cascadian said:
I agree that Hizbollah actions are innapropriate and irresponsible, but that does not dictate the quality and nature of Israel's response.
Many of the initial criticisms of Israels response had to do with the concept of a "proportional" or "reasonable" response. Most of those critcisms disagreed entirely with your above statement, instead asserting that "Hizbollah actions are innapropriate and irresponsible, [
and should] dictate the quality and nature of Israel's response." In other words, more in line with your position (as I understand it), Israel's response should have been much more muted, perhaps restricted to the seeking out of Hezbollah rocket launching positions in southern Lebanon. Lets examine that proposition.
There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. Critics of Israel's military actions in Lebanon argue over what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.
This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.
While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.) There are many, many other examples.
So what is a "proportional" and "reasonable" response to rocket barrages with 10,000 - 12,000 rockets pointed at Israel? What response is appropriate for a country facing an armed force on its border, said armed force being funded, armed and trained by major terrorist sponsoring states that have the avowed goal of eliminating said country? What is a reasonable response for a country whose proxy army is being supplied by its main patron state with advanced missles capable of targeting not only its border cities, but reaching its capital and other major population centers as well? Last but not least, what does it do to the equation when or if that major terrorist-sponsoring state that supplies the proxy army on your borders obtains nuclear weapons in the not too distant future?
Sounds to me like the Israelis have considerably more work to do.