Since the other thread is devolving into the usual flame war, I figured this would be a better thread for debate.
Just about everyone who commented in the other thread believes, at the least, that Israel has acted with excessive force. So here's your chance to tell us how you think Israel should be acting.
Here's why I think Israel's acting, for the most part, exactly how it should:
Regardless of the talk about Hamas "largely observing a year long ceasefire," Palestinians have fired 1,000+ Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. Digging a tunnel under the border and planning that kidnapping operation had to have taken several weeks if not months. While I don't know the exact way Israel can stop the rocket fire, I think their only option was to turn up the heat on Hamas. Targeting their leadership is probably the best way to do it (and I've noticed that many of you bemoaning the "collective punishment" in Lebanon are the same ones who complain about targeted airstrikes on Hamas leaders, so you have a problem with "individual punishments" too).
The objective of the Gaza offensive is obviously murkier than in Lebanon. Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. One of you said the Cheba Farms is part of Lebanon, which is blatantly false. That land was taken from Syria in 1967 and was never part of Lebanon. The United Nations certified Israel's withdrawal and the Lebanon/Israel border became internationally official and recognized. So the Hezbollah attack inside of Israel was completely unjustified (and Hezbollah's Cheba Farms excuse to continue fighting Israel is as well). With 12,000 rockets, Israel has a fundamental obligation for its self defense to move Hezbollah out of range. This requires moving Hezbollah at least 25-40 miles north of the border. To do so, Israel has to destroy Hezbollah's operations in the south, most of which were rooted in Beirut. Another objective is to completely destroy Hezbollah, which is likely impossible, but they had to make sure that Hezbollah isn't resupplied by Syria/Iran. Since Hezbollah was rooted in a dense civilian population, rooting them out will inevitably cause civilian casualties. Hezbollah, as an agent mostly of Iran and Syria, knew full well that civilian casualties caused by Israeli reprisals will tarnish Israel's actions, and Syria/Iran could care less about damage to Lebanon.
I think the best thing that could happen, short of Hezbollah's destruction, is that Lebanese forces deploy and assert Lebanese sovereignty, acting as a reliable buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli leaders are explicitly calling for this, and the Lebanese PM floated that idea a few days ago. (A seemingly major problem is that Israel, while calling for that, has claimed that Lebanese forces are assisting Hezbollah and on at least one occasion has struck Lebanese military targets. I hope Israel is wrong or that it was an isolated incident. Obviously Israel and the Lebanese forces are going to have to cooperate)
So there's my opinion on how Israel should have responded. I don't think Israel's actions are excessive because I don't think the civilian casualty count is automatically the 100% deciding factor on what reprisal is excessive or not. Considering that upwards of 500,000 Lebanese are on the move, if Israel was intentionally targeting civilians the count would be much higher than 30 killed per day. There is no equivalent between Hezbollah intentionally aiming hundreds of rockets at civilians and Israeli reprisals unintentionally causing civilian casualties. The destruction of some Lebanese infrastructure is unfortunate but necessary to isolate Hezbollah. Some of you can't seem to understand that civilian casualties can be caused by strikes on Hezbollah targets, regardless of Hezbollah's casualty count. Last Thursday Israel struck 50 Hezbollah related targets alone, and civilian casualties obviously occurred. I hold Hezbollah responsible for operating in densely crowded urban zones and basically using civilians as shields.
Just about everyone who commented in the other thread believes, at the least, that Israel has acted with excessive force. So here's your chance to tell us how you think Israel should be acting.
Here's why I think Israel's acting, for the most part, exactly how it should:
Regardless of the talk about Hamas "largely observing a year long ceasefire," Palestinians have fired 1,000+ Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. Digging a tunnel under the border and planning that kidnapping operation had to have taken several weeks if not months. While I don't know the exact way Israel can stop the rocket fire, I think their only option was to turn up the heat on Hamas. Targeting their leadership is probably the best way to do it (and I've noticed that many of you bemoaning the "collective punishment" in Lebanon are the same ones who complain about targeted airstrikes on Hamas leaders, so you have a problem with "individual punishments" too).
The objective of the Gaza offensive is obviously murkier than in Lebanon. Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. One of you said the Cheba Farms is part of Lebanon, which is blatantly false. That land was taken from Syria in 1967 and was never part of Lebanon. The United Nations certified Israel's withdrawal and the Lebanon/Israel border became internationally official and recognized. So the Hezbollah attack inside of Israel was completely unjustified (and Hezbollah's Cheba Farms excuse to continue fighting Israel is as well). With 12,000 rockets, Israel has a fundamental obligation for its self defense to move Hezbollah out of range. This requires moving Hezbollah at least 25-40 miles north of the border. To do so, Israel has to destroy Hezbollah's operations in the south, most of which were rooted in Beirut. Another objective is to completely destroy Hezbollah, which is likely impossible, but they had to make sure that Hezbollah isn't resupplied by Syria/Iran. Since Hezbollah was rooted in a dense civilian population, rooting them out will inevitably cause civilian casualties. Hezbollah, as an agent mostly of Iran and Syria, knew full well that civilian casualties caused by Israeli reprisals will tarnish Israel's actions, and Syria/Iran could care less about damage to Lebanon.
I think the best thing that could happen, short of Hezbollah's destruction, is that Lebanese forces deploy and assert Lebanese sovereignty, acting as a reliable buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli leaders are explicitly calling for this, and the Lebanese PM floated that idea a few days ago. (A seemingly major problem is that Israel, while calling for that, has claimed that Lebanese forces are assisting Hezbollah and on at least one occasion has struck Lebanese military targets. I hope Israel is wrong or that it was an isolated incident. Obviously Israel and the Lebanese forces are going to have to cooperate)
So there's my opinion on how Israel should have responded. I don't think Israel's actions are excessive because I don't think the civilian casualty count is automatically the 100% deciding factor on what reprisal is excessive or not. Considering that upwards of 500,000 Lebanese are on the move, if Israel was intentionally targeting civilians the count would be much higher than 30 killed per day. There is no equivalent between Hezbollah intentionally aiming hundreds of rockets at civilians and Israeli reprisals unintentionally causing civilian casualties. The destruction of some Lebanese infrastructure is unfortunate but necessary to isolate Hezbollah. Some of you can't seem to understand that civilian casualties can be caused by strikes on Hezbollah targets, regardless of Hezbollah's casualty count. Last Thursday Israel struck 50 Hezbollah related targets alone, and civilian casualties obviously occurred. I hold Hezbollah responsible for operating in densely crowded urban zones and basically using civilians as shields.
