"Again, it is the doublespeak we constantly get. Somehow "diplomacy" will make the whole thing go away so long as people don't drop bombs, but somehow it would be impossible for Lebanon to foster an end to the attacks on Israel. Bullshit, frankly."

No, the only thing that is happening "again" is that you are refusing to answer a simple question. How can the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah?

"Condemning kill ratios and pretending that Hezbollah is 'resistance' instead of terrorists isn't any better than pointing out Lebanon's stated love of Hezbollah."

I have not used the word "resistance" in this blog.

"When I see any sort of neutrality in the anti-Israel rhetoric, I'll gladly tone it down."

You may think of me as "anti-Israel", fair enough, but I see no reason why I should be "neutral" about this subject, or indeed any other. I am a blogger, not a broadcaster, I have no duty to be neutral and neither do you.

"No, the only thing that is happening "again" is that you are refusing to answer a simple question. How can the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah? "

The same way Israel is supposed to. Either by negotiations with the parties in question, by international intervention, or by force with international help if necessary. Your point is patently dishonest considering THEY DON'T WANT HEZBOLLAH REMOVED FROM THE SOUTH AND HAVE SAID SO OPENLY.

You act like it is impossible to diffuse this situation without military strength, and then pretend Israel should find a way without using force?

"I have not used the word "resistance" in this blog."

No, you refer to it as a guerrilla war. Lahoud has referred to them as their national resistance, and you admit there's nothing to make us thing they even want to. Both of you want to paint a terrorist organization as something far more noble.

I mentioned the IRA because that was the same excuse the bleeding hearts used in terms of Ireland. Oh, the Irish authorities are powerless, or that they were really fighting a guerrilla war and weren't terrrorists, blah, blah. It's a shame that people can make such moral equivalences just because they have an irrational bias.

"You may think of me as "anti-Israel", fair enough, but I see no reason why I should be "neutral" about this subject, or indeed any other. I am a blogger, not a broadcaster, I have no duty to be neutral and neither do you. "

But when you make the kind of point you are trying to make above, you're posing the idea that there is an objective condemnation of Israel's behavior. I mean, look at the numbers, right? Obviously Israel is quantitatively proved to be in the wrong, outside of the bias and passion of the argument.

No, you just adopt a 'reasonable' tone to hide an unreasonable opinion. Hezbollah is an agent of the Lebanese government, and they crossed the Israeli border, kidnapping and killing Israelis. That can't be seen as anything other than an act of war, and war is what they have. Now you're surprised you are seeing casualties? You aren't that ignorant of history. Find me a war without civilian casualties.

The Israeli Defense minister just made a great statement. He said that sovereignty and responsibility go hand in hand. Lebanon wants to be a sovereign nation, but they don't want to take responsibility for what their "national resistance" undertakes. If Lebanon didn't want war, they shouldn't have behaved in a warlike fashion. Sucks to be them, I guess.

Actually, we have quite a range of opinions. It goes with the territory of having democracies, functioning civil societies with unfettered discussion and a free press expressing diverse opinion. All things which America claims to believe in too - to the extent of believing the recipe can be exported universally.

Can you give some documentation as to the extent of this wide range of opinions? And how popular such divergent attitudes may be? I'm a little skeptical. Is the range between left and far left?

"No, you refer to it as a guerrilla war. Lahoud has referred to them as their national resistance,"

I am not Emile Lahoud, the president of Lebanon. If you're upset with a word he's used to describe Hezbollah, I suggest you take it up with him.

"The same way Israel is supposed to. Either by negotiations with the parties in question, by international intervention, or by force with international help if necessary."

My point is that guerilla armies can't be disarmed by force, it's just not practically possible. The IDF proved that in Lebanon for 18 years. So did the Brits for 30 years with the IRA. Or the Brits with all those Zionist "terrorists" in the 1940s for that matter. It's no good banging on and on about Lebanon disarming Hezbollah when the Lebanese army can't compel Hezbollah to decommission.

"But when you make the kind of point you are trying to make above, you're posing the idea that there is an objective condemnation of Israel's behavior. I mean, look at the numbers, right?"

I am using facts to back up my argument. What's wrong with that?

"No, you just adopt a 'reasonable' tone to hide an unreasonable opinion."

And what exactly is "an unreasonable opinion"? One which does not coincide with your own?

And what exactly is wrong with a "reasonable tone"? I am trying to maintain a level of civility and I would advise you to do likewise. Writing a sentence in caps does not help your case.

Good Point,

My paper of choice, The Independent, is generally left-wing and pro-Palestinian. However, it has run several pro-Israeli columns and letters this week, as well as reporting from northern Israel. This is as it should be.

I'm quite sure that the other English "qualities" - The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times - have also been running pro and anti-Israel pieces this week.

In terms of diversity of viewpoint, I'm sure that the English papers would easily outstrip their American counterparts.

"My point is that guerilla armies can't be disarmed by force, it's just not practically possible. The IDF proved that in Lebanon for 18 years. So did the Brits for 30 years with the IRA. Or the Brits with all those Zionist "terrorists" in the 1940s for that matter. It's no good banging on and on about Lebanon disarming Hezbollah when the Lebanese army can't compel Hezbollah to decommission. "

So I guess the only way to deal with Hezbollah is to surrender? Give in to their demands? You realize that once you admit they can't be disarmed, and that they can't really be dealt with by negotiation, there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left.

You can say that for every one you kill there'll be x number who step up, but frankly people don't breed that fast. Eventually that little Darwinian thing in your brain clicks and you say to yourself that maybe a guaranteed death isn't the way to go. The problem in both cases you mention is that they didn't have the stomach to really make war on the peasantry that supported the IRA and Hezbollah.

Eventually the backward wretches in the Middle East will make the same decision other backward nations have made and choose to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. They'll see to their prosperity and safety instead of wasting their lives out of hate for Israel.

"I am using facts to back up my argument. What's wrong with that? "

No, numbers aren't facts, they're numbers. The fact you are promoting is that the numbers of civilians is accurate, and because of that Israel is somehow morally in the wrong. If that were true no one who ever won a war was morally in the right.

"And what exactly is "an unreasonable opinion"? One which does not coincide with your own? And what exactly is wrong with a "reasonable tone"?"

A reasonable question is one that uses reason. People who act as though a war shouldn't have civilian casualties are either deranged, or are dishonestly using such a unreasonable standard to oppose the idea of war altogether.

I wrote it in all caps because you continually ignore it, and you refuse to even acknoledge that Hezbollah acts as an agent for the civil authority you mourn for. It's no surprise that Israel hit civilian targets when the civilian authority is responsible for attacks on them.

A reasonable tone is fine, but when it is used to camouflage radical or even hateful dogma it becomes dishonest. Like the EU "humanitarian", if people really worried about civilian casualties they'd have been lamenting the losses when the balance was on the other side. People pose themselves as being simply interested in peace, but then they only address half the aggression.

My paper of choice, The Independent, is generally left-wing and pro-Palestinian. However, it has run several pro-Israeli columns and letters this week, as well as reporting from northern Israel. This is as it should be. I'm quite sure that the other English "qualities" - The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times - have also been running pro and anti-Israel pieces this week. In terms of diversity of viewpoint, I'm sure that the English papers would easily outstrip their American counterparts.

I'm not defending the quality or diversity of opinion in American papers...not by a long shot. We're all slaves, American and European, to the state religion of liberlism. I'm more interested in how popular such divergent attitudes are.

"So I guess the only way to deal with Hezbollah is to surrender? Give in to their demands? You realize that once you admit they can't be disarmed, and that they can't really be dealt with by negotiation, there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left."

I never said that they can't be negotiated with. In fact if you want guerilla armies to give up their guns, negotiation is the only way, as in Ireland.

Speaking of which:

"The problem in both cases you mention is that they didn't have the stomach to really make war on the peasantry that supported the IRA and Hezbollah."

If you look at the history of Northern Ireland, you will see that the IRA, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist when the Troubles started in 1969. Their membership sky-rocketed when the British started to "crack down" on them in the early 1970s.

This is why asymetirc warfare is such a bitch for the conventional army involved - military actions are frequently counter-productive in the long-term regardless of their short-term benefit.

"People who act as though a war shouldn't have civilian casualties are either deranged, or are dishonestly using such a unreasonable standard to oppose the idea of war altogether."

No, my entire point is that war doeshave civilian casualties and it is precisely for this reason that it should be avoided if at all possible. I don't believe in the concept of "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs".

"It's no surprise that Israel hit civilian targets when the civilian authority is responsible for attacks on them."

First of all, I don't think anyone is claiming that Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah. But even if the Lebanese government was responsible for Hezbollah that does not make the entire country a "legitimate target". When you talk about civilian targets you're talking about apartment blocks, hospitals, schools, power plants and ultimately women and children.

"A reasonable tone is fine, but when it is used to camouflage radical or even hateful dogma it becomes dishonest."

And who exactly do I hate?

Surely everyone has to admit that it is a complex situation and one where neither side are in the right.

The kidnap and killing of soldiers should not lead to the bombing of a whole country. As O G said in another post, what would the reaction have been if Britain started launching missiles into the Republic of Ireland in the mid 70s? If you compare it to that (and if you are a native of Ireland, north or south) it seems clearly absurd.

Similarly, there were undoubtedly sympathisers for the IRA present in the Irish government but when it became more and more of a dirty, terrorist campaign it was impossible for the government to act and disarm them. The will needs to come from within the organisation and they have to be brought to that descision by negotiation, not just by banging their heads together.

I know that the bombing is not indescriminate but it is obviously errant enough to cause havok. Is Israel's foreign policy "If you're making an omlette, you have to break some eggs"?

O G is right that the explosion of support for the IRA came during the "crack down", such as internment, and through the percieved mistreatment of the prisoners who went on hunger strike and were allowed to die by Maggie Thatcher.

This conflict will be adding support to Hezbollah in great numbers within Lebanon, and no doubt around the middle east.

Baker Street, I don't quite get your logic of "there's nothing left but to kill until there is none left" and "You can say that for every one you kill there'll be x number who step up, but frankly people don't breed that fast" because it shows a great deal of ignorance. One because its just not possible and two, have you seen Iraq recently?

The only ones that get counted as Hezbollah are the ones that can't possibly be denied as such. They also soil their neighborhoods with their weapons and use their families as human shields

This is the justification that Israel uses to underplay civilian casualities. Israel has not spared hospitals, children wards at that, residential appartments, roads, civilian infrastructure ect. In fact the number killed in Lebanon stands closer to 620 and Israel has been using cluster minitions against civilians. US supplied 155mmM483 A1 artilery howizers are fired into Lebonese territory. To say that such shells are aimed at Hizbollah fighters alone is meaningless as these cluster munitions dissapte the 88 to 100 grenades over a wide area using the centifugal force of the shell itself. I think USA has lost the high ground it seeks to hold when it allows its client state to indulge in carnage. Tell me what strategic objectiveIsrael is setting itsel to achieve; 1 15 mile sanitised zone. This even the Israeli generals are saying is beyond the capacity of the IDF short of a full scale ground invasion for which there i s no political consensus. 2 Disarming the Hizbullah. This goal is now beyon what Israel can realiticallly hope for because the Hizbollah has become more powerful than ever before. 3 The carnage in the middle east unleashed by Isreal will make all Arab and Moslem state get military parity through detterance. The violence against Lebanon will ignite the real need for Arab states to get out of the clutches of USA and get military parity by going nuclear.

" The violence against Lebanon will ignite the real need for Arab states to get out of the clutches of USA and get military parity by going nuclear."

Which will bring about the end of the Middle East as we know it. If you don't see this as the end of the middle ages in the Middle East, you should look again. The world will no longer tolerate this behavior, and things like this will happen every year until the Middle East joins the rest of the world in the 21st century. It will be bloody if necessary, but they will not become what you claim because they will not be allowed to.

One nation should not undertake an act of war on another unless they are prepared for war. Period. By allowing Hezbollah into their government and embracing them as legitimate military in their nation, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Civil infrastructure becomes targets during a time of war. If you don't want bombs dropped on you, it is probably better not to provoke a neighboring nation to war.

Everyone knows already that war is never pretty and to expect anything less than dead people, soldiers and civilians alike, is just day dreaming.

I have to understand your point based on what you write and how you write it, I have come across a few people that, for some reason, thought that I would guess they were LOL when they wrote an article that sounded like they were mad as hell. I say this so that in case I write one of those “don’t put words in my mouth” sentences, it’s only because this is what I get and/or understand what you are trying to say.

With that said, I get the feeling, just like Baker did, that you think that we should just let terrorist get their way. That anyone who wants more than what they have should only have to hide in a civilian populated area, acquire powerful weapons by any means, attack those they wish to get what they want from and then those who are being attacked should just give in to their demands just to save the lives of those around the attackers because even though the “innocent” civilians know they are there and who they are, they should not be responsible for their actions. At the same time, the terrorist can get away with killing innocent people on the other sides.

Sure, let them kill innocent people in my town while hiding behind human shields so that our morality can get the best of us and they can get their demands. Funny, every time there is a hostage situation and S.W.A.T. comes, they try their best to get the criminals without putting the hostages in danger but shit happens sometimes. In the end we don’t give in to their demands so easily, so why should we give in to those who have already killed and will kill anyways cause they never follow thru on a ceasefire, for example.

Not only do they believe that Israel should be completely destroyed, they have vocally told everyone without any fear of retaliation, and we should be trying to work things out with them? How do you make a deal to save the lives of the Israeli people with people whose mindset is ”the only good Israeli is a dead one”? If you can answer that question with a decent answer than I will shut up and agree with you.

"the only good Arab is a dead Arab"

Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, 1983.

How are the Palestinians (or the Lebanese) supposed to deal with people with that mindset?

Peace will only come in the Middle East when both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, accept the permanence of the other.

There are many among both peoples who have already come to this conclusion - that the Jews will not be driven into the sea and neither will the Palestinians be "transfered" to Jordan. Unfortunately, there are many others who have not.

No military offensive or security "crackdown" will bring lasting peace - the last 60 years are proof of that. What is it they say about the definition of madness?

Just a point of fact. Current estimates of the Hezbollah forces in the South of Lebannon opposing Israel are two brigades, the same strength as the Israeli force. They are NOT few in number.

'numbers aren't facts' - baker street

thank you for that comment, mr street. that is one of the funniest arguments i've ever read. you tell 'em.