Out of Proportion

[eyl]

Since AFAIK TNR tends to place its articles as pay-only after several days, I'll quote a bit more extensively than normally.

Joshua Brook

The war between Israel and Hezbollah has sparked widespread debate on the subject of proportionality. One might have hoped that the human rights community would take this opportunity to educate political leaders and the public on the international law of proportionality and how it applies to the current fighting. Indeed, some groups have done just that. But others have chosen to brazenly distort international law in their zeal to condemn Israel.

Most of the public discussion of proportionality focuses on two questions: first, whether the amount of force employed by Israel is proportionate to the amount of force used by Hezbollah; and, second, whether the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is proportionate to the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah. These questions may or may not be legitimate ones, but they have nothing to do with the concept of proportionality as that term is used in international law. Under humanitarian law--that is, the body of international law that governs the conduct of armed conflict--proportionality has a specific meaning, the application of which is critical to determining whether a party to an armed conflict has committed war crimes.

Broadly speaking, the law of war is divided into jus ad bellum, which governs when a party may engage in armed conflict, and jus in bello (also known as humanitarian law), which governs the conduct of parties engaged in armed conflict. While there is little disagreement that Israel's use of armed force in Lebanon satisfies the requirements of jus ad bellum (Michael Walzer laid out the case last week in TNR), there has been a vigorous debate over whether the means chosen by Israel violate humanitarian law.

Given the ambiguous state of the law, there is certainly plenty of room for legitimate debate as to whether, in the current conflict, Israel has abided by its legal obligations. But what is beyond debate is that, during the last few weeks, some human rights advocates have misinterpreted the principle of proportionality--twisting the law in order to make unfounded accusations against Israel.

To understand just how shoddy some of these human rights advocates have been in their legal reasoning, it helps to start with those human rights groups that are actually treating international law seriously. Take Human Rights Watch (HRW) first. On July 17, the organization published a comprehensive document titled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah."* The Q&A accurately explains humanitarian law and fairly applies it to the current conflict. With regard to Hezbollah, HRW states that the taking of hostages is "strictly forbidden" and is a "war crime." It further states that the use of imprecise Katyusha rockets in civilian areas "violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime." With regard to targets attacked by Israel, HRW states that civilian targets with military uses (airports, roads, bridges) may, in certain circumstances, be legally attacked, but that Israel is constrained by the principle of proportionality. With regard to whether the destruction of power stations is disproportionate, HRW reserves judgment but notes that "Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks." HRW has also urged Israel to cease the use of cluster munitions in populated areas, as such use "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law."

Similarly, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has a mandate from states party to the Geneva Conventions to carry out certain humanitarian activities in connection with those treaties, has issued statements urging all parties to uphold their obligations under international law. The ICRC has not accused Israel (or Hezbollah, for that matter) of committing war crimes, and has implicitly endorsed the potential legitimacy of the Israeli blockade of Lebanon, while reminding Israel of its obligation "to respect the principle of proportionality when establishing a blockade."

By contrast, Amnesty International has jettisoned international law entirely; instead, the group seems to be defining a war crime as any military action of which Amnesty International disapproves. Its website blithely condemns the Israeli targeting of bridges, roads, power stations, and the Beirut airport as "blatant violations of international law, which include war crimes." This accusation makes no reference to the principle of proportionality or, indeed, to any international legal instrument whatsoever.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, hasn't been much better. In a press release dated July 14, she accurately stated the law of proportionality...Yet five days later she argued that "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable"--and then went on to suggest that Israel may be guilty of war crimes. This statement badly twists humanitarian law by completely ignoring the principle of proportionality.

By proscribing certain actions while permitting others, humanitarian law seeks to tame warfare of its cruelest practices. The proportionality principle seeks the maximum protection for civilians while acknowledging the ugly reality that, in warfare, 100 percent protection is impossible. By obliterating the distinction between war and war crimes, groups like Amnesty International and the United Nations undermine the protection that humanitarian law does afford to civilians caught up in armed conflict. International law is not strengthened by distorting or ignoring its provisions while solemnly invoking its principles. Sadly, this seems to have been lost on some of the organizations and institutions charged with protecting human rights

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060724&s=brook072806">Read the whole thing

*Link to HRW report. It should be noted that it is not neccessarily completely accurate factually; specifically, I noticed that it claimed that the Lebanese Army was uninvolved in hostilities, while (for example) the missile attack which crippled an Israeli warship required the collusion of the Army or elements in it.

[LiberalPartisan]

1. When an Israeli jay-walks the UN claims it's a war crime.

The UN has little crediblity on any issue, and virtually none on anything pertaining to the Middle East.

[atfqn]

3. Yeah Israel is just jay-walking...

These are only from 1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return.

Yep, UN is just a bunch of bumbling idiots wandering around blindly. Here is an idea maybe Israel could bomb their post again to help them see the light...

[eyl]

4. I might take those more seriously

if - especially in the case of the condemnations of raids - they'd ever bother to condemn the attacks which led to those raids.

[atfqn]

5. I love it how when Israel attacks the

terminology invariably used consists of raids, retribution and defended. You won't find massacre listed.

In direct response, it is hard for the UN to censure a political system like Hamas or Hizbollah that they refuse to give political and social acknowledgement of.

Instead of constantly pushing tit-for-tat mentality why not take a second and understand why these events occur. Israel is quite simply muscleing Palestinians out. All one needs to do is look at the maps year-by-year. This is supported by fact.

There are severe economic, environmental and political issues that are not being properly addresses. Yet when Palestinians or Lebanese defend/fight asymetrically they are summarily condmened and swift punishment is exacted. In a very simple view, if Israel wants to stop being the target of attack they can do either of two things. 1. They can withdraw to the 1967 boundaries as mandated, they can recognize the Palestinians as people and as a nation and finally they could try and peacefully build economic relations with its neighbors. (side note I am fully aware that Arab nations have continually refused to recognize Israel. However, it is important to note they are the only nuclear power in the region and have the fourth largest military in the world. So recognition is not coming in the form may would like but maybe if Israel was willing to recognize Palestine maybe this would change.)


2. Or of course they could continue as they have for the last 50 years, building more and more settlements, harrassing their neighbors and interdicting in daily life of their neighbors as they see fit.

Killing in any form is wrong. The only reason why I even jump into such a discussion is that it needs to be realized that Israel is no saint. I support option one, there seems to be precious little to lose, especially if there is success the peoples involved will remove those militants from their midst.

[sabbat hunter]

11. israel

pulled out of lebanon in 2000 to the borders as recognized by the UN. so why did hizbollah continue to attack israel, and recently took hostatge 2 of their soldiers (And probably killed them)

hizbollah, hamas and their patrons (syria and iran) need to be condemned by the UN.

[IntiRaymi]

8. Why are all these arguments defending Israel becoming so weak?

[DemFromMem]

19. Absolutely

When was the last resolution passed condemning Hezbollah? Or for that matter, human rights violations in Syria or Iran?

[cali]

2. Israel is committing war crimes

How anyone can justify their bombing of Lebanon, with the deaths of so many civilians, the severe damage to infrastructure, and the environmental degradation, is beyond me. Particularly after the bombing of Qana.

[Spinoza]

6. Too bad there aren't more dead

Israelis to even things up.
Suffering is huge on both sides.
http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=12238

But with Hezbollah deliberately storing and firing off missiles within heavily populated civilian areas, Israel has no way to fight back and win without inflicting heavy civilian casualties. The terrible death and destruction is not Israel's moral responsibility but Hezbollah's. The blood is on their hands.

[Houstonnv]

7. Finally...

Somebody says it.

[DemFromMem]

20. Hezbollah could stop this war instantly

When was the last time anyone asked why they have not released the kidnapped soldiers and stopped the rocket attacks? The Israeli attacks would stop immediately after that happened. It's like we think the Arab world just can't help itself so we excuse Hezbollah's nonsense. If Lebanon won't/can't get Hezbollah under control and international forces won't move in until Hezbollah is disarmed, Israel SHOULD continue until it gets the job done.

As for Qana, I was saddened that children were sacrificed for this war. Hezbollah knows it puts every villager in danger when it fires rockets from a town. I also was flabergasted that when asked why all those kids and elderly were still in the town, people said it was because they were poor. Poor??!! While the Lebanese government can claim it can't control Hezbollah, it does owe responsibility to its citizens here. We didn't buy the lame excuses of Bush in Katrina and this is the same story. The reality is either the people did not want to leave or no one in Lebanon cared enough to ensure that they had the resources to leave.

[IntiRaymi]

9. That cute photomontage does not have the full story.

What about the victims at Qana?
Is there anything remotely equivalent on the israeli side?
There is no equivalence. None whatsoever.

[Spinoza]

10. Again,

I guess its too bad there aren't more dead Israelis to provide you with 'equivalence'.

[IntiRaymi]

13. Why are you assuming I want israelis killed?

What reasoning process leads you to that end?
There is NOTHING in what I posted where I state that I want israelis killed.
The entire premise of all the criticisms levelled at Israel are that country's racist policies, which are completely in evidence here at D.U.

[pelsar]

14. "Is there anything remotely equivalent on the israeli side?"

thats pretty clear....

completely in evidence here at D.U....the DU is your evidence?....the DU is a cesspool of incorrect information, lies, propaganda, half truths etc....even the posters who are "pro palestenain" and cling to facts are shouted down as being "zionist agents"

[IntiRaymi]

21. Alot of words, but ignorant of facts on the ground.

A simple observation, very easily made, is that the number of civilians killed by israeli forces greatly outnumbers anything either Hezbollah or Hamas have killed. This statement is valid for any given period of time in the last generation or so. In fact, I should be quite able to point this out without the disgusting (and malicious?) implication that I want an equivalent number of israelis killed, which was made by you, and others.
What I was addressing was the apparent disregard that pro-israeli posters in these forums, by and large, have for simple human lives of those that are affected by the actions of Israel. In a rather extreme case, but illuminating nonetheless, yesterday a high-quality individual here at D.U. posted some pro-israeli garbage where he compared palestinians and lebanese with 'diseased rats,' with the implication that it was necessary to exterminate them, in order to avoid a loss of property, or something like it.
Or if you want better placed sources, a similar thought has been expressed from this intellectual thug:
-Alan Dershowitz, MIT Law Professor,
"...the continuum of civilianality."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dershowitz22jul22,0,7685210.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[pelsar]

24. comparing numbers of dead...doesnt really mean a whole lot.

in a war...people die, that is unfortunatly what its all about....i can mourn the lebanese family caught up in the crossfire, or the lebanese family that wasnt given much of a choice when the hizballa parked their missle next to their home...and subsequently got blown up by an israeli bomb....

i will mourn more for the israeli mother who lost her son who was in the army however. Why? because they are "closer to home". I doubt you mourn the lost child in Nigeria today or the ten people in liberia who were killed, or those in chechnyia who had their heads cut off last week. Its very natural to mourn for those who you identify with and less for those you dont....nothing 'bad about it." Many of the "pro israeli" bunch are jewish, they identify far more with israel then they do with lebanon..and that too is natural.

You may not like the idea behind it but we all have hierarchies in whats most important..and that includes lives.

an example perhaps. Pretend your in a store being robbed, next to you are two kids, the same age: one is your son, the other is one you never saw in your life, the robber points his gun in your direction. I would bet a million dollars you push YOUR son behind you and leave the other kid exposed.

so too with this war, i worry more for the israeli lives (both civilian and army)...then the lebanese caught up in the fight and then finally for any hizballa.

As far as israel killing more...we 've been doing that since 48....you'd think they might figure out that its not a good idea to keep on attacking us.

[IntiRaymi]

27. And that is where we diverge, my friend.

I am an american, and I have been taught to see people as equal under law, god , etcetera. I was taught to be this way by my parents, and my educational system.
So, when I see (from my admittedly safe distance) what happens in the Israel vs. Surroundings conflict(s), I see something that is essentially unconscionable. I cannot deny the humanity of the palestinian people, or the lebanese people, as you seem to be able. And I especially CANNOT accept it from others, and remain silent.

[pelsar]

28. no we dont diverge....not in theory

i too have been taught to see people as equals, etc etc etc..taught that way by my parents, relatives (survivors from the holocaust) educational system, as well as general environment, a very liberal education.....Nor do i deny the humanity of the various peoples...but unlike you it seems i have a bit more experience in real life scenarios that involve making judgements involving morals...

i get the feeling that you've never been in that position..have you? its not easy, its not comfortable, but its real life

(and my example above for you.....i noticed that you didnt mention it)

[IntiRaymi]

29. Yes, we do diverge.

The oldest trick in combat tactics is to force soldiers to fight for their lives, not for a high & mighty 'cause.' Consider the classic design of a napoleonic charge, for instance.
I see Israel as an entire country stuck in this arrangement. And you are right, a bit of perspective is all *I* would need to turn into a hating, racist person, with no qualms concerning the destruction of lives.
But I am not. It is my position that my perspective, as well as those that are as distant observers as I am, enables me to see things a bit more clearly.
That could be a topic of fierce contention, but it's just the way I see it.

[pelsar]

30. but i dont hate......

nor do the guys in my unit..you seem to be stuck in some kind of mindset that says soldiers that fight have to hate the enemy.....not so. Perhaps because many of us are older, have families and know that so too does the other side, but even our younger soldiers dont have a "blind hatred"....thats an old stereotype that doesnt fit.

we're also aware of situations that one can be caught in that requires decisions of life and death...and decisions must be made.....you perhaps are lucky to never have been in one...at the sametime it is rather presumptuous of you to judge those that have. (your call it clarity, i call it "lack of experience")

and again, i gave you a simple example of making a decision that involves values and morals....you keep skipping over it, I assume because you would have to admit that when it does come down to it, you would in fact "choose to protect your own, over the stranger".....thats very normal (it doesnt mean you hate the stranger....)

[IntiRaymi]

31. Not that easy to absolve a nation of its sins.

Another way to describe the attack on Lebanon is to treat it as a resource grab. Water.
Consider the wall being built on the west bank.
This does not reduce to a single unit, or your own private slice of the israeli demographic pie. This is institutional.

[pelsar]

32. oh please.....

water?....we can destill water to produce all we need....its a lot cheaper than keeping an armed forced north of the border...now you've gone from an interesting discussion into the world of conspiracies and the "evil israeli"

that wall?...whether one likes it or not, whether some parts are a land grab or not...it does eliminate the suicide bombers, (demanded by the population)...they've been reduced to almost zero.

and more important, it can be destroyed in the future

and our govt very much represents the people...one of the very few advantages of coalition style of government. Less stable but more representative. and me...pretty typical lsraeli liberal.

Our sins?...our main sin is a refusal to give up. If you took a real honest look at israeli history you would find a wide variety of attempts to reach agreements with our neighbors...when they were ready, it was done: Egypt, Jordan, even Syria.....they keep their side of the border quiet, and we keep ours its really that simple.

lebanon only has to do the same.....

oh yea, we take irans and hizballas statements of destroying us quite seriously...we dont get a second chance if we lose, they do.

[IntiRaymi]

34. Disingenious.

Of course you can distill it. You have all those miles of access to the mediterranean. With enough capital, you can desalinate as much water as you need, Saudi Arabia does it...so why not Israel?
What about the other option?
To prevent the targets of these acts from having access to it? Sure you can tear that 400+ mile wall down. But before that happens, if it ever will, life is impossible within them.
Myriad justifications to excuse the unexcusable.

[pelsar]

35. unexcusable?

back up....how about you providing some real answers to real scenarios?....usually my experience here is that if I ask for some real solutions...i get silence...do you think you can?

i shall warn you...these are real problems that israelis face....do you think you can answer them using real world limitations and not "disappear"

[MrPrax]

22. So post up?

You shouldn't have any problem challenging this claim then...if everyone is using propaganda and incorrect information...you should have NO problem refuting, no?

So post up? Let's see your proofs?

Here's the question:
Regarding the war crime at Qana..."Is there anything remotely equivalent on the israeli side?"...rephrase: "During this conflict, has any of Hezbullah's rockets killed 50 people, mostly women and children, in a single incident? Any UN facilities hit by Hez in Israel?

Rather than smear...why not refute?

"2000 years ago, on Qana, Jesus transformed water into wine.
Today, in Qana, the Israeli air force transformed kids into ashes."

Can Israel's poets make this observation?

[pelsar]

26. israels side of the border...

no UN facilities hit in israel.....not enough israelis there

no single incident where 50 israelis died.....
__________________

i would attribute that not for lack of trying on hizballas part (intent to commit murder), after all they did score a succesful hit on a hospital as well as an ambulance station...they managed 50 hits in the center of qiyat shmona a couple of days ago. etc.

and of the 100+ missles landing everyday in israel it seems they're going for the cities...isnt intent to commit murder a crime in your book...or because its hizballa (arabs? resistant?, islam?)..its not considered a war crime?) or is it because they havent 'scored big" that your not counting them?...

however israels takes care of its own, hence the bomb shelters everywhere, the evacuations, and a airforce that is succsseful in blowing many of them up before they can fire (we think thats a good thing) etc...these are considered good things by us israelis.

[Meshuga]

33. Thanks Pelsar!

For coming here to DU with your common sense and honest posts!

[pelsar]

12. not enough israeli dead?

israelis should not be allowed to use bombshelters...or worse have people in the middle of the country take in those from the north....what we need here is better equivilance!..i.e. more israeli dead!

I understand you'll "feel its even" if more of the over a hundred missles a day landing randomly on israeli cities hit additional hospitals (easier to kill sick weak people) or maybe a kindergarden or two .........well thats one way of looking at proportionality...are you including arab israelis or is this just a jewish thing? (nassarrala wants to kill just the jews)

[eyl]

16. Because

A) Israelis are in shelters

and

B) if no-one is killed, attack on Israel are underreported (a few days ago, an entire hospital department was destroyed by a Katyusha. Fortunately, everyone had evacuated. Heard about it?)

[Andromeda]

17. Yep

[pelsar]

15. now take a serious look at it:

first of all: war will have "war crimes" associated with it, since its no longer done on battlefields far away from the uninvolved, if that ever was....

now on to the more practical aspects:
we have israel pulled back to UN sanctioned borders agreed to by all the states involved: 2000

we have hizballa, a milita (oversized gang bangers) that has taken over S. lebanon and parts of Beruit, fed by Iran and Syria...they dont agree. (Well i dont believe that any militia has any say in a states foreign policy-but thats just me) In this case however they're stronger than the lebanese army and do what they like.

More so without fighting israel they have no "reason to be"..hence the sheba farms issue. If it wasnt the farms they're would be something else. Resistance groups need to fight somebody.

what this comes down to is that israel who has taken their attacks for the last 6 years either continues to risk its communities and soldiers to be constantly attack simply because they exist (reminds us of...) or does something about it.

what to do?...simple attacks in specific areas wont help...hizballa is dug in deep, they either repel or disappear and come back when the IDF leaves...and attack again.

the IDF could complain to the UN and have additional observers come down to film the next kidnappings.....

the IDF can do nothing and do its best on the next attack to not get killed/kidnapped...and the next one...and the next one ...and the next one.....

there is the option of weakening hizballa and forcing lebanon to take back their country and guard their own border....buts its risky and involves a lot of destruction since Hizballas command structure in in S. Beruit (off limits to the lebanese), and to force the govt to do something takes a lot of force as they will have to defy syria and iran.

or.....i dont have any other ideas...

[Andromeda]

18. I have agreed with much you have to say,

but in no way did Israel commit war crimes. Hezbollah is firing 100-160 missiles at civilians every day at Israel. They're not firing at military targets; they are firing at civilians---with no apology and apparently with the blessing of the UN, the Lebanese government and other so-called human rights organizations.

Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.

On the other hand, Israel doesn't purposely kill civilians. In Qana, 60 people were taking refuge in a fragile empty building and near that building, Hezbollah fired a missile from a rocket launcher. Before that, Israel had dropped leaflets to warn people to leave the area and I watched, on CNN, the people pick up the leaflets, laugh and tear them up. They had no intention of leaving, preferring to be martyrs for the cause. The Lebanese government should have arranged for these people to leave since they had no transportation but no arrangements were made to move them.

Television picked up the visuals of dead children and adults being carried out of the rubble while the whole world watched. Such images are very emotional but would people be wringing their hands in anguish if the dead had been Jews instead of Arabs?

I think not.

[newyorican]

23. I think not.

Yoda?

[ShortnFiery]

25. Blowing down the backroads headin south ... eom