The Israelis have been criticised over the war in Lebanon?

Being that this is more of a debated idea than an answerable question, I mine as well put my 2 cents in. It depends on what part of the world you live in. If you were rasied in a country that values freedom because its paid in the sacrifice of life, like America/Britian, then you support Isreal for standing up against a terrorists cell. Israel has been bullied for 60 years, and now they have the strength to stand up against these murderors. Because Labanon could not keep terrorists from using their border to launch missles into Isreal, Lebanon therefore became the battle ground. Much like after France was seized by Germany during WWII. Allied forces came together to completed destroy anything left of France trying to get German Nazi's out. But remember, the world needs protect those that are weaker, and by weaker I mean sick psychotic terrorists cells that will use hospitals as leaverage, soldiers as trading tools, and schools as barracks, and children & women as sucide bombers.

On a personal note, I say every country should grow the background to clense the terrorists cells, and crush the terrorists training camps. No organization soul goal should be to eliminate another culture for the single objective to make everyone left alive Muslium, all in the name of Allah.

Israel had a legitimate reason to invade Lebanon, given that it was the staging ground and launch point of rocket attacks deliberately aimed at the civilian population. Anyone who disputes that is either fueled by an anti-Israel agenda, been misinformed, or belongs to the hordes of professional protesters who dementedly classify terrorists who are destroyed after killing innocent people as "victims".

If rockets were raining down on say, Seattle, from Canada and the Canadian government was either unable or unwilling to stop those responsible, we would have forces on the ground north of the border in a heartbeat.

That said, Israel could quite legitimately be criticized on how they conducted the war. The buildup to the operation and it's execution were televised, for crying out loud! They might as well have handed their operational plan directly to the terrorists. They could have labeled it "How NOT to plan, stage, and execute a military operation 101".

The failure to execute the operation swiftly and decisively is one of the main reasons Ehud Olmert (Israel's prime minister) has been repeatedly asked to step down.

Killing of toddlers and ladies are incidentals as Hezbollahs take conceal decrease than them. In any war, that's the harmless who go through the main and no person shed any actual tears for them. it is likewise to be stated right here that No Human Rights Activists condemed the two Hezbollahs or the Israel for the war on the innocents.

The day Israelis can field a legitimate fighting army able to fight and deter a proper army, is the day they stop instructing their male soldiers to group masturbate in front of each other for "bonding".

Perhaps they should follow the discipline of the Germans and not the Greeks...

All in all, the episode in Lebanon was nothing more than a repeat of 1948 where they shelled civilians- women and children especially out of their rightful dwellings.

I love the epsiode between the petticoat Israeli special forces and the Hezbollah. Who one the day, remind me please?

I couldn't have put it any better than Simon D. There was no war in Lebanon. Lebanon was under attack by Israel because Hezbollah terrorists were residing in a town. So, do we start to bomb London and parts of America too as I'm pretty sure it is harbouring terrorists too?

Personally I think Lebanon should have retaliated with all its force against Israel, but they didn't fire one single bullet at the invaders .

Very simplistic, narrow minded view of events and International law. Conveniently using only those arguments that support your case.

Is that you Bush?

No of course not, Bush doesn't think let alone ask questions.

So, if some nutter makes himself a home-made rocket, and manages to shoot from his Canadian farm into the US. Bush would have no recourse other than to shell Canada?

See I can be simplistic too.

(edit)

OK so Canada can't or won't stop this nutter.

So either invade Canada or bring pressure and/or help to solve the problem.

Which one do you think would likely result in almost all the Canadian people making homemade rockets and shelling the US.

It's a rhetorical question.

Why do you think the problem still exists, it's getting boring, both sides have lost the plot.

Again being very simplistic otherwise those with pre-ordained opinions won't get it.

This simplistic stuff is easy, who would have thought? Well I guess that's why it's so popular, it only requires half a brain.

More, the last time they "cooperated" after a kidnapping of one of their soldiers, last time they bargained and released dozens of Islamic militants, they got back the tortured dead body of their soldier in exchange (surprise!)

They know the soldier this time is dead. That's why Islam CAN'T just release him. They've already killed him and lied about it, thinking they could do the same thing again.

The only chance that soldier had was for Israel to force his return. If he was dead, the only chance future soldiers would have is if Israel refused to negotiate for their release (since Islam doesn't keep their word on such deals with Israel on a regular basis).

Excellent answer, Jorge. It's our "backgrounds" (but not particularly our nationality these days for obvious reasons) that make us see the issue differently. Israel has had tremendous restraint despite having to deal with hateful radicals for decades.

I think you are over simplifying the issue. Has there not also been a fresh batch of hostilities recently. (Israeli incursions, Hezbollah rockets etc.)

I quite agree