Israel - Civilian Overkill? Wanton? Intentional? Self Defense?

[ShockediSay]

I don't presume to judge the answers; those I leave to a Higher Power.

But I am just learning the questions.

[Erika]

1. Dead Lebanese kids abound

You judge.

[On the Road]

2. All of the Above

except self-defense. A ground invasion of Southern Lebanon to destroy stockpiles of rockets and guerrila camps can be considered self-defense. Not bombing residental Beirut.

[azurnoir]

3. Last I read the Lebanese

to Israeli, kill ratio was about 10:1 or 10 Lebanese deaths to 1 Israeli death. The Lebanese deaths were mostly civilian and the Israeli were mostly military.
One of the rationals for Israels attack on Lebanon that I 've read here is that the Hezbollah missiles are unguided and just sent careening into who knows were, but if Israeli missiles are guided. Considering that they kill more civilians then Hezbollah or Lebanese military, how is that better because, the Israelis aimed them?

[pelsar]

4. a little knowledge perhaps?...

...hizballa has sent over 800 missles aimed at israeli cities, which arent that accurate....israelis have bomb shelters and hardend rooms, hence the low casualty rate, as well as that many have left the north...and this is not the first time israeli cities have been attacked (from pre 48)...Israel understands that its citizens are prime targets....as we've seen via attacks by the syrian, jordanians, egyptians, palestenains, hizballa etc, hence the protective shelters

the surrounding arab states do not have bomb shelters.but hizballa and the palestenians store munitions and do actually shoot those munitions from apt buildings etc. (Hizballa has added "rocket rooms to many apts)

hmmmmm...lets us use some logic: to destroy those munitions that are now being used to attack israel requires blowing them up...and usually the building housing them and next to them gets destroyed as well.

as far as the kill ratio...israelis have been killing more arabs than being killed since 67....it might be a good idea for the attacking arabs to change their strategy unless of course the lopsided kill ratio is not an issue.

[OneBlueSky]

5. "despicable" and "thoroughly unnecessary" come to mind . . .

.

[LiberalPartisan]

6. None of the above

A legitimate response to a legitimate threat.

[sinogirl]

7. self defence if you look back through history

if you're short sighted it's intentional..

[Lithos]

8. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article.

Side note: The answers you will get here on DU are going to be opinions which usually carry quite a bit of emotional weight. The real question is to ask yourself what is the best way to move forward so that a respectable and acceptable peace can be found.

Lithos
DU Moderator