If I recall correctly, when Israel first started dropping bombs, the language they were using was the language of punishment - specifically punishment of Lebanon for not having their house in order. At least, this was my interpretation of Israeli press releases. I think that most of us can agree that if they were targeting Lebanese civilian infrastructure and civilians primarily to inflict a punishment on another state then this is essentially terrorism, if not simply morally equivalent to terrorism.

If I recall correctly, Israel targeted Lebanon’s infrastructure because it could be used by Hezbullah to rearm not as a form of collective punishment of the Lebanese people.

Now, I agree with the implied claim that to be ready to accept heavy civilian casualties, as well as the economic devastation of your neighbour, in order to achieve a legitimate military objective - in this case the neutralization of Hezbollah as a military force capable of incursions into Israel - is not necessarily morally equivalent to terrorism. But the actor making this choice should be able to demonstrate that all peaceful alternatives have been explored - could Israel not have co-operated with the Lebanese govt against Hezbollah? Israel should be able to demonstrate that the level of threat to Israel from Hezbollah was significant enough to merit bringing about humanitarian crisis in order to prevent it.

I think the key here is “all peaceful alternatives”. Wasn’t Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon enough? And how can Israel do much more when Hezbullah is part of the Lebanese government? The fact is that since Israel gave the Lebanese time to deal with Hezbullah on their own the situation for Israel has only gotten worse, which is especially troubling for Israel at a time when it has just pulled out of Gaza and is preparing to pull out of the West Bank.

It is understandable why Israel as a nation might react in an overly-aggressive manner to a threat, but not understandable why more responsible actors provide vital assistance for Israel’s irresponsible action.

Who are the more responsible actors here? Britain, Germany, France, Iran, Syria, the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. They all have differing views on what to do, but at the end of the day it is only as a group that they can bring pressure to bear on both sides. Yes, the US should demand a ceasefire but shouldn’t those who pull Hezbollah’s strings also be calling for a ceasefire as well? Neither side can act independently of the other.

The craziest thing is that it does not seem that Israel are helping their security issues one bit with this action. They are creating new terrorists. Hezbollah is a state of mind brought about in a minority of victims of Israeli aggression.

I used to think that too. But I no longer agree. Israel is damned either way. If it soaks up casualties it is percieved as weak. If it strikes back it is perceived as a monster. Either way, a whole generation of Muslims grows up in the Middle East with a loathing for Israel. Israel’s main concern are the thousands of rockets on its border. It can do nothing about the poisonous minds further away.

Anyway, back to the point: instead of explaining that the level of threat to Israel is significant enough to be making this incredible human sacrifice, that the type of threat can be solved by this type of action, and that peaceful means cannot produce a solution, Israel is saying blame Hezbollah.

I don’t agree, I think Israel is saying exactly what you just said: That the threat is significant, that it can be solved by this action (which remains to be seen) and that peacfeul means cannot produce a solution.

And I didn’t see Olmert apologise; I saw him say he was upset but that it’s Hezbollah’s fault. Even if he had apologised, “I’m sorry but it’s not my fault” does not ring true to me. They almost certainly don’t like to see Lebanese get killed, but I don’t think they see Lebanese deaths as a significant barrier to a course of action, that much seems obvious.

“I express deep regret, along with all of Israel and the IDF, for the civilian deaths in Qana,” said Olmert. “Nothing could be further from our intentions and our interests than harming civilians - everyone understands that. When we do harm civilians, the whole world recognizes that it is an exceptional case that does not characterize us.”

Israel never said Qana wasn’t its fault. Qana is Israel’s fault. But this is a war. Rockets are raining down on both sides. And until it ends civilians are going to die.

If I recall correctly, when Israel first started dropping bombs, the language they were using was the language of punishment - specifically punishment of Lebanon for not having their house in order. At least, this was my interpretation of Israeli press releases. I think that most of us can agree that if they were targeting Lebanese civilian infrastructure and civilians primarily to inflict a punishment on another state then this is essentially terrorism, if not simply morally equivalent to terrorism.

Now, I agree with the implied claim that to be ready to accept heavy civilian casualties, as well as the economic devastation of your neighbour, in order to achieve a legitimate military objective - in this case the neutralization of Hezbollah as a military force capable of incursions into Israel - is not necessarily morally equivalent to terrorism. But the actor making this choice should be able to demonstrate that all peaceful alternatives have been explored - could Israel not have co-operated with the Lebanese govt against Hezbollah? Israel should be able to demonstrate that the level of threat to Israel from Hezbollah was significant enough to merit bringing about humanitarian crisis in order to prevent it.

It is understandable why Israel as a nation might react in an overly-aggressive manner to a threat, but not understandable why more responsible actors provide vital assistance for Israel’s irresponsible action.

The craziest thing is that it does not seem that Israel are helping their security issues one bit with this action. They are creating new terrorists. Hezbollah is a state of mind brought about in a minority of victims of Israeli aggression.

Anyway, back to the point: instead of explaining that the level of threat to Israel is significant enough to be making this incredible human sacrifice, that the type of threat can be solved by this type of action, and that peaceful means cannot produce a solution, Israel is saying blame Hezbollah. And I didn’t see Olmert apologise; I saw him say he was upset but that it’s Hezbollah’s fault. Even if he had apologised, “I’m sorry but it’s not my fault” does not ring true to me. They almost certainly don’t like to see Lebanese get killed, but I don’t think they see Lebanese deaths as a significant barrier to a course of action, that much seems obvious.

I think Israel is taking responsibility for its actions but it has been caught between two evils: a ground invasion or an air campaign. Both of which cause desturction and suffering.

The only way to avoid inflicting the terror you speak of would be to do nothing.

If you believe Israel should have done nothing then I can take your point.

But if you think Israel should have acted on on a cross-border raid by a terrorist organisation bent on its destruction that has built up thousands of missiles and countless bunker complexes under the noses of UN observers then what choice did Israel have?

Israel has not chosen to “inflict terror” on Lebanon.

It has chosen to attack Hezbollah. And it has tried to do so without harming civilians (witness the leaflet drops, telephone calls and text messages urging Lebanese to clear out of Southern Lebanon before the bombardment began).

If Israel wanted to inflict terror on Lebanon it would be firing missiles randomly into Lebanese towns and cities, and it would NOT be apologizing for hitting civilians in Qana.

I find it sickening that Israel cannot bring itself to acknowledge any responsibility for its own actions. Hezbollah have behaved unconscionably, firstly for acting on Israeli civilians and secondly for provoking Israel into responding against Lebanon. But responsibility does not end there, and nobody should pretend otherwise. Israel has made a choice and should take ownership of the consequences. The existence of an enemy does not change the fact that Israel has chosen to inflict terror yes, [terror] on a neighbouring country in order to improve its own security scenario. It has decided that these predictable consequences are acceptable for its own long term goals. It was a decision, Israel’s hand wasn’t forced and given this incursion into foreign lands Israel owes the global community a serious explanation and justification for its actions. It cannot continue to pretend that somehow Hezbollah made the decision for them. It did not.