Well said, Antony. It's about time the pragmatic view was put that, however unjustified and repugnant the terrorists' (on either side) actions may be, however morally outraged the Israelis or Palestinians may feel, this kind of violent action is only going to prolong the pain for all concerned.

It's time for a practical approach to solving the problem of eye-fo-an-eye violence, for which both sides claim moral justification (GW Bush has a conveniently short memory and should shut up). In truth, there is perfect moral equivalence between the actions of the two sides: they are both completely unacceptible!

BUT: how to do it in a climate of intergenerational fear and hate? That problem is bigger than I. Suggestions?

I saw enough of this character on "Lateline" where he was made to look like a squealing schoolboy by Ted Lapkin, a man who really knows what he is talking about.

It would almost make a really good Jewish joke if it were not so sad. A people subject to years of progroms and victimisation, respond to a failed act of genocide by plonking themselves down on the lands of people who played no part in their suffering. They then proceed to act in a manner that guarantees that they will never enjoy the fruits of peace.

Very few victims of the holocaust were zionists and most would be appalled at what is being done and justified in their memory.

Israel has complied with ‘Geneva Convention 1949’, Additional Protocol 1 (1977) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/29.html?query=^%20geneva%20convention:

Israel having established lawful cause to commence hostilities, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war], being the cross border incursion, firing on Israeli troops and cross border bombardment of civilian areas, has every right to proclaim, as it has, it’s intention to disarm & destroy Hizbollah. That being so, the necessary proportionality for this purpose is defined as being not excessive to the military advantage to be gained by attacking the legitimate targets [Art.51(5)(b)].

Israel however has made use of all reasonable avenues by which to advise civilians within potential target areas of their areas status [Art.57(2)(a)(i)] and by doing so have reasonably attempted to comply with the protocol [Art.57(2)(a)(i)-(iii)]. The choice of targets, including civilian infrastructure, roads, electricity plants and even strategically placed villages and houses, which offer legitimate ‘military advantage’ to their opponent’s, are legitimate targets [Art.52(2)].

However, neither Hizbollah nor HAMAS have made any reasonable attempt to ensure that they target purely military targets [Art.51(4)(a)] and/or use weapons which are incapable of distinguishing between Military & Civilian Targets [Art.51(4)(a)-(c)]. Combatant’s from each rely upon perfidy, being the false adoption of civilian status, in order to safeguard their assets from direct attack [Art.37(1)(c)], the effect of which is to ensure that Israel has no option but to make strikes within otherwise civilian areas [Art.51(5)(b)], which action by the Hizbollah & HAMAS is prohibited [Art.51(7)].

Neither Hizbollah/HAMAS have made any reasonable attempt to comply with the requirements of this protocol with regard to the prisoner of war status of the three captives, who being defined as combatants [Art.43(2)] do not lose this status despite the method of capture [Art.44(5)]. It is fallacious to compare these captives, defined as combatant’s to those captured by Israel, acting as combatant’s without being able to be so defined (Perfidy) [Art’s.44(3)-(4) & 37(1)(c)], who are disentitled to rely on this protocol [Art.44(4)].

Factual inaccuracies again Mr Loewenstein? Perhaps you should edit your book and remove any reference to breaches of ‘actual’ International Law, hmmmm?

Inshallah

2bob

Well said 2bob!

You do not go to war half-hearted. War is hell and there is are two speeds - all-out and loose. The targetting of roads, bridges, airfields etc will severly ristrict Hezbollahs ability to resupply its state sponsored terrorists with munitions and rockets used indiscriminately against Isreal's civilian population.

Further to your excellent points is Lebanon's failure to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded that the government disarm Hezbullah and deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon in its stead.

Also to my suprise is the Hezbollah demand that all Lebanese nationals be "traded" or released from Isreali gaols. Israel currently has only ONE such prisoner. Samir Kuntar, who is serving multiple life sentences for having infiltrated into Israel, entered a house in Nahariya, killed the owner and his four-year-old daughter in cold blood, and then killed a policeman before being captured. That, incidentally, was in 1979 - three years before Israel invaded Lebanon and began its 18-year occupation of the country's south.

Such is the mentality of the terrorists.

Have a look at www.fromisraeltolebanon.org
and then tell us again about the self defense theories.