Israel and Lebanon

[///M-Spec]

I can't see how they lost this war, then again I can't see how any side won.

On the tactical side of matters, Hezbollah came out of the war ahead.

In order for Israel to 'win' the war it had to complete all of its objectives. In order for Hezbollah to 'win' the war, it simply had to not lose. This has always been the advantage of someone in their position; fighting a guerilla style war.

It doesn't matter if in reality, the IDF had a 10 to 1 kill/death ratio. The fact that Hezbollah was still standing in any capacity at the end of the engagement is enough of a victory for them.

But in the long view of things, on a strategic level, Hezbollah has not accomplished its goal either: after all these years.... Israel is still there.


M

 

[Swift]

Exactly, you have to judge force by the casualties and damage, hence why I said that it's the force used which was unjustified.

Damage is moot since THEY, being Hezbollah, started it. They quite literally invited Israel to destroy all their infrastructure. The casualities are minimal. That's right, minimal. I don't like death, but Israel was incredibly merciful to the Lebanese people and they should be grateful.

Like I said in the middle of the conflict - where was it going to stop. Do you honestly believe they could have taken back the two soldiers and disarmed Hezbollah and removed them from the south of Lebanon entirely by continally bombing?

Nope, the 15,000+ troops could've though

This reasoning could be used by any nation to justify excessive force used. Imagine if we demolished Irish towns, or even shelled American towns because they fed the IRA - or if Spain targeted ETA friendly cities and all the its infrastructure.

As I said, this is a moot point after Hezbollah started bombarding Israel.

I never claimed to have the answer to terrorism, the only thing I suggested was trading the prisoners for the captured soldiers - although this would go against their policy of no negotiations with terrorists (even though as I mentioned they are considering this option with the Palestinians).

And again, "What they did was wrong, but I haven't any clue what is right." Why don't you think on it for a while and have something constructive instead of yielding to terrorism.

-To take back the captured soldier and stop attacks into Israel
-To exchange for prisoners
-I know that, but they still do

I was pointing out what they set out to do, and why the millions in southern Lebanon and surronding arab countries still support them and believe they won.

They didn't "win" They were granted mercy by global opinion makers. If it wasn't for CNN, Fox News, BBC and the rest of the world media, Israel would have serious ground forces in Lebanon right now flushing out Hezbollah.

I can see why they would.

Wow, the first logical statement I've seen you make in this thread. 👍

 

[KSaiyu]

Damage is moot since THEY, being Hezbollah, started it. They quite literally invited Israel to destroy all their infrastructure.

No, the scale of damage is not moot no matter who starts what.

The casualities are minimal. That's right, minimal. I don't like death, but Israel was incredibly merciful to the Lebanese people and they should be grateful.

Please, I've heard enough of the "Israel could have wiped Lebanon if they wanted to so they should be grateful".

Nope, the 15,000+ troops could've though

Doubtful, but possible. I think Hezbollah is too strong to be displaced from south Lebanon forever just by having a strong Israeli prescence in the region for a few weeks/months. Besides, can you imagine the reaction from the Lebanese and other arabs and the support they'd gain elsewhere because Israel would live up to their depictations as "invading jews".

And again, "What they did was wrong, but I haven't any clue what is right." Why don't you think on it for a while and have something constructive instead of yielding to terrorism.

So if I don't have an answer, I can't comment on why I think Israel is in the wrong?

They didn't "win" They were granted mercy by global opinion makers. If it wasn't for CNN, Fox News, BBC and the rest of the world media, Israel would have serious ground forces in Lebanon right now flushing out Hezbollah.

I never said they did.

Wow, the first logical statement I've seen you make in this thread. 👍

hm, I thought I've made a few more, just ones that differ from your opinion.

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't like death, but Israel was incredibly merciful to the Lebanese people and they should be grateful.

I don't know that 'grateful' should be what the Lebanese should be feeling right now. Perhaps the Lebanese people affiliated with Hezbollah should be grateful the IDF, for one reason or another, did not live up to their near mythical reputation for invincibility this one time.. and that many of them are still around to wave flags in the air.

But for the average Lebanese person with little or no affiliation for the group and no love for their goals and methods.. I can't imagine they feel like they should be grateful at all.

Imagine this for a moment: people of Mexican decent, outraged with Mexican President Fox Quesada's corrupt govenment, form a militia group and begin shooting rockets, planting bombs and generally making a pain in the backside about themselves in Mexico, as a bid to oust the President.

Bear with me, the next part of the scenario is even tougher to believe, but just humor me for a moment. The US government is either a) powerless to stop the terrorist group b) unwilling c) or uninterested in stopping them or even d) secretly arming them in a hope to influence the new government once Fox has been ousted.

In response, the Mexican army levels Reynosa, Matamoros, Luevo Laredo and blockades Corpus Christi. You see Texans on the street by the thousands in San Antonio, displaced by fighting. Hundreds of bodies appear in the morgue, including that of children.

Would you feel grateful? What would you feel grateful about?


M

 

[Swift]

No, the scale of damage is not moot no matter who starts what.

In a war or battle, you have to expect that your munitions fields will be attacked/destroyed. And your supply lines attacked as well.

Please, I've heard enough of the "Israel could have wiped Lebanon if they wanted to so they should be grateful".

Maybe grateful isn't the best term. But certainly Israel held a lot back in the fighting. This is undeniable.

Doubtful, but possible. I think Hezbollah is too strong to be displaced from south Lebanon forever just by having a strong Israeli prescence in the region for a few weeks/months. Besides, can you imagine the reaction from the Lebanese and other arabs and the support they'd gain elsewhere because Israel would live up to their depictations as "invading jews".

I think it could've been done if they would've been given the time to do it. They have the manpower and munitions but this blasted "world opinion" keeps letting terrorists endure because they use children as shields

So if I don't have an answer, I can't comment on why I think Israel is in the wrong?

Basically, yes. That's my philosophy. If you can't offer something to help, how can you critique what someone else does?

Did you see this? Because you never responded to it:

Actually, yes it does. How can you call someone else "wrong" when you're not even remotely sure what is "right". That's like going to an athlete and saying, "You're running in really bad form", they reply, "Ok, how could I run better?", you say, "I don't know. I just know that what you're doing now is wrong." Obviously, that person is NOT going to consider anything you say because your critique is without any substance.

hm, I thought I've made a few more, just ones that differ from your opinion.

Can't say that I've seen them.

I don't know that 'grateful' should be what the Lebanese should be feeling right now. Perhaps the Lebanese people affiliated with Hezbollah should be grateful the IDF, for one reason or another, did not live up to their near mythical reputation for invincibility this one time.. and that many of them are still around to wave flags in the air.

M

Are you arguing with me!!!!

You're quite right. Grateful is the wrong term. Maybe just thankful that Israel didn't use it's full strength. The "average" person didn't get Lebanon into that situation(directly) so when they felt the sting it was generally unfair. But my point is that the sting could've been much stronger. That's all.

 

[///M-Spec]

Are you arguing with me!!!!

Arguing.. nah. Just suprised to see what appeared to have been a small lapse in your usual high standards for fair and compassionate posting.

You're quite right. Grateful is the wrong term. Maybe just thankful that Israel didn't use it's full strength. The "average" person didn't get Lebanon into that situation(directly) so when they felt the sting it was generally unfair. But my point is that the sting could've been much stronger. That's all.

It certainly could have.

I find it worthy of an eye roll or two when I see some people blast the IDF for the scope and magnitude of the destruction they've wrought to south Lebanon, but then mock and ridicule them for being so weak and ineffective for not having crushed Hezbollah in the same breath.


M

 

[ledhed]

I can't see how they lost this war, then again I can't see how any side won.

Ain't that the truth.

The oil companys won and so did Iran .

 

[ledhed]

The aproach you suggest is one that has strong similarities to the approach taken by the Russians in Afganistan in the 1980's, and it worked a treat back then didn't it.

You appear here to be attaching fundamentalist views to an entire religion/culture, and then advocating a collective punishment based on that approach. That is far more likely to result in the hardening of attitudes within the mainstream Islamic culture, rather that forcing them into submission by a form of religious genocide (which is what you appear to be advocating here).

And you miss the point by a mile ...but you quote the answer below .

But who the hell wants to become that ? NO western nation...

how could you say I SUGGESTED that approach ?
Are you selective with your quote button ?

Can you provide substantive proof that the low number of Japanese POWs was a direct result of large scale massacres by Allied troops in WW2?

Pick up any biography or history of the campaign in the Pacific...they died because they were fanatics and welcomed death..almost always to the last man..sound familiar ?

I think that you will find the balance of historical opinion (from all sides) on the matter is that it was linked to the strict honour code of the Japanese people at the time, which considered surrender or capture to be a disgrace.

so you do read

Or were the Japanese soldiers who continued the war for so long after it finished simply still hiding from brutal Allied troops?

doing what they saw as their duty I suspect .

I think most people who lived through the Cuban missile crisis may well disagree with you on that one.

I lived through it . I did the duck and cover drills in school . it was close but we knew the Russians wouldn't welcome death with open arms...unlike radical fundementalist .

As far as a modern nuclear conflict risk goes, I would personally put India/Pakistan as top of my risk list. A dispute that has far less to do with religious idiology and more to do with land.

so all the masacres and stuff between hindu and Moslem through history and the fact that pakistan exist at all ...nothing to do with RELIGION ????

Your joking right ?

How can you post the above and in another recent thread defend Iran's 'right' to develop nuclear technology?

Me defend irans right to nuclear bombs ???? You gotta be kidding...

and have this in your sig

Yes my sig.....put there to show the stupidity of arming more nations with nukes .

 

[Scaff]

how could you say I SUGGESTED that approach ?
Are you selective with your quote button ?

I'm far from selective with my quoting, but I must confess that if that is the message you were saying then it certainly did not come across in that way.

Pick up any biography or history of the campaign in the Pacific...they died because they were fanatics and welcomed death..almost always to the last man..sound familiar ?

Fanatics I would not disagree with, but welcoming death I would strongly disagree with.

Many Eastern cultures does not view death in the same way that western cultures generally do, and welcome is not the term I would use.

so you do read
....
doing what they saw as their duty I suspect .

Yes I would view it in that way (and thats not to say that I agree with it or understand it).

so all the masacres and stuff between hindu and Moslem through history and the fact that pakistan exist at all ...nothing to do with RELIGION ????

Your joking right ?

No I am not joking, as my wife is anglo-indian and her mother was born and grew up in India I do have so knowledge in this area.

First off show me exactly when I said it had nothing to do with religion, I said it had less to do with religion and more to do with land.

The times that India and Pakistan have been to war, it has been as a direct result of disputes over the Kasmir region. Religion may well be one of the causes of the dispute, but today it has far more to do with control of the region itself.

The two countries are both nuclear capable and have carried out tit-for-tat weapons tests on numerous occasions, which was my main point. These two hold the principal current risk in the world of nuclear conflict, as both have the capability, but a poor chain of command and control over the possiable use and launch of them.

Yes my sig.....put there to show the stupidity of arming more nations with nukes .


OF course you wouldnt get that .

Rather patronising and totally un-needed, missunderstanding are very easy in the virtual world. Then again we can't all be perfect.


Scaff

 

[ledhed]

I'm far from selective with my quoting, but I must confess that if that is the message you were saying then it certainly did not come across in that way.





Fanatics I would not disagree with, but welcoming death I would strongly disagree with.

Many Eastern cultures does not view death in the same way that western cultures generally do, and welcome is not the term I would use.




Yes I would view it in that way (and thats not to say that I agree with it or understand it).





No I am not joking, as my wife is anglo-indian and her mother was born and grew up in India I do have so knowledge in this area.

First off show me exactly when I said it had nothing to do with religion, I said it had less to do with religion and more to do with land.

The times that India and Pakistan have been to war, it has been as a direct result of disputes over the Kasmir region. Religion may well be one of the causes of the dispute, but today it has far more to do with control of the region itself.

The two countries are both nuclear capable and have carried out tit-for-tat weapons tests on numerous occasions, which was my main point. These two hold the principal current risk in the world of nuclear conflict, as both have the capability, but a poor chain of command and control over the possiable use and launch of them.






Rather patronising and totally un-needed, missunderstanding are very easy in the virtual world. Then again we can't all be perfect.


Scaff

You are right ... I kinda did poorly there .
I'll correct it .

BTW I sort of agree with India Pakistan being the most likely first use of nukes...especially if fundementalist get controll in Pakistan..or MORE controll..
But that all is thrown out the window once Iran gets a nuke ...they become odds on favorites .

 

[Scaff]

You are right ... I kinda did poorly there .
I'll correct it .

No problem at all.

BTW I sort of agree with India Pakistan being the most likely first use of nukes...especially if fundementalist get controll in Pakistan..or MORE controll..
But that all is thrown out the window once Iran gets a nuke ...they become odds on favorites .

Agree about Iran, and I have to say that India/Pakistan are still a major worry without a need for hardliners in control.

Both sides have as much as admited the chain of command for a nuclear launch is flawed and a mid-ranking army officer (on either side) could in theory press the button without higher authorisation.

Both sides have in passed promised to address the issue, not that I'm reasured by that at all.

Regards

Scaff

 

[KSaiyu]

In a war or battle, you have to expect that your munitions fields will be attacked/destroyed. And your supply lines attacked as well.

That's obvious - but if you truly believe that all the damage caused by Israeli strikes could be put under that, then you're mistaken.

Maybe grateful isn't the best term. But certainly Israel held a lot back in the fighting. This is undeniable.

Yes, it's undeniable, but it's like saying Iraqis should be pleased America didn't use all it's might against them in the "war on terror"

I think it could've been done if they would've been given the time to do it. They have the manpower and munitions but this blasted "world opinion" keeps letting terrorists endure because they use children as shields

I guess that's where we disagree again.

Basically, yes. That's my philosophy. If you can't offer something to help, how can you critique what someone else does?

I can only offer up past instances where similar attacks were being carried out and the responses to them.

Did you see this? Because you never responded to it:

Actually, yes it does. How can you call someone else "wrong" when you're not even remotely sure what is "right". That's like going to an athlete and saying, "You're running in really bad form", they reply, "Ok, how could I run better?", you say, "I don't know. I just know that what you're doing now is wrong." Obviously, that person is NOT going to consider anything you say because your critique is without any substance.

No, I didn't see that post. I know what is right, and I can comment on something that is wrong when I see it. I don't have to know or claim to know another solution to the problem to realise and comment on something being wrong.

Can't say that I've seen them.

-The double standards we have shown to Israel
-The fact that Israel has had prisoners MANY years before this held with no charge and no trial
-The fact that this conflict was only going to end in one way.

 

[Swift]

No, I didn't see that post. I know what is right, and I can comment on something that is wrong when I see it. I don't have to know or claim to know another solution to the problem to realise and comment on something being wrong.

I'll respond to the rest in a minute.

But let me ask you a question. If you don't know what is right, how can you know what is wrong?

 

[KSaiyu]

No, I didn't see that post. I know what is right, and I can comment on something that is wrong when I see it. I don't have to know or claim to know another solution to the problem to realise and comment on something being wrong.

As in, I know when a response/action is right (justified), I just don't necessarily know how Israel could have achieved the objectives it set out for in the beginning.

 

[ledhed]

As in, I know when a response/action is right (justified), I just don't necessarily know how Israel could have achieved the objectives it set out for in the beginning.

They needed to invade Lebanon with sufficient force to drive hezbollah out of the south and attack from the sea to cut off their retreat and destroy them in a pocket .

They were not willing to go that far., so it seems .

 

[Swift]

As in, I know when a response/action is right (justified), I just don't necessarily know how Israel could have achieved the objectives it set out for in the beginning.

So, you know when something is right. But not what is right.

Well, that's a very lofty position to speak from that very convinently lets you place blame and call others innocent, without having to know what could've been changed. Interesting.

 

[KSaiyu]

That misses the point.

I know what is right from past instances - where terrorism has sometimes led to worse situations than what led to this conflict. As far as I'm concerned, it's easy to tell what's right and wrong - just hard to come up with an alternative. For example, how many felt the atom bomb was "wrong", yet couldn't come up with another solution? It's easy to judge, and I never denied that - but I sure as hell am not in the minority in this instance to see that what Israel has done was not "right".

As for an alternative, I would have preffered to have seen a more reasonable approach, not necessarily freeing every single Lebanese captive, but admitting mistakes were made and trying to secure a deal with the Lebanese government. I know you'll say about the deal that was made to remove Hezbollah in the past, but you must remember this is a two sided coin - Israel haven't exactly kept all of their promises to the UN in the past, and the present.

 

[Swift]

That misses the point.

I know what is right from past instances - where terrorism has sometimes led to worse situations than what led to this conflict. As far as I'm concerned, it's easy to tell what's right and wrong - just hard to come up with an alternative. For example, how many felt the atom bomb was "wrong", yet couldn't come up with another solution? It's easy to judge, and I never denied that - but I sure as hell am not in the minority in this instance to see that what Israel has done was not "right".

Except of course for the Israelis that had their homes and lives destroyed by and unprovoked attack.

As for an alternative, I would have preffered to have seen a more reasonable approach, not necessarily freeing every single Lebanese captive, but admitting mistakes were made and trying to secure a deal with the Lebanese government. I know you'll say about the deal that was made to remove Hezbollah in the past, but you must remember this is a two sided coin - Israel haven't exactly kept all of their promises to the UN in the past, and the present.

So, they should've just tried to talk while the rockets were coming down?

 

[KSaiyu]

Except of course for the Israelis that had their homes and lives destroyed by and unprovoked attack.

The majority, true, but even some of these families (even those who lost relatives from the attacks) denounced the Israeli policy towards southern Lebanon.

So, they should've just tried to talk while the rockets were coming down?

At least try, instead of escalating the scale of rocket attacks by retaliating in that manner.

 

[ledhed]

The majority, true, but even some of these families (even those who lost relatives from the attacks) denounced the Israeli policy towards southern Lebanon.



At least try, instead of escalating the scale of rocket attacks by retaliating in that manner.

Can you explain what the talking points are with a group that denies you have aright to exist .
Doesn't recognise any treaties made with you .

And

Is sworn to your destruction as a nation .


What is there to talk about exactly ?

give an example .

 

[KSaiyu]

Can you explain what the talking points are with a group that denies you have aright to exist .

That is unavoidable, but they did manage to with Palestinians before, and other nations have negotiated before (albeit sometimes with a "neutral" force in between). It's weak to dismiss ALL attempts of communication and to have to go to the "last resort" without at least trying.

Doesn't recognise any treaties made with you .

Like I said before, this is a two way thing.

Is sworn to your destruction as a nation .

And just look at what's happened now - Hezbollah have proven to those living in fear (put into their heads BY hezbollah) of Israel that they are an aggresive force and NEED to be destroyed.

 

[ledhed]

That is unavoidable, but they did manage to with Palestinians before, and other nations have negotiated before (albeit sometimes with a "neutral" force in between). It's weak to dismiss ALL attempts of communication and to have to go to the "last resort" without at least trying.



Like I said before, this is a two way thing.



And just look at what's happened now - Hezbollah have proven to those living in fear (put into their heads BY hezbollah) of Israel that they are an aggresive force and NEED to be destroyed.

we already know hezbollah needs to be destroyed...

And they have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948 in that whole REGION.

So whats new ? They didn't prove anything new...Israel needs to be destroyed is OLD news in that entire area .

if they didn't attack Israel...no war ..ITS THAT SIMPLE .

Whats so hard to understand that its not kosher to have an armed group of militants who are bent on your destruction and answerable to Iran ..maybe syria ...on your border and in a country that has no controll of their actions ?

YOU can't have it . Its a bomb waiting to go off.

What you think if you talk to them they will mellow out and stop killing Jews ???

The only reason they talk is to rest between rounds of jew killing...or have you not noticed ??

Get real .

 

[Swift]

The majority, true, but even some of these families (even those who lost relatives from the attacks) denounced the Israeli policy towards southern Lebanon.



At least try, instead of escalating the scale of rocket attacks by retaliating in that manner.

Ok, So lets flip it around. Let's say a faction in Ireland that the government of Ireland knew about, started sending rockets into the main island of England. Do you really think that Parliament and your prime minister would go over and TALK with that faction in Ireland or the government of Ireland? Nope! They'd do there best to immediately stop the rockets from coming down.

Now, you say it escalated. If Hezbollah had any honor at all, they wouldn't use civilian residence to hide their munitions. But they don't, so they did, hence Israelis attacks were no where near as fierce at it could have been.

No matter what you say about Israel's actions, in THIS particular conflict they are the ones that are standing on the side of "justified" in their actions.

 

[KSaiyu]

Ok, So lets flip it around. Let's say a faction in Ireland that the government of Ireland knew about, started sending rockets into the main island of England. Do you really think that Parliament and your prime minister would go over and TALK with that faction in Ireland or the government of Ireland?

Yes, I would want to see them try to find terms for a ceasefire first (in this case the prisoners) - as has been done when the IRA really DID bomb British civilians in the past few decades, and also against the Irgun who really DID bomb British and Arab civilians. You've seen where this "justified response" has led to, and you still hold on to your belief that a continued Israeli army search and destroy quota in Southern Lebanon (of over 15,000 troops I believe you said) would have led to a different outcome. The Israeli-arab hatred is too strong to be quelled by a sustained assault like that, and if you can't see that all it would do is create MORE hatred (the 2 intifadas come to mind) then you really are naive.

No matter what you say about Israel's actions, in THIS particular conflict they are the ones that are standing on the side of "justified" in their actions.

No, that's your opinion. Mine differs in that neither side has been justified in this conflict.

 

[Swift]

Yes, I would want to see them try to find terms for a ceasefire first (in this case the prisoners) - as has been done when the IRA really DID bomb British civilians in the past few decades, and also against the Irgun who really DID bomb British and Arab civilians. You've seen where this "justified response" has led to, and you still hold on to your belief that a continued Israeli army search and destroy quota in Southern Lebanon (of over 15,000 troops I believe you said) would have led to a different outcome. The Israeli-arab hatred is too strong to be quelled by a sustained assault like that, and if you can't see that all it would do is create MORE hatred (the 2 intifadas come to mind) then you really are naive.

No, that's your opinion. Mine differs in that neither side has been justified in this conflict.

What? Are you serious? You can say that Israel may have gone overboard, but you can't say that their response was unjustified. That's just a blind statement.

And yes, I believe if Israel would've been left alone, they could've gotten rid of the Hezbollah threat in Lebanon. Obviously, it wasn't going to end the entire Muslim-Israeli conflict and wasn't meant to.

 

[KSaiyu]

What? Are you serious? You can say that Israel may have gone overboard, but you can't say that their response was unjustified. That's just a blind statement.

I don't understand where I said I couldn't say their response was unjustified?

And yes, I believe if Israel would've been left alone, they could've gotten rid of the Hezbollah threat in Lebanon. Obviously, it wasn't going to end the entire Muslim-Israeli conflict and wasn't meant to.

MAYBE Hezbollah, and that IS a long shot seeing as how it doesn't just end with Lebanon, they have support in

-Iran
-Syria
-Palestine

but it would take a short-sighted view, and one unaware of modern terrorism to conclude that it would make Israel safer in the future.

 

[Swift]

No, that's your opinion. Mine differs in that neither side has been justified in this conflict.

I don't understand where I said I couldn't say their response was unjustified?

You said neither side was justified. That's absurd. You've been raving about the brutality of Israel for weeks now. But to say that any military action against hezbollah and hence Lebanon was unjustified is simply the most blind and naive statement you've said on this forum. If that is in fact what you mean. Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[KSaiyu]

As in,

Hezbollah for the continued rocket attacks
Israel for the prolonged and, in many cases indiscriminate strikes.

You said neither side was justified. That's absurd. You've been raving about the brutality of Israel for weeks now.

So it's absurd to think both sides have made mistakes, and have acted unjustly, we must all think that one side is in the right?

 

[Swift]

As in,

Hezbollah for the continued rocket attacks
Israel for the prolonged and, in many cases indiscriminate strikes.



So it's absurd to think both sides have made mistakes, and have acted unjustly, we must all think that one side is in the right?

Um....Well since we would have to go back a few thousand years to see who's really "wrong" I would say it would be best to look at each situation as it occurs. Infact, that's the way you say you determine what's right and wrong.

 

[ledhed]

I propose that you consider that the nation that is attacked and then responds to that attack is the party in the right .
I also propose that you consider in the history of the world that war is not a pretty thing and those that INITIATE a war by invading a country...thats what its called when you cross the border btw ...and kill and kidnap soldiers have initiated the conflict and thus are responsible for the actions that come after..notibly WAR .

Let a little reality leak in to your argument . I challenge you to go back through history all the conflicts up to this date and SHOW us a different way !
What are trying to reinvent the wheel ?

On one hand you have the Israelis being condemned and ridiculed for not wiping out Hezbollah and on the other hand you have those that claim Israel used too much force !

Often BY THE SAME PEOPLE .

So what is it ? If you sit back and consider it from a distance you have to conclude that there is anti Israeli setiment overruling logic and reason .

Transpose Israel for any other country in the world in this same situation ..do you really think you would get the same reaction ?

This is almost as bad as Kosovo etc. when you had everyone afraid to do nuts all and they stood at the sidelines while thousands were butchered...the west collectivly have no cajones ! NONE ...The US and Britain and then what ? I salute Italy ..after that ???

So play the game ..its all Israels fault for just breathing .