we're quick learners.

anyway i see you still having trouble explaining to me why egypt, syria and jordan dont have the same problem that lebanon does (i believe your answer that its "their fault" was sarcastic)...so i'm wondering if you have another reason? because i cant think of anything.

[breakaleg]

63. Pelsar

I've answered your ridiculous question many times. The fact that my answer doesn't please you is your issues. Let it go. I've humored you long enough.

[pelsar]

65. i understand why you cant answer/discuss

the egyptian/syrian and jordian borders and how they relate to israel versus the lebanese border (similarities and differences)....it would certainly ruin the "israel wants the water/land/ etc narration.