Disproportionate Use of Force

When Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City the United States military didn't launch air-strikes against Pendelton New York.

McVeigh was a domestic terrorist (yea, they actually do exist and I will admit it), which means that our laws, law enforcement and warrants are applicable to him and the search for him. With foreign terrorism we cannot just serve a warrant to Al Qaeda in the Middle East, nor could Israel just send police into Palestine and other sovereign nations without their consent, of which I doubt they would receive, at least not at the levels that would be needed to actually capture the suspects.

So now Kevin there will be 10,000 of these rockets fired at civilian populations according to Hezbollah. Well done Olmert the great statesman. What an imbecile. As long as the Israeli's continue the occupation rockets will come over the apartheid wall until the stars burn out. You solution kevin may mean that the world will have to clamp down on the US for its support of Israel and the constant running of the UN sanctions universally imposed on Israel.

Hamas is a lot more than a terrorist organization. They may support terrorist actions, but they also ran hospitals, bread lines, soup kitchens, provided support to the orphans and widows of the Israeli attacks, and generally provided the services that Israel didn't in the occupied territories.

What a shock -- the Palestinians elected the people that helped them.

Because of this you're willing to rain down explosives on the infrastructure that keeps the innocent alive? As thousands die from contaminated water, lack of sufficient medical care, erratic food supplies, and other hazards - what impact d you think this will have on terrorism in the middle east?

There is virtue in a measured response. There are appropriate and inappropriate targets for a civilized nation.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether the bombs are delivered by suicide bomber or jet aircraft.

This is not a small rag tag group of people protesting Israel. These are murderers supported by Arab governments and Islamo-fascists bent on wiping out the Jews.

Islamo-Facists!?! Why didn't you say so? That changes everything!

Wait. No it doesn't. That's a made-up word designed to drum up anti-Islamic sentiment by tying the GWOT to WWII. We can do without rhetoric comparing the nationalistic independence movements of a displaced people to the efforts of Nazi Germany.

What you're really getting at is that this problem has been going on for a really long time and, since Israel hasn't had much success stopping it by bombing cars, houses, and residential buildings that they should step things up and bomb airports, power plants, and water treatment facilities.

That would be great if it made any sense.

Last year terrorists killed 950 Israelis [Source] out of a population of about 6,352,117 [Source] making the terrorist kill rate about 0.015%. In contrast Israel has a yearly population growth rate of about 1.18%.

Israel is going to be fine. This isn't about a fight for the survival of the Jewish state. It's about responding to xenophobic fear in a population that is admittedly at risk, but not as endangered as it believes itself to be.

The occupation is over. Israel left.

When ?

Last year terrorists killed 950 Israelis [Source] out of a population of about 6,352,117 [Source] making the terrorist kill rate about 0.015%. In contrast Israel has a yearly population growth rate of about 1.18%.

What is the old saying, something like, "when one man dies it is a tragedy, when two die it is an outrage, but when a thousand (or 950) it is just a statistic."

...................

The occupation is over. Israel left.

When ?

You never responded before, but is your goal the complete removal of Israel as a state and a people? If not then what exactly is your aim?

When you have a group constantly stabbing you if you don't stop them they will eventually kill you with a thousand cuts.

...which is exactly why Hammas and Hezbollah are trying to stop Israel...
This is very much a "chicken and egg" situation, except in this case we can prove which came first. We know exactly when the state of Israel came into existence.

Terrorists and terrorist organizations aren't states. By definition they're not. If they were states, we wouldn't call it terrorism. We'd call it war. It wasn't terrorism when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was terrorism when Al Quieda ran a plane into the Pentagon. They're both legitimate military targets -- but one is terrorism and one is war.

Civilized nations respond differently to terrorism (a crime) and acts of war. If terrorists attack an appropriate and proportional use of force is to strike back at them, bring them to justice, or pursue them militarily and legally in the international system.

When terrorists are given sanctuary by a state and that state does not prevent its citizens from committing crimes against another state and refuses to pursue, capture, extradite or punish those terrorists when they commit crimes against another state the distinction between criminal acts and acts of war fades. Then it becomes state sponsored terrorism.

For all practical purposes the Palestinian Territory is a separate state with a separate autonomous government and the Palestinian Authority has done nothing to stop its citizens from attacking Israel. When terrorist crimes against Israel are aided and abetted by the entire population of the Palestinian Territory then Israel is justified in considering them acts of state sponsored terrorism or war.

Israel has a limited number of options for dealing with the Palestinians without slaughtering them. They can embargo Palestinian trade and resupply making the Palestinians lives less comfortable, destroy some infrastructure to make their lives less comfortable, occupy the Palestinian Territory and pursue the kidnappers, try to get the U.N. to do something or ignore the whole thing. The last two options amount to the same thing, no action taken, and any other response is criticized as disproportionate.

Any government that does not act to protect its people from external attack is irresponsible. If the citizens of the states criticizing Israel were under daily attack by an external force that does not respect any rule of law those states would be forced to take similar actions by their citizens. A case in point is Russia, it has reacted in the same manner in Chechnya.

The solution is for the Palestinian Authority to live up to its obligations as a responsible state by enforcing the rule of law within its borders and respecting the rights and sovereignty of its neighbors.

For all practical purposes the Palestinian Territory is a separate

You leaving out an entire occupation.

the Palestinian Authority has done nothing to stop its citizens from attacking Israel.

You'll know this is not correct if you read about life under Arafat.

try to get the U.N. to do something or ignore the whole thing

This is the last thing Israel wants. They are effectively the most isolated country on the plant because they could care less about international law. All the actions you describe only radicalize people more. Maybe they should try something new…like meet the requirements of international law. Another thing, all those activities take place within the context of colonization.

The solution is for the Palestinian Authority to live up to its obligations as a responsible state by enforcing the rule of law within its borders and respecting the rights and sovereignty of its neighbors.

The solution is for Israel to stop committing war crimes, cease violence that disproportionately harms children, and meet their obligations under international law. When they are prepared to deal farley with the Palestinian people they will have the foundation for peace.

For all practical purposes the Palestinian Territory is a separate

You leaving out an entire occupation.

Israel withdrew from Gaza last August, and was in the process of withdrawing from the West Bank. What more do you want in regards to an "occupation"?

the Palestinian Authority has done nothing to stop its citizens from attacking Israel.

You'll know this is not correct if you read about life under Arafat.

Arafat is gone now, and the current PA (Hamas) has encouraged and condoned terrorism.

The reason Israel tends to not obey international law is that:

1.) International Laws are disproportionately enforced against Israel. When was the last time the UN almost passed a resolution condemning human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or Cuba?

2.) Israel is fighting for her survival. If you had to choose between your life and following laws, which would you choose? Pretty simple choice, in my opinion.

You are correct, Israel's incursion into Gaza "disproportionately harms children"? 50% of Gaza's 1.37 million Palestinians are children. However, of the approximately 80 people killed, far fewer than 40 are children. Was that what you were getting at, that Israel isn't harming enough children to be able to negotiate for peace? (I'm kidding, I know that wasn't your point)

Israeli children are being harmed too. Do you think the children in Sderot, Naharriya, Kiryat Shmona, Sfat, and now Haifa aren't scared of the Kassam and Katyusha missiles? Where is the condemnation of Hamas and Hezbollah war crimes?

What do you do when a bunch of guys start blowing themselves up in crowded public places?

You don't nuke the whole city in response for sure!

You discontinue the occupation. Adam Hobson

You don't nuke the whole city in response for sure!

I was not aware of a nuclear weapon in use.

You discontinue the occupation. Adam Hobson

They had already removed themselves from Gaza, or are you referring to Israel as a whole and that it should cease to exist and that all the Israelis should go back to where they came from, which for most of them is Israel. So I am not exactly sure how they would accomplish that.

Just take note that it is from the places that Israel unilaterally withdrew, Gaza and southern Lebanon that have become fortified missiles sites and terrorist bases.

1967 Borders Adam Hobson

ortified missiles sites and terrorist bases. madbaddangerous2know; well were is the US and there war on Terror madbaddangerous2know or is this just another Neo-con lie ?

Question? Should Iran North Korea etc etc . comply with the The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Good point. After we deal with the Israeli war criminals we will get to him.

Russia gased many hundreds of hostages, clearly an example of disproportionate force.

I SPY said:

Good point. After we deal with the Israeli war criminals we will get to him

Your use of the term "we" is interesting. Who, exactly, do you expect to help you impose your weird and biased notions of justice.

Oh, wait, I forgot. It is likely to be same non-state "activist" groups whose resort to violence you find so unexceptionable.

Hypocrite.

wintermute1

Oh, wait, I forgot. It is likely to be same non-state "activist" groups whose resort to violence you find so unexceptionable.

Hypocrite.

The UN War you monger.

And which countries do you think will provide troops to the UN for your purposes?

Israel's war on bridges doesn't seem to have anything to do with hostages.

I believe it was done to delay the moving of the hostages further in Lebanon.

In Iraq American and British troops carefully decide how much force they use in the occupation, of course there is such a thing as disproportionate force.

Yes they do, but they still do not use proportionate force.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Spacegoat. I'll quote myself from another thread about the use of excessive force in Israel:

If the Israeli government were to edit the Bill of Rights, you can be sure that cruel and unusual punishment would be noticeable by its absence. Historically, Israel believes they are justified in visiting aggression N-fold against their enemies. I find this a very frightening escalation policy. ... I know it's war, but that doesn't mean one country should employ a decimation/genocide policy against their perceived enemies (and yes, I would hold any combatant nation to that same standard).

I'll just refer you back to my statement above. Let's pretend it's not Israel or Palestine, but Spain and France. How many missile strikes and suicide bombings in Madrid would Spain tolerate before invading France? I'm not sure where you're getting this Israeli genocide policy from.

enigma, I'm curious why you would say that. Rabbinical justice has a long history of being mild. Although the Torah allows for the death penalty, for instance, it is said that any court (listen closely, W) that puts someone to death every 72 years is necessarily a tyrannical court. And, in fact, looking at the Israeli courts, they've generally been quite liberal, in a way that I can only envy as an American. So where does your view come from?

ignoblus,

I don't have the religious knowledge to debate what the Torah says, or the tenants of Rabbinical justice. You may be entirely correct in what you're saying. But the current conflict isn't being decided in courts. Academic justice and historical mildness isn't what's spilling blood in the streets as I write this. Real bullets and missiles are. Real people are dying, not intellectualized ones.

For the proverbial record: I am not pro-Palestine, nor am I pro-Israel; I am anti-war. But Israel itself has openly proclaimed -- again and again for decades -- their use of significantly disproportionate force in retaliation to virtually anything. So much so that it seems they revel in it. Personally, I don't think you should revel in murder. It reeks of blood-thirsyness.

I don't revel in murder, enigma. (And again, I wonder where you got that idea.) But if you take a look at the Israeli courts, they do not operate at all like you say. It is only under peculiar circumstances (that, unfortunately aren't peculiar, but quotidian) that Israel behaves as you say. Perhaps the reason is the circumstances. It is natural, in fact it is considered a fundamental law in social psychology, that we tend to blame people rather than circumstances. But I urge you to reconsider where you place blame. And how you place it. Does it really do any good to demonize anyone?

Clear yet?

No, not even close. None of the examples you used are comparable to the current situation.

The crossing of an international border into another sovereign country and killing and capturing members of its military can be considered an act of war. Israel has stated that is what they they are doing, and are responding as such.

I agree completely. My analogy:

Should no limits should be placed on the use of force? So: I throw a stone at my neighbor. He tries to reason with me, but I refuse to discuss it with him. So he kills me, my family, my cat, everyone I ever knew or bumped into on the street; burns my house down, rapes my neighbors' daughters...

The crossing of an international border into another sovereign country and killing and capturing members of its military can be considered an act of war.

No, it can't.

If a couple of drunk Canadians find themselves in Brunswick Maine where they rape and abduct two female officers they're in really big trouble. If they sober back up in Canada somehow (longest undefended boarder in the world... how hard can it be?) and decide to kill the officers to try to cover up what's happened, they're in even bigger trouble.

But we're not at war with Canada.

Why? Because it's a couple of drunk Canadian guys. It's not the official action of the Canadian Government. International Law is very old on this. Piracy in the New World was largely conducted under the system of Privateering, wherein captains of a foreign power would sail at the behest of their government, but not under that government's flag, to make war upon another country or prey upon its shipping.

Sir Francis Drake was among the most famous of these individuals.

But Drake's actions as a Privateer against the Spanish were not acts of war, while his success in defeating the Spanish Armada in the British Chanel and North Sea was such an act. Acts of war are those committed by a country in an official capacity. That is one, among many, of the reasons US troops can remove the flag patches from their uniforms very very quickly if they have to cross a boarder.

Yes, it can.

The US is not at war with Canada. However Israel has been at war with Lebanon since October 6, 1973.

Killfile: We are not talking about "a couple of drunk soldiers" on a binge. We are talking about country's whose majority ruling parties will stop at nothing other than the complete destruction of Israel. If we are being asked to distinguish between terrorism and war, at least we should admit that there is far more to this mess than "a couple of drunk soldiers" darkening Israel's doorstep. This even goes well beyond some minority terrorist groups threatening and attacking Israel. I think it was you who said "Israel is going to be fine." How can a country be "fine" when it is surrounded by nation-states and terrorist groups that are actively preaching, plannning and working toward its annihilation?

We are not talking about "a couple of drunk soldiers" on a binge.

No, that's more or less exactly what we're talking about. Substitute "misguided radicals" for "drunk soldiers" and you've more or less got exactly what's described above. Hezbollah, not the state of Lebanon, took these guys hostage. Confusing the two doesn't solve any problems.

Now if Israel doesn't like Lebanon because it is a "country whose majority ruling parties will stop at nothing other than the complete destruction of Israel," then that's a different matter altogether. If that's the case than Israel is invading, not because of captured soldiers, but because of mutually exclusive ideologies.

But let's not pretend that the aforementioned reason is the same as the one I was responding to, or the same as the one that Israel gave.

How can a country be "fine" when it is surrounded by nation-states and terrorist groups that are actively preaching, plannning and working toward its annihilation?

That's been going on for 50 years. Israel's still there. When you start bombing water purification plants and power stations because the government of a country doesn't like you though, you're doing something completely different.

Thus far Israel has killed some 60 civilians and two - count em, two - soldiers.

kevinb66: I think you are off the mark here.

Israel does not target civilians. Hamas and Hezbollah do. Israel seeks to destroy their leadership in retaliation.

Point of fact: Hezbollah attacked soldiers, not civilians.
Point of fact: Israel retaliated by bombing a civilian airport.

Care to make a rational argument now? Because what you gave me was an outright lie.

wolfger:
Point of fact: Hezbollah was lobbing missiles into Israel prior to the escalation of this crisis, necessitating the defensive military actions that Israel has taken since.
Point of contention: Israel has every right to defend itself.

Apparently some (the United Nations included) are not willing to put themselves in Israel's shoes and would seek to deny the people of Israel the right to defend themselves.

Personally, I view this as a sad reminder of the present state of the United Nations. Its lack of any real purpose beyond maintaining appearances and protecting its biggest players' pocketbooks has become increasingly obvious.

Israel does not target civilians.

Whether intentional or not, Israel's wild-dog mentality *is* causing civilian deaths.

Hamas' stated goal is the elimination of Israel. Hamas now rules Palestine.

Israel is facing a threat to its very existence. Effective use of overwhelming force in response to the terrorist threats genocide is well-warranted, and indeed past due.

Shock and awe!

Israel is facing a threat to its very existence.

Yes, of course...afterall we all know that Hamas has the 13th largets military in the World, Nuclear Weapons and overwhelming military force. Israel is under threat!

Now that the predictable has occurred we need to do everything we can to prevent the "unpredictable" shape and impact of the outside meddlers. Without sensationalizing it, we know that things could go from bad to worse. Pray for peace.

Well said, TJ!

That region could go from Zero to subzero (total destruction) in an atomic second!

Maybe it's time to call in the "Blue Hats" (UN).

Ultimately, this is what disproportionate use of force leads to. It is difficult for me to understand that people who are in favor of Israeli sovereignty would also be in favor of the doctrine of Lamech:

And said Lamech to his women, Adah and Zillah, hear my voice women of Lamech, listen to my words; for a man I have slain for my wounding, and a young man for my bruising. For double-sevens is Cain avenged, and Lamech seventy and seven. (Genesis 4:23-24)

Through the law of reciprocity it will lead to a conflict that eventually will force world powers to turn Israel into Berlin. How is that desirable?

Maybe it's time to call in the "Blue Hats" (UN)

.

Both sides, to be perfectly frank, have proven incapable of acting in their own interests, the interest of peace, regional interests, or world interests. It might be time to impose UN mandate over the area.

The reason Israel has generally rejected UN intervention is that UN intervention has generally been presumed to be limited to observation. So the UN would observe terrorists obtaining weapons and plotting terrorist activities, but not actually do anything (not even alert the Israelis). Then, after a terrorist attack, presumably, the blue hats would then be in a position to state who committed the act.

However, Israel has muted its objections in the name of compromise. Several plans offered by the Israelis have called for blue hats where Israel had previously insisted on its right to control its own defense. Arafat rejected these plans.

However, there are places where they'd be worth placing. The Gaza/Egypt border and the West Bank/Jordan border. Provided the UN has authority to actually stop arms shipments and arrest those involved.

I just watched a meeting of the UN Security Council. They are sending in a top level team to attempt to stabilize the situation.

This time they should have no choice.

The tumour being Palistinian civilians? Simply incredible.You either mean that which means your a fascist (which I find difficult to believe) or you need to perhaps ask yourself whether your comments add to understanding or are simply ill concieved. Seriously.

None of these wars between Israel and others have ever bought about peace which, to any detached observer, would lead to the conclusion that they cannot be won militarily and must be negotiated politically.
Its tragic on both sides that there is yet the political will to stop using civilians as pawns for better positioning.

See your not seeing things clearly. That was someone else.

I agree with you here

The israel attack on the Palestinian children via blowing up water /electric sources and many other attacks are war crimes. THese children dod note a) elect Hamas, b) fore rockets at hamas.

But not here

The attack on the Beirut airport is amazingly confrontational, arbitrary , and designed to escalate these hostilities

The attack on the airport is a standard attack in a war. The situations in Gaza and Lebanon are different, in that Israel is at war with Lebanon (declared or not). Link

Hitting the airport showed Lebanon the range of Israeli airstrikes and served to enforce an Israeli blockade. The airport was a valid target. The Palestinian civilians are not.

The attack on the airport is a standard attack in a war. The situations in Gaza and Lebanon are different, in that Israel is at war with Lebanon (declared or not).

Lebanon is a weak, new government, recently freed from its Syrian dominance by a popular uprising of the people. If Israel thinks that attacking this weak but relatively benign democracy will help things then they are wildly mistaken. As often mentioned, Hezbollah is most likely stronger than the current fledgling Lebanese military.

Regardless of the age or power of the Lebanese government, they are at war. According to UN Resolution 1559, the Lebanese government was supposed to defuse Hezbollah. They have not. Furthermore, there are members of Hezbollah in the Lebanese Parliament. Because the Lebanese government could not/would not stop Hezbollah, they have found themselves in this situation.

If what you say is true Lebanon should contact Israel and help them stop Hezbollah. I seriously doubt that will happen.

If what you say is true Lebanon should contact Israel and help them stop Hezbollah. I seriously doubt that will happen.

You mean because instead of retaliating against the source of the attacks Israel started blowing up bridges, airports, and power stations, right?

Hey, thanks for bombing the @!$%# out of our civilian infrastructure, could we help you go to war with a group that could kick our asses from here to Damascus?

You mean because instead of retaliating against the source of the attacks Israel started blowing up bridges, airports, and power stations, right?

Again, the situations in Gaza and Lebanon are very different. I agree with you about the attacks on power stations and bridges in Gaza. The airport in Lebanon, however, is a legitimate target.

Israel is attacking Lebanon because Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, right? That draws Lebanon into the conflict. A question to you - should Lebanon help Hezbollah against Israel, or help Israel against Hezbollah? We already know what they will do, tell me what you think they should do?

Since the lebanese government exists at the suffrage of hezbollah I don't know what you expect them to do. Obviously in the long run hezbollah needs to be demilitarized and the lebanese government needs to be a major player in that effort.

In the short term if Israel were to confine their response to targeting actual combatants lebanon would have little cause to argue against the violation of their soveriegnty, since they are clearly unable to exercise control over hezbollah themselves. That would be the 'proportionate' response and could pave the way for productive multiparty security diplomacy. Note that the government of lebanon is begging for a cease fire.

When the IRA set off bombs in london england didn't blockade Cork & blow up Dublin airport. They (eventually) combined police action with negotiation and succeeded in demilitarizing the IRA. As with the IRA and Sein Fein, hezbollah is both a terrorist and a political organization. In Northern Ireland success was achieved by legitimizing and negotiating with the political wing of the organization at the expense of the military wing.

Ultimately collective punishment is counterproductive if the goal is to de-radicalize your opponents, because it results in radicalization by it's very nature. What Israel is doing right now in lebanon is increasing tensions and possibly destabalizing the democratic government, and NOT TO THEIR BENEFIT. The alternatives that could take power are pretty much all worse, and the prime canditate is probably hezbollah itself. Unless as some theorize an anarchic lebanon is part of their security strategy, or if the action is intended to expand to a regional conflict pitting Israel & the US against Iran & Syria, Israel is not acting in their own best interest. (and even those options are IMO counterproductive but at least there's some realpolitikal logic behind them).

In the short term if Israel were to confine their response to targeting actual combatants lebanon would have little cause to argue against the violation of their soveriegnty, since they are clearly unable to exercise control over hezbollah themselves. That would be the 'proportionate' response and could pave the way for productive multiparty security diplomacy. Note that the government of lebanon is begging for a cease fire.

brilliant observation!

Marduk said:

When the IRA set off bombs in london england didn't blockade Cork & blow up Dublin airport. They (eventually) combined police action with negotiation and succeeded in demilitarizing the IRA. As with the IRA and Sein Fein, hezbollah is both a terrorist and a political organization. In Northern Ireland success was achieved by legitimizing and negotiating with the political wing of the organization at the expense of the military wing.

The IRA was not committed to the military destruction of the United Kingdom. This lack of maximalist aims is one of the things that made eventual de-escalation and negotiation possible. It was also never unambiguously clear that the Irish government was giving close intelligence and materiel support to the IRA.

It is difficult to view Hezbolllah in the same light.

C'mon, we all know that Hezbollah and Hamas may wish all they want, for Israel's destruction but they won't have it. These guys exist because of Israel's intransigence in seeking peace. If Israel for example stated their commitment to recognising the 1967 borders and showed less willingness to use crsuhing force, the useful of Hamas and others will fall to zero. I am not blaming Israel for their origination, just saying that Israeli policy is what keeps them relevant.

People say they can't understand how Hez or Ham could have been elected; it's because they also do good deeds to their people! Beyond that, people want to know that they can muster some force and do not have to be at the mercy of extreme and brutal Israeli military force.

I could make arguments for Israel, but they are the occupier and they are by far the stronger party, with much more ability to make peace than Ham or Hez.

I would remind you that the Arabs attacked in 1967, when those borders were contested. Why, given the build-up of non-state military forces in Lebanon and Gaza (not to mention the West Bank) do you think that 1967 borders provide a workable basis for a territorial compromise? And what would you recommend for the status of Jerusalem?

No. That's targeting infrastructure. Targeting a day care center or an elementary school is targeting children.

Are you kidding me?

Sometimes its just not worth debating. Its like saying targeting the car your driving in is not targeting you. Of course destroying the palestinians ability to produce electricity and clean water is an attck on innocent children and civilians.

It is an attack on an enemy. I'm sure if they could they would go door to door and ask, "Sorry to bother you ma'am, but would you happen to be harboring any terrorists or Hamas leaders? No? Well then, have a pleasant day."

I have no problem with Israel's tactics in Lebanon. They are attacking legitimate military targets in an effort to stop Hezbollah. In fact, I just saw Dan Gillerman at a UN Security Council meeting state just that - and call on the Lebanese ambassador to aid in stopping Hezbollah.

The Lebanese government has had a year and a half to disarm Hezbollah under resolution 1559, and have done nothing. They live in fear of a civil war should they try. If Israel can stop Hezbollah, Lebanon wins too.

Innocent people are being killed on both sides of this conflict and neither side is limiting their strikes to military targets only. Facts are facts and Hezbollah is stronger than the current Lebanon government (they also have two members seated in that government). This conflict is only strengthening Hezbollah's hand. The Lebanese people only see that they are being attacked and their government is unable to protect them. Right or wrong, I think at this point in time, in the eyes of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah is protecting them. The perception will only change when the two Governments sit down and negotiate a settlement.

Orlando Dozier: Have you actually spoken to any Lebanese people about your idea that they view Hezbollah as their protecters? I have spoken to a couple here in the U.S. in the last couple days, and their opinion of Hezbollah was such that I could not repeat it here without being censored. It is their hope (these people still have homes, families and friends in Lebanon) that Israel goes in with a precise operation and successfully cleans Hezbollah out of their country. One of the Lebanese people who I spoke with even admitted that although he "hated to admit it," Israel was probably the best country for the job.

While you might be correct saying that some Lebanese people look to Hezbollah for support, it is wrong to make such broad generalizations regarding the Lebanese people's feelings about this operation.

DBS: I have many (including Lebanese) friends and family members from that region of the world, but I have not spoken with any from Lebanon concerning the recent events. However, since you also have friends from this area, I am sure you understand that religion and politics are two topics that are most avoided when a middle easterner speaks with a non-middle easterner. In fact, when I was serving in the military, we were advised to avoid these topics even with our military counterparts from the area. If you are from this part of the world, then what I just said is pointless. If not, than I find it a bit odd that you would get such a candid response from someone that grew-up in that part of the world. Their comments sound like they are coming from someone who has never lived though bombings and if they are that passionate about changing their government, why not support like-minded Lebanese within the country or actually go there and have a direct hand in change. Please do not misunderstand my statement, but there are few instances in history were an invading force that overthrows a legitimately elected government is greeted with flowers and candy. My opinion again, but lasting change has to come from within.