The human damage is a result of terrorist groups intentionally positioning their headquarters and points of operation in densely populated areas.

While human damage in Israel may be a result of Hezbollah, the human damage in Lebanon is a direct result of Israeli strikes. Without the Israeli strikes, that human damage would not have accrued. And it’s not just an issue of terrorist groups positioning their headquarters in Beirut. The Israeli strikes are also occuring in roads and suburbs which are not densely populated and not headquarters of any terrorist groups. That’s where a lot of the civilian casualties are coming.

And the alternative is to … what exactly?

The Prime Minister of Lebanon has already called for a cease-fire and agreed to move the army into southern Lebanon. Israel refused this offer. It’s actually made it harder for the Lebanese military to control Hezbollah by destroying infrastructure and attacking the Lebanese military. In fact, more Lebanese soldiers have been killed by the Israeli raids than Hezbollah militants. The ratio of civilians to Hezbollah killed is more like 50:1.

The Lebanese government can hardly reign in Hezbollah when they are under attack themselves. What’s more, without committing troops on the ground, there’s absolutely no way to destroy Hezbollah with only airstrikes. The alternative would have been to provide support for the Lebanese troops on the ground to disarm Hezbollah permanently.

rjsnypw ylgrljkbzwc kvqhdtrdu

aojbuek agptokhsk vnleowxpzce

But attacking the entire country of Lebanon, shutting down one of the biggest cities in the Middle East, and causing all kinds of damage (humans and infrastructure) along the way? The actions that Israel has taken have been entirely disproportionate and excessively violent. And while it’s easy to argue that “Hezbollah started it” — and in this narrow case, they did — nothing is ever that simple in Middle Eastern politics, is it?

The human damage is a result of terrorist groups intentionally positioning their headquarters and points of operation in densely populated areas. Israel, rather correctly, doesn’t except this as a pretext by which to simply not engage in military action–because civilians might die/get wounded. Likewise, few would object to landing a cruise missile in a terrorist camp’s backyard in Afghanistan/Pakistan if it were, suppose, side-by-side to a small little village.

I’m inclined to think that that’s exactly what they want. Terrorists flourish in unstable countries. Hezbollah might also be looking to take over. It pisses me off that the Israeli government is dumb enough to take the bait.

And the alternative is to … what exactly? In the event of a kidnapping of military personnel, and continued rocket fire onto your territory, what is the alternative? Toppling the Lebanese government is certainly a bad thing, in and of itself, but it’s silly to suggest that Israel wait long enough for it (Palestine and Lebanon) to become strong enough to weed out its terrorist elements–all the while Israel constantly being under attack.

…Hezbollah clearly wants to draw Israel into action, and they don’t seem to care that doing so will create complete instability in Lebanon and possibly destroy the current government.

I’m inclined to think that that’s exactly what they want. Terrorists flourish in unstable countries. Hezbollah might also be looking to take over. It pisses me off that the Israeli government is dumb enough to take the bait.

I’d buy that argument if we hadn’t seen the opposite so often in the past. The problem for Israel is they can’t shake their “outsider” status in the region. If they act passively, then it invites attacks, presumably because it makes them seem weak and easy to drive out. But if they act aggressively, then the leaders of Palestine, Lebanon, etc. can rally the people against the “foreign invader” and play the nationalism/religion card. An unfortunate double bind, but we’ve seen it all before. Until all major players in the region agree that Israel has a right to be there in the first place, this sort of thing won’t stop, not through passive resistance, nor through attempts to cow their enemies.

If Israel rolls over and plays dead Gandhi-style…

Yeah, cuz that’s exactly what Gandhi did in his day. Nice job, reducing one of the world’s great revolutionaries to the role of a dog.

Question for someone more knowledgeable than me: Other than hatred of Israel, what is Syria’s connection to Hezbollah? Syria is 74% Sunni and the government is run by Sunni(ish) Ba’athists, while Hezbollah is a Shi’ite paramilitary group. Is mutual loathing of Israel enough, or is there some other connection between the two that i’m missing?

After giving the standard platitudes about Israel’s right to defend itself (”No self-respecting state would stand idly by while rockets fall on its cities”), LA Times opinion writer, David Myers, gets to what he really thinks (via Ji…