Yes commonsense - terrible isn't it. Hezbollah has a lot to answer for!

Want to know why this is happening? Because Isreal is getting rocketed by Hezbollah, and it has been pushed too far. Israel has stated it will stop when 1) rocket fire from Lebanon directed at Israel stops, and 2)The two Kidnapped soldiers held for ranson are safely returned.

Not really much that Lebanon has to organise, is it?

i take the view that israel is a rogue state, founded by violent invasion of palestine, and surviving by violent repression of those dispossed people who want to get their land back.

the situation is similar to the white supremacist regime that used to be the master of south africa. for many years this racist gang was recognized by the usa and european countries, and by the zionist regime in israel, who supported the racists long after the 'civilized' nations had distanced themselves.

but finally the world could no longer stomach the south african government, and a secular parliamentary gonernment was established in which black and white south africans had equal political rights. nelson mandela got his nobel prize for leading the black majority to power without violence or reprisals.

this is the solution to the suppurating sore of palestine, a simple solution based on justice. the un must declare the state of israel to be illegal, and oversee the creation of a secular state of palestine, where citizens have equal rights, where jews, moslems and christians can practise their religion freely, but no group has a special position in society.

I think that the website that you mean is at:

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

And I do struggle to understand your point, unless you make an oblique reference to the effect on impressionable young children of being forced to live in bomb shelters in order to avoid being killed? What would you prefer, that they threw rocks at Hizbollah? Not really a good idea, Hizbollah does not respect the rules of warfare (see my previous post)

Quite frankly, have you examined the fact that if Israel did not respond those kids would look like the poor b*stards in the second half of the article? Hizbollah supposedly wanted only the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, which according to the UN was completely achieved [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000618.sc6878.doc.html]. That being so, why did they make an armed incursion into Israeli territory (According to the UN: [http://www.10452lccc.com/eliasenglish/elias.Salloukh 3.9.05.htm]) and bombard Israel?

Civilian casualties are always bad, but why on earth would anyone start a war having achieved all of their stated aims? Or do you suggest that Israel should concede whatever is sought every time terrorists move their arbitrary goalposts? If Lebanon wishes to be left in peace, it should comply with International Law and leave their neighbours in peace… They also had to ensure that the Lebanese Army controlled the Southern Region, which has not been accomplished, and are in violation of UN 425 (see UN report).

An old saying here is apt…

They made their bed (by voting for Hizbollah) now they must lie in it.

Quite frankly, many non-shia Lebanese (the majority) have no problem, provided they are left alone too many have suffered at the hands of Hizbollah (the only side that is armed) and their master Syria. Perhaps now is the time for the International community to side with them, and end the de facto Syrian occupation, carried out by their proxies, Hizbollah.

PS For those that wish to find out the meaning of proportionality in the context of war, this is a helpful guide:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/legit-military-target.html

It is proportionate to the military objective to be achieved, not the attack it responds to.

Inshallah

2bob

2bob, Leigh and others fail to understand the simplest point here. The Lebanon and her government did not attack Israel and to blow up the airports, roads, electricity and all other infrastructure is a war crime.

Is the infrastructure of Israel blown up? You guys have absolutely no sense of balance and to glorify Ted Lapkin is an absurdity. He is still living out the days of poor little Israel being victimised by the world when she is not. Most of the world is bending over backwards incase they have to have the Israelis (actually to be correct - the Jews) living in their backyard.

Just imagine if Japan occupied Sydney or some suburbs of Sydney and drove out the rightful owners and citizens then brought thousands or millions of Japanese to build illegal dwellings on the land, build a huge wall around it and kill any Sydney siders who dare to intrude or argue to get their land back.

That is precisely what the Israeli government under Sharon did. They brought people from all over the world to build illegal homes on the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights as a buffer for themselves and now refuse to leave. Why? It is not the land agreed on by the UN in 1948, it is stolen land and Palestinians are the main sufferers.

You have no imaginations at all. As Paul McGeough said to Fran Kelly yesterday on Radio National when asked about Australian's being evacuated "my thoughts always in these situations if for the people who cannot leave, the citizens of these places".

Name one thing the Lebanese people did to deserve to have their country blown back to the stone ages.

Come on, time to put up or shut up with this one.

Part One

Going by the about even reactions for and against the Israeli attack on Lebanon it looks like some other method must be used to solve the situation.

Firstly, as any tutorial historian knows it is not the first time that such has happened through history

As one who in his retirement has done a deep study of the philosophy of Western history. with honours in political science and international relations, one is reminded so much of Immanuel Kant the great German liberal Christian as well as the famous philosopher.

The story of Kant was so much expressed by Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor of post WW2 Germany, who supported so much the formation of the United Nations.

Kant, a supporter of the Enlightenment as well as the object of the French Revolution, became disgusted with Napoleon, the 23 year old general who though virtually carrying the banner of liberty-equality and fraternity as he conquered most of Europe, became so carried away that he declared himself emperor.

It was when Kant declared - “that from now on, not one man nor even one nation can be trusted to rule this world.” Kant then suggested the formation of a Federation of Nations as global watchkeepers, from which of course grew the post WW1 League of Nations, and later the United Nations.

Now with all due respects to our now unipolar United States, after all it is run virtually by one personage and other under-personages who also unfortunately have their own mercenary ambitions, as for instance Dick Cheney, who was or still is a top oil executive, Condoleeza Rice was or still is an oil executive, and George W Bush, the US President, also previously had a mixed career, rumoured also in oil.

But all the haggling over whether all of this is justified or not misses the point. You can argue over the rights and wrongs as far back as you like, you can haggle over whether technical points of international law make the morally-driven actions correct or not, what is proportionally appropriate and so on, but that ignores the more fundamental point:

A VIOLENT RESPONSE IS DUMB. Whether it's morally justified and/or technically legal or not, it's well known to be counter-productive.

Responding to violence with violence has NEVER deterred violence. Ghandi and Nelson Mandela have shown that there is a non-violent way to peace, and it starts with letting go of the arguments over who's right or who's wrong. It starts with agreeing to END the violence - unilaterally if necessary - and finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the fundamental problems of poverty and discrimination.

Violent actions will never solve the problems of Palestine/Israel, but there will be plenty of suffering while violent responses continue.