Lebanon fires rockets into Israel

[bascule]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm

 

In light of this, was Israel's invasion of Gaza a good idea? I'm going to go with no.

[ecoli]

I don't think Israel wants a two front battle right now, but what's your reasoning?

[waitforufo]

Hamas has just received a serous beating. Israel has its military fully activated. The Arab states are tired of their Persian enemy Iran having client armies in their back yard. Tzipi Livni of Kadima still wants to beat Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming election. By the time the Israel's airforce has softened up Lebanon, their army can easily move their tanks from Gaza to Metula.

 

No time like the present.

[mooeypoo]

Hamas has just received a serous beating. Israel has its military fully activated. The Arab states are tired of their Persian enemy Iran having client armies in their back yard. Tzipi Livni of Kadima still wants to beat Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming election. By the time the Israel's airforce has softened up Lebanon, their army can easily move their tanks from Gaza to Metula.

 

No time like the present.

I hope you're wrong. I have a feeling you're right, but I hope you're wrong.

Lebanon is not like Gaza. Hizbulla is not like Hamas.

Just look at what happened 2 years ago.. it was the same reasoning - Israel had over a million people "hostage" inside bomb shelters in the entire northern region. There was no other choice but to do something about it.. and yet, Lebanon is not Gaza.

 

I seriously hope you're wrong.

[CaptainPanic]

I don't understand how 2 rockets fired from Lebanon are described as "Lebanon fires rockets into Israel".

In the article (same link as in the OP), it says "Rockets hit Israel from Lebanon". Quite a difference.

 

In the OP's words, it suggests that the Lebanese government sent those rockets. In the BBC's words, it's suggested that the rockets originate from Lebanese soil, but it gives no information whether the government was involved.

 

It's like saying that America shoots over 10000 people every year... whereas the normal wording is "Over 10000 people die from shootings every year in America".

 

Please be careful with these words - the situation in the world is already explosive enough. Plenty of governments are being accused of terrorism already. We don't need more.

 

Governments have disputes. Wars are being fought. But that does not automatically mean that governments are terrorist groups.

We don't negotiate with terrorists, and you should at all times keep the option of negotiation with a country's government open.

 

Israel replied with artillery, but called the attack an "isolated event".

If the attack was approved by the Lebanese government, you can be sure that the response would have been a bit heavier.

[Pangloss]

In the OP's words' date=' it suggests that the Lebanese government sent those rockets. In the BBC's words, it's suggested that the rockets originate from Lebanese soil, but it gives no information whether the government was involved.

 

It's like saying that America shoots over 10000 people every year... whereas the normal wording is "Over 10000 people die from shootings every year in America".[/quote']

 

No, that's not the same thing. Do you understand what these rockets are? This is a Katyusha rocket, the type "fired into Israel" yesterday.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha

 

 

Actually that's just the launcher vehicle, but you get the idea. Here's what they look like when they launch:

 

 

This is the kind of damage they produce:

 

 

 

Does that really look like the sort of thing a common Lebanese citizen would drive around, perhaps while picking up groceries from the store? Come on. Everyone knows that's Hezbollah. Who else would be ALLOWED to drive around in Southern Lebanon with that sort of thing?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you want to talk about press manipulation, try this on for size:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html?hp

 

The headline of that New York Times article is "Gaza Attacks Continue Despite U.N. Truce Call", but the whole article is about Israel refusing to stop attacking Hamas -- it's 14 paragraphs before they even mention Hamas attacking Israel. It doesn't even mention the fact that Hamas hasn't even respected the three-hour "cease fire" periods that Israel has been calling each day.

 

What kind of a cease fire only applies to one side of a dispute?

Edited January 9, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive post/s merged.

[CaptainPanic]

Hmm... Dutch news hadn't mentioned the type of rockets (it was also front page news here). I should perhaps have completely read the BBC article. Apologies... Katuscha rockets indeed looks like Hezbollah.

 

Seems hezbollah would like the conflict to escalate?

 

Anyway, the bottom line what I don't understand is:

Hamas and Hezbollah - are they a group of terrorists or an army? It makes a huge difference, no?

 

Because I always thought they were considered terrorists? - Since when do terrorists agree on things like a cease fire? Isn't the whole purpose - the definition even - of terrorism "disruption through intimidation and violence "?

[mooeypoo]

Actually, this is more complicated than that...

 

Hizbullah is not the Lebanese government. Not officially. But they do control the entire southern region. And they are not quite "just" a guerilla anymore; they have advanced technology (relatively) from Iran, and VERY advanced military-like structure. It's a known (and Iran partially admitted this, though not completely) fact that Iran trains the soldiers and delivers arms.

 

Saying they hijacked the southern part of the country is an understatement. They are not quite, though, the government, which makes this *VERY* hard politically and practically... their missiles, however, are very real, and much more advanced than Hamas'.

 

Bad situation.

 

 

Hizbulla DEFINITELY wants to escalate the situation. Last time they went *inside Israel and kidnapped soldiers*. From Inside the border, on Israel's side. You don't do that to "retaliate". Not a military organization like Hizbulla. Besides, give me a bit to wake up properly (and get to work;) ) and I'll find a few vids for you from Nassralla himself (HIzbulla leader) that states unequivocally that their entire goal is the distruction of Israel.

No talks are possible. None are accepted by Hizbullah. They follow Iran's "Israel should be wiped off the map" mantra.

 

Sorry, "PS" again -- Hizbulla is the organization in charge of blowing up the US Embassy in 1982 (details to follow, I need to check again the fine dets) and a US installation in Lebanon (need to verify year) -- so they are considered terrorists. They're just VERY well organized and QUITE well trained and Lebanese government is powerless to do anything with it (I am not even sure Lebanon's army is properly organized.. Lebanon has a lot of trouble, specifically since their civil war(s) ) - that makes the situation a lot more complicated, since the distinction between "terrrorist" as being a "small group" or an "unorganized group" is.. well.. nonexistant in Hizbullah's case. They do blow things up and are involved with *global* actions against civilians. And I do believe the US itself refers to them as Terrorist Organization too. Just a very well organized one.

Edited January 9, 2009 by mooeypoo

[CaptainPanic]

Actually, this is more complicated than that...

I'll stick to my signature. Always trying to simplify things into a model that I can understand.

[Pangloss]

There's been a lot of violent back-and-forth, but Hamas and Hezbollah are governments now, duly elected, and thereby required to behave as such.

 

Or else.

 

And that's the crux of it, not "the people have spoken, it's just that democracy didn't give us what we wanted", or any other form of placing the blame on the west. If they want to be part of the company of nations then they have to behave like they do. Or else. We have to make it clear to people like that that violence isn't an option, and they can't just lob a few grenades anytime they're not getting what they want.

 

When it all boils down to brass tacks, there's civilized behavior, and there's regime change. That's it.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, jumping in again with my promised refs (though I have very little time, so I am posting wiki-stuff, but they should be enuff to start you off on other references).

 

Anyhoo - the Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut was in 1983 (not 82), and at the same year car-bombed the barracks of US Marines in Lebanon.

 

They went by a front-name "Islamic Jihad", which tehy used to take responsiblity on multiple terrorist acts and were (and are) acting in close connection with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

The line is blurred a lot when such an organization (that doesn't renounce his "past deeds" either..) is in a government, but I am not sure how much that affects things at the moment. If Hizbulla was willing to talk, I am pretty sure Israel would commence talks regardless of it being a terrorist organization or not (Israel has spoke to the PLO while it was still considered a terror organizations). The problem is that they aren't willing and aren't interested to have any talks.

And the bigger problem arises when they take the citizens of the Lebanon (and Gaza) hostage and start targetting Israeli civilians with missiles. They don't leave much choice for an Israeli response, which is, I suspect, exactly what they want.

[bascule]

Hezbollah denies responsibility, btw:

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-fg-lebanon-rockets9-2009jan09,0,7241260.story

 

I don't think Israel wants a two front battle right now, but what's your reasoning?

 

If the point of this exercise was to end the rocket attacks, so far Israel has succeeded in... doubling the rocket attacks.

[ecoli]

Hezbollah denies responsibility, btw:

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-fg-lebanon-rockets9-2009jan09,0,7241260.story

 

 

 

If the point of this exercise was to end the rocket attacks, so far Israel has succeeded in... doubling the rocket attacks.

 

The idea was to stop rocket attacks from Gaza by destroying the rockets in Gaza.

 

 

If Hezbollah denies this, then the question is are they lying? and if not, who else possibly has the capability to use this kind of force?

[mooeypoo]

Hizbulla looked for an excuse to throw missiles into Israel and spark up a second crisis.

 

Israel was assaulted for eight years continuously from Gaza, having a million citizens running to shelters every day. I still don't quite get your point, bascule - you say that Israel shouldn't have responded or do you say Israel shouldn't have responded in this specific way?

 

But there is truth in saying the incidents are related. Iran operates Hizbullah, and has a vested interest in cooperating and strengthening the attacks from Hamas against Israel.

 

But bascule -- you keep saying that Israel shouldn't-have [attacked/invaded/etc]. I am curious to know what you think should've been the alternative..?

[bascule]

If Hezbollah denies this, then the question is are they lying?

 

You could ask the same thing about Israel and their use of white phosphorus on Gaza civilians...

 

The idea was to stop rocket attacks from Gaza by destroying the rockets in Gaza.

But bascule -- you keep saying that Israel shouldn't-have [attacked/invaded/etc]. I am curious to know what you think should've been the alternative..?

 

I think there's been unacceptable loss of civilian life in this invasion, including children. If their goal was to get rid of the rockets why a ground invasion? Why not a surgical strike?

 

Just a few highlights of Israel's invasion I don't think have been covered in the other threads: Israeli soldiers ordered 100 Palestinians into a single house, then repeatedly shelled the house. 70 Palestinians died. The UN suspended aid operations in Gaza after one of their trucks was destroyed by Israeli tank fire, killing the driver. Dennis Kucinich is arguing that

.

 

Also, per the BBC article the US, UK, and France have all dropped their opposition to a UN resolution urging an immediate ceasefire.

Edited January 9, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Oh please, GAZA doctors say the Israelis committed an atrocity, and that gets reported as fact?! Geez.

 

Bascule, if Israel complies with the new cease fire and Gaza does not, what do you suggest happen then?

Edited January 9, 2009 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Oh please, GAZA doctors say the Israelis committed an atrocity, and that gets reported as fact?! Geez.

 

Are you questioning the journalistic integrity of the Telegraph? And if you read the article a little closer, the testimony of a Gaza medic confirmed existing accounts.

 

Bascule, if Israel complies with the new cease fire and Gaza does not, what do you suggest happen then?

 

I don't know.

 

For the record, neither side is interested in a ceasefire agreement:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/israel.gaza/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel was disregarding the U.N. vote because the resolution will not be heeded by "murderous" Palestinian groups. The firing of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel on Friday, he said, "proves the U.N. resolution is not practical."

Edited January 9, 2009 by bascule

[waitforufo]

I hope you're wrong. I have a feeling you're right, but I hope you're wrong.

Lebanon is not like Gaza. Hizbulla is not like Hamas.

Just look at what happened 2 years ago.. it was the same reasoning - Israel had over a million people "hostage" inside bomb shelters in the entire northern region. There was no other choice but to do something about it.. and yet, Lebanon is not Gaza.

 

I seriously hope you're wrong.

 

I hope I'm wrong too. My post yesterday was really just to point out facts of which Hizbulla must also be aware.

 

Metula by the way is a great place. Great steak house call Hatahana (if I remember), an Irish pub I don't remember the name of, and very friendly people. I hope nothing bad happens there.

[bascule]

Oh please, GAZA doctors say the Israelis committed an atrocity, and that gets reported as fact?! Geez.

 

The UN and Israelis are now investigating the incident:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghh3i-gp2cb36Mu7jxu6-xfBtnHw

 

This article claims 30 were killed out of approximately 110 Palestinians in the house, half of which were children.

 

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called the events in the Gaza City neighbourhood "one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations" by Israeli forces in Gaza on December 27.

 

"Those who survived and were able walked two kilometres to Salah Ed Din road before being transported to hospital in civilian vehicles. Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," OCHA said.

 

Apparently in a separate incident 43 people were killed when an Israeli strike hit a school serving as an emergency shelter.

 

785 Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis since the invasion so far, over 250 of which were children.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html?_r=1

 

The International Committee of the Red Cross reported finding what it called shocking scenes on Wednesday, including four emaciated children next to the bodies of their dead mothers. In a rare and sharply critical statement, it said it believed that “the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.”

Edited January 9, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But bascule you've been posting one-sided conspiracy theories since you started in on this subject, and I have to say it's getting a little old.

 

But hey, I'm glad you see now that it's just a report, and not a fact.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Pangloss

[waitforufo]

The UN and Israelis are now investigating the incident:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghh3i-gp2cb36Mu7jxu6-xfBtnHw

 

This article claims 30 were killed out of approximately 110 Palestinians in the house, half of which were children.

 

 

 

Apparently in a separate incident 43 people were killed when an Israeli strike hit a school serving as an emergency shelter.

 

785 Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis since the invasion so far, over 250 of which were children.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html?_r=1

 

The things you write of are bad, and the people responsible for bringing them about should be held accountable. I think Hamas is 100% responsible for bringing them about. Why am I wrong?

[padren]

The UN and Israelis are now investigating the incident:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghh3i-gp2cb36Mu7jxu6-xfBtnHw

 

This article claims 30 were killed out of approximately 110 Palestinians in the house, half of which were children.

 

Apparently in a separate incident 43 people were killed when an Israeli strike hit a school serving as an emergency shelter.

 

If these were intentionally targeted with complete disregard for the civilian non-combatants - then I would completely agree this is beyond the pale and Israel needs to be held accountable.

 

If this is a result of "fog of war" then it only makes me more angry at Hamas for bringing this conflict and suffering upon the Palestinian people.

 

Israel broke it's side of the cease fire when it attacked the tunnel as your previously cited articles mentioned - but that tunnel itself was a violation and implemented to harm Israelis. It resulted in 6 dead, and I am pretty sure (open to correction though) those were people involved with either building or defending the tunnel, so I don't have the deepest sympathy for them.

 

Apparently the destruction of the tunnel caught the attention of Hamas, and they stepped up their missile attacks. Then, after some time, Israel responded with this level of force.

 

Since I see no way Israel could have stopped those missile attacks short of this invasion and the subsequent unfortunate cost to civilian life, I don't see how they are at fault.

 

When citizens riot and police respond, one hopes no civilians get killed, and specially no bystanders, but it is possible if one of two things to happen: Police fire on citizens that are no threat illegally and with prejudice... or police fire on citizens they think they think are an immediate threat to the lives of others and due to the chaos, happen to be wrong.

 

In both cases they should be investigated fully, and if it is due to abuses by the officer, the officer should be prosecuted. If the burden of proof does not demonstrate this, then the officer is not culpable, and the results are attributed to the chaos of the situation.

 

It is easiest to forget this when one feels the riots are a justifiable response to an unjust situation and as such the police should never have been necessary to begin with. I would not be above participating in riots if the situation was in my mind demanding them. I would however, try be sure I did not loose sight of the full implications of doing so, and the cost that could come with it to myself and even innocent bystanders - nor would I blame the responding officers for suffering caused by confusion within the situation.

 

 

If the Israelis are intentionally engaging in the slaughter of civilians, or allowing the slaughter of civilians due to gross disregard for their lives - then there is a case to be made against them.

 

Unless this is demonstrated, I don't see how this is anything other than the suffering caused by the fog of war. As I still feel Hamas is responsible for this invasion, I see them as the root cause of suffering of Gaza civilians, and can't really blame Israel.

[mooeypoo]

You could ask the same thing about Israel and their use of white phosphorus on Gaza civilians...

Bascule, come on.. Where is this proven? I see your points and they're very appealing, but when you make something like this one, please support it, otherwise it's quite an emotional and unfair point to make.

 

We can probably find many emotionally-driven horrific reasons to support both sides. That doesn't get the discussion any further, specifically when they're not supported.

 

I think there's been unacceptable loss of civilian life in this invasion, including children. If their goal was to get rid of the rockets why a ground invasion? Why not a surgical strike?

Okay, a few things. I see your point here, but I think you missed mine.

 

First off, the air strikes *were* surgical strikes (otherwise you would have 10 times the amount of casualties considering the terrain/population density), but 'surgical strikes' are not perfect. Unfortunately.

 

If Israel (or any country for that matter) had the technology to truly hit a *single person* wherever he is in 100% percision, we would, most likely, have fewer wars. I would like to believe we would have a *LOT FEWER* civilian casualties in the wars around the world in general.

 

But that technology doesn't exist. And war, unfortunately, is ugly.

 

Please consider this scenario, bascule:

 

 

• Hamas is targetting Israeli cities, specifically meant to harm citizens, for 8 years.
  
• During those years, surgical, percise responses were done with very little (but existing) civilian casualties.
  
• Israel begins calling the house of top-Hamas terrorists, people who are actively planning these missile strikes or smuggling weapons into the strip (and is doing it during the operation, as well, see here a few examples), and warns them that their house/warehouse/room - filled with ammunition and weaponary - is about to be blown to bits.
  
• You would *expect* a reasonable person to get their stuff and run the hell away. Hamas people not only do the opposite, but develop a method where they actually call up *NEIGHBORS* to *join them* inside the apartment, so the Israeli forces will be forced to hold their fire.
  (Here are a few videos of Hamas militants using children, hidinng behind children, or calling children over while they're either shooting at the IDF or preparing to:
  , and a confession from Hamas that they do exactly that, on purpose:
  ). Note this video here:
  from 2006 rocket attack. In the middle of a village. RIGHT NEXT to a civilian house.)
  
• This tactics sometimes succeeds, and sometimes doesn't; sometimes the civilians are being killed. Mind you, those warnings are not 24 hours before the strike (giving hamas enough time to move the weapons). It's a 10-15 minute warning. When you get it, if you love your family, you ask them to run, not to call their friends over.
  
• So the above definitely doesn't work, as Hamas is taking the time to get more weapons from Iran and other islamist organizations and arm themselves for a future (wanted) conflict with Israeli forces.
  
• All the while, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israeli cities, sending individuals to sneak out and perform shooting-attacks in abandoned roads and plan suicide bombing attacks.
  
• Israel attempts, all this time, to perform talks. It's leaders do talk with Abu Mazen - The palestinian Authority President (previously another title, but same role).
  Hamas is part of the Palestinian parliament at this point, but it's not 100% of it ("democracy"). While Hamas keeps making statements that it demands the destruction of the state of Israel, and refuses to conduct any form of talks with anyone in Israel, Abu Mazen (affiliated more with Fatah and Arafat's factions) is continuing the bit-more-worldwide-approach and maintains some form of relation (though when Hamas came to have a large body in the parliament, that slowed down too).
  
• Hamas takes arms and decides to forcefully get rid of its opposition: The Fatah. A bloody conflict arised, and many civilians were killed during it (surprisingly, that wasn't too much heard of in the news. Perhaps it was because the "arabs kills their own"? Media seems to not be interested when that happens, and I mean no disrespect to Arab nations here [or anyone, really]). Hamas completely won, took over the parliament and threw off Abu Mazen and any of the parliament. Hamas was now the SOLE authority in Gaza. Bye bye democracy.
  
• Attacks on Israeli towns *INCREASE* in number, increase in accuracy. People in southern Israel are forced to live their lives in bomb shelters.
  
• NOTE: Though after Hamas was elected US, Israel and other countries declared they 'stop the aid' to Gaza, the CONSTANT movement of Humanitarian Aid trucks *into the gaza strip* did NOT stop. Look at these shipments by months here, here and here (for specifically Jan8, after the ground assault) as examples. All claims that Israel stopped the flow of supplies are utter lies.
  Those trucks went in *under fire from Hamas* militants, by the way.
  
• Finally, a state of calm is declared. Israel stops its operation for almost three months (let me explain the 'almost' in a minute). Hamas *DECREASES* the rockets, and doesn't stop.
  Under any definition this wasn't a cease fire:
  

Mortars:

 

Rockets:

 

Look at the so-called "Lull". There is constant fire on civilian cities even while the lull is declared. For three months Israel tries diplomacy to stop this.

 

• Then, at the end of the Lull, Israel has direct, accurate intelligence (that turned out to be true, btw) about Hamas militants smuggling weapons through specific tunnels.
  Israel force goes in to stop them, and stop the constant rocket fire on Israeli cities. They find Hamas gunmen in the tunnel; in a firefight, 1 is killed.
  Teh same day, 5 more Hamas militants die in direct confrontation with Israeli forces. Hamas declares the "cease fire" over (as if it wasn't when *they* were constantly throwin rockets on Israeli cities) and dramatically increases the rocket attack on Israeli forces.
  

 

Bascule - I not only understand your point (well, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong) but I also agree with some of it. Don't forget that for me a war is *painful*. I have friends who actively fight inside Gaza, who are otherwise working in HighTech companies in Israel. Unlike many other countries, the Israeli military is comprised of its civilians. Everyone served the military, has a family member in the military, knows how dangerous and unpleasant this is.

 

But the rockets attacks on southern Israel - after 8 years! - did not stop despite a cease fire, despite attemps for talks. What "broke the Israeli Camel's Back" was the *RANGE* of those missiles. For eight years Hamas shot missiles on a range of *RELATIVELY* nearby cities. In the past 2-3 months, it ALMOST DOUBLED the range, and started using more "Grad" missiles as opposed to the "Qassam" of before. This meant that over a million people were now being targetted.

 

Daily.

 

Now, bascule, I understand you are opposing the ground assault, but I have 2 questions:

When I asked "what is the alternative" I meant generally; correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be opposing a military response against Gaza in general. My question is -- in light of all the above, what do you think would be a better response (that would SOLVE the situation, of course).

 

My second question comes with a little 'intro' - The airstrike was meant to supply the initial pinpointed attacks; Large installations of ammunition and rockets were targetted (again, the civilians were *WARNED IN ADVANCE!*), some of those installations were inside mosques and schools (you can see videos of the strike, with proofs of the above, here). You can't get rid of such an activity, however, specifically one that is done INSIDE civilian installations and AMONG civilians, without going on a ground assault, unless you carpet-bomb the entire region.

 

That would solve the situation within 24 hours, if not less, with the result being that there would be nothing left of Gaza. That would also be completely disregarding human life. Israel decided to risk its soldiers and send them in to try and react to terrorists specifically, gain control on the area to flush out militant terrorists, and try to avoid harming civilians. Neither of us are trained in military tactics or strategy, so I think a criticism of the exact actions is difficult (specifically since I am not sure how much of the intelligence we have). But the point is that this ground assault was intended to AVOID continuing a *less accurate* Air strike.

 

Hamas personnel are shooting at IDF people from within (and near) civilian installations INTENTIONALLY.

 

So my second question is -- What do you think should be done *right now*, after there are already troops in there, to solve this situation?

 

In other words, my 2 questions are -- how would you think Israel should've reacted (or not?) *BEFORE* this operation, to stop mortar/missile/rocket fire on a million of its civilians, and what would you recommend be done now, after a ground assault is already in place.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Sorry, I seem to have forgotten to reference the graphs. Shame on me.

They come from the official MFA site (unfortunately in hebrew) but were translated by the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC. Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gaza_fact_sheet.pdf (PDF file)

You can also read an official response by the Consulate General of Israel in New York in this post: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2009/01/07/how-did-the-cease-fire-end/ (their official blog).

Edited January 10, 2009 by mooeypoo

[JohnB]

Frankly, I think Israel is between a rock and a hard place.

 

They are opposed by two groups who do not want to talk and do not want peace. Hezbollahs stated aim is to drive the jews into the sea. Not a lot of room there for negotiation, is there?

 

They keep getting damned by international groups for their actions if they retaliate, and their own people if they don't.

 

It doesn't matter if it's one rocket a day or a hundred, it is the governments responsibility to protect it's people. It's own people, not the other guys. When military action is called for, civillians will get killed (and this means women and children), especially if the protagonists are mixed in with the civillian population. Deal with it.

 

For those who think Israel is doing the wrong thing, or over reacting, a simple question. Exactly how would you expect your own government to respond to someone sitting outside the 12 mile limit lobbing rockets at your cities?

 

Or maybe closer, what if there were rockets fired from Mexico and landing in San Diego every day? Somehow I don't think "talking to them" would be part of the agenda. (And I wouldn't blame the US one bit.)

 

Bottom line is that it's easy to care about civillians when it's not you their friends are shooting at. When your civillians are at risk, you care a lot less about those of the other guy.

 

If the above sounds harsh, reality often is.

[ParanoiA]

For those who think Israel is doing the wrong thing' date=' or over reacting, a simple question. Exactly how would you expect your own government to respond to someone sitting outside the 12 mile limit lobbing rockets at your cities?

 

Or maybe closer, what if there were rockets fired from Mexico and landing in San Diego every day? Somehow I don't think "talking to them" would be part of the agenda. (And I wouldn't blame the US one bit.)[/quote']

 

Yeah, hell we invaded a country that couldn't even hit us with any damn rockets, for violating a cease fire.