[Knightscape]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. I would still utterly dispute the fact that Israel is fighting for its survival. It likes to claim it is of course, as justification, but the military reality is completely different.

I could not disagree more.
Since it's inception Israel has pretty much been attacked by every neighbouring country. The objective of these attacks has always been the destruction of Israel. If not for a lot of ingenuity, and the luck to have it's neighbouring states not trusting each other, Israel would not exist today.
Having failed at the direct attacks many enemies of the state of Israel changed their approach to one of terrorism (directly or indirectly). I guess with the philosophy that if they could not give Israel a quick death, a slow one would have to do. As these attacks have never ceased and Israel has to be continually on guard it becomes apparent that Israel is most definitely in a fight for their survival.

Not only could Israel obliterate the entire surrounding population by conventional means, it also has the ability to vapourise the entire Middle-East with nuclear weapons if necessary. Finally, the United States would ensure that Israel is never truly threatened with destruction, contributing equipment and troops if necessary.

I do not believe that there is any formal treaty between the U.S. and Israel guaranteeing the safety of Israel. If you have a link that says otherwise I would be interested in reading it. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Whenever Israel has been threatened with destruction in the past the general attitude from most of the international community would seem to one of meh. I would hope this attitude changes in the future, but I would not bet on it.

Their main enemies in the region are so cowed that they must fight by proxy, and that proxy is armed with thousands of crappy rockets with a range of ~16miles. So far after hundreds (thousands?) have been launched at Israel, 24 Israeli's have been killed. Wow, that's...erm...not really an impressive military capability.

Perhaps in a few years and with better weaponry many more Israeli's will be killed; making for a more impressive military capability.

Sure, Hezbollah is rumoured to have some nicer rockets from Iran with a range of over 100 miles, but we've yet to see them being launched.

I would surmise that the international community is supportive of Lebanon for both this reason (as we like to believe that you reap what you sow) and the fact that we don't like bullies.

...or countries fighting for their very right to exist it would seem.Meh, see above [img]tongue.gif[/img] quote: Israel is throwing a military temper tantrum which is killing innocent civilians at a fair rate (over 100 now?) There is no military justification for striking all over the country away from Hezbollah strongholds.

There is no military justification for targeting hezbollah members and installations?If you'll look at my first post, I approve of such targeting. If I didn't feel the need to at least maintain a facade of balance against Israel in the region, I would happily wipe Hezbollah out myself if it was within my capability. I approve of killing terrorists. I don't approve of bombing civilians - over 200 dead now - including a family of 3 adults, 6 children sheltering in their basement. I don't approve of asking the population to flee and then bombing the main highways and petrol stations preventing them from doing so. I don't like countries that, at a whim, can force many thousands of innocents to flee their homes and livelihoods. I don't like countries that occupy others. I don't like collective punishment - that a resurgent lively democratic (and genuinely multicultural) country with a population of 3.1 million people must have its economy ruined and the whole country plunged into poverty is abominable. [/qb]

[/QB][/QUOTE]I don't approve of hypocritical nations condemning Israel for actions that they, themselves, would undoubtedly take if they were in the same situation. The double standard that is applied to Israel is deplorable.

These are the actions of a terrorist state. It's just not fair! Watching interviews with refugees fleeing North (although Israel has been striking up there too, so where they are running to is not entirely clear) they are angry at Israel, furious even. Forced to flee with their families when they have done no wrong - as Morg pointed out, the majority of Lebanese after years of occupation and bloodshed thought it was all over and simply wanted to be left alone. Collective punishment (especially of this magnitude) is utterly reprehensible. quote: It is looking more and more like the promise of land for peace was nothing more that a lie by the likes of hammas and hezballah designed to gain sympathy from the international community and make Israel a more vulnerable target. A lie that would seem to have worked.

I wasn't aware of this? I thought the Shebaa farms area and others in the vicinity have always been violently disputed. Please do bring me up to speed though if I'm wrong please [img]smile.gif[/img] If you're referring to the usual UN resolutions - if Israel disregards them all, they cannot expect resolutions against their enemies to be enforced.
If you're referring to the withdrawal from Gaza, that was unilateral and not part of an agreement with Hamas to the best of my knowledge (although I do applaud it). [/QUOTE]I was referring to the general argument that if Israel wanted peace it would have to returned land seized because of aggression from neighbouring countries and groups. Pulling out of Lebanon, and Gaza would be examples of this.