Marilyn

No one disputes that Israel has killed more people than Hezbollah. But why has Hezbollah killed so few people with thousands of rockets?

Did they use only "Mickey Mouse Rockets" so that they would kill fewer people? That does not make sense. If they fired thousands of rockets they meant to kill someone, presumably they would have prefered to use better rockets if they had them. Also Israel had bomb shelters to protect their population. When we do occasionally get a report of Israeli buildings it is obvious that they also suffered extreme damage.

More questions for you to avoid answering.

Why did Hezbollah a peaceful organisation have thousands of rockets to deploy?

For whom were these rockets intended.

If they intended to fire missiles did they not expect a return in the form of bombs etc.

Why did they not provide protection for their own people as Israel did?

And don´t bring up again the red herring that they are too poor. If they could afford rockets they could afford shelters. According to many reports they had dug tunnels under their villages. Could they not have used them as shelters?

Logic
I most definitely see your point of argument. But you cannot deny Israel has plenty more resources than the Hezbollah or Lebanon. I mean, the Hezbollah isn't a fully funded army here, they would already be stretching every resource they could get, I suppose the fact they are not better organized and structured lead them to believe missiles are more important than shelter. They are also there for the protection of their people, so even though they may use actions that do not picture them as a peaceful organization, which they are most definitely not, their actions are the only thing saving Lebanon. Israel wouldn’t stop even if the Hezbollah did, until Lebanon paid reparations or bombed to the ground.

Epithemeos

I am not so sure that Hezbollah is entirely lacking in resources. If it is true that they are backed up by oil rich Iran they may be well off.

I peronally think that Israel would stop if Hezbollah did, and not demand that Lebanon paid reparations. Certainly as far as I know they did not expect reparations from Egypt or Jordan. Then they were happy with a peace treaty.

Remember Israel whatever you think of it, does have a Westminster style government and and English Magna Carta based legal system together with a free press just like we do. It would be difficult for an Israeli government to escape criticisms from its own electorate if it became too greedy and unnecesarily risked the lives of its soldiers. That is much of the reason why Israeli losses are low.

It seems a real unfair match to compare the Hezbollah to Israel in terms of resources. I mean, they ‘could’ be rich in oil, but what they lack is that resource to be spent on something more productive. I don’t think I made myself clear, what I am trying to say is that a country like Israel or US have money and know how to spend it, which is why they surpass many nations with money, military and their strategies. If you believe Israel would stop, and have an example to back it up, then I can take this. Unfortunately I do not have a specific example such as yours which influences my opinion.
To say that Israel wouldn’t get greedy because of a western style government is a little naïve. I mean, the UN stands for international peace, and although pleading on many occasions with Israel to stop, they have point blank refused this system that helps conflict

Epithemeos

Sorry I did misunderstand. The advantage of the Forum is that we can explain ourselves and you have done so to my satisfaction.

I understand your doubts about Israeli intentions but the UN is not exactly a democracy, but more of a gerrymander with each state getting a vote irrespective of its population. Israel has found that the UN failed in its stated intentions such as protecting its border with Lebanon from attacks.

Also the Islamic nations often seem to gang up against them imposing conditions which it reasonably regards as dangerous to its security. In these cases it feels a need either to disregard the resolutions or to hope for a US veto. Neither option is what it wants.

Hopefully the present peace fire will hold. It is a test of both sides as well as the UN.

Completely my fault for the misunderstanding. My concern is that the UN is a body that represents peace through negotiation. All countries attend this, because they believe to some degree that their country is a peaceful one. Now there are revolutionist groups, extremist groups within these countries, but let’s not judge the whole nation on a minority. I just feel that if it was another nation doing these attacks than the UN would be taking more of an active method, with nation representatives from around the world and especially US were in favour, the actions would be stopped. I too hope this peace fire holds, but it is almost inevitable for it to start again for the roots that this conflict has.