Why Zionists dosen't accept the REAL war rules ?

I don't see any anti-semitism at all, it is a fact, because this is new war rules and new democratie, "my way or the highway".

actually during 15 years in south Lebanon it was the same dirty way they were doing, resistance kills soldiers in Lebanon, Zionists kills Lebanese civilians to penalize the resistance groups, they know that resistance are fighting for there families freedom.

Zionists say they want peace but in real life they are living on wars. Contemporary Zionist leaders want to keep occupying land that was never part of Israel. This position alone lead the world to believe that Israeli leaders are not working for real and final peace agreement with Arab world. Zionist are fooling both the Arabs and the Jews when they say they want peace. Peace is the missing link in the Zionist state.

the REAL war rules is not to hide behind the skirts of women and children, which is exactly what the "brave" hezbo-douchebags were doing.

But if it happens once again, you bet that the response would be even tougher. You think Israel is so cruel and unfair? Deal with it.

Becaue like Kismet they don't quite grasp the idea of international law. Blockades as someone noted are in fact an act of war,which renders relation legal. Kismet just says "what rules"? That is the essence of our problem with the isareli government. Rules? What rules? They simply don't recognize the concept of international law.

From reading the answers the pot is calling the kettle black. The fact that the Lebanese claimed they had infact cross the border, and the Israelis say they didn`t, shouldn`t be a reason for a war. This is just small minded selfrightousness, and has no place in a civilised world.

I have not yet found an Israeli who is willing to actually sit down and use logic to justify the masacre of Lebanese civilians of southern Beruit.

One told me it was ok because they dropped pamflets first telling them to leave.

Another said it was because the Hezballa headquarters was there.

Another said it was because Hezballa attacked them.

These are not accurate or just causes..!!

A war crime is a war crime no matter who commits it, and in this one particular case it was Israel..!!

It would disadvantage them or to put it more bluntly they would lose their main propaganda angle,which is they are a legitimate government ( they are not) whereas the push for Palestinian independence constitutes terrorism. They would have to abide by international on Gaza for example. Blockading a territory and laying siege to it is normally considered a state of war.

Have you ever hared of a colonist who did accept war rules. Israel is the last colony in the world yet to be solved there is a war of independence between the native people and the colonist for the last 60 years.

It would involve abandoning the propaganda spin of characterising a resistance movement as a collage of "terrorists". To provide a few examples,under international law the Gaza became a de facto sovereign state upon the withdrawal of ground occupation and so-called settlers. Nevertheless the decision was made to maintain IDF control of it's airspace and - far more important - control of it's territorial waters. This last is the more serious since it legally constitutes a naval blockade which is in itself deemed a formal act of war. The government of the Gaza understandably reacted with retaliatory missile strikes. Under the Rules of Engagement - a diplomatic term encompassing the entire body of international laws pertaining to armed belligerency between sovereign states - the Gazans had every right to do so. The zionists then responded by declaring the Gaza to be "hostile territory",an anomalous use of phraseology that apparently was intended to justify military responses without implying recognition of the Gaza's sovereignty. It was a declaration of war that technically wasn't,in essence. However it amounted to the same thing in practical terms. Now from that point forward all the Rules of Engagement were in effect,meaning among other things that the Gaza had the legal right to strike military targets,which in the case of the zionist state includes what would otherwise be adult civilians since all able-bodied adults are legally members of the IDF. This circumstance gave them a decided advantage in terms of human rights law,but more importantly their right of defence ( including retaliatory strikes) meant that actions that could previously have been represented as "terrorist" were now unmistakably legal under the Rules of Engagement. They have a right to respond to naval and air blockade with counter-attacks against military targets,which all able-bodied adult citizens of the zionist state are ( ages 18-55),being registered soldiers in the IDF. The reason the zionists back away from formal military engagement is because they recognize that it undermines their propagandistic position - which no longer has any legal patina of credibility - to the effect that military responses to zionist aggression on the part of the government of Gaza constitute "terrorism",which is untrue under international law. The zionist state tends to pull this trick a lot,including the "not-technically-an-invasion" invasion of Lebanon (the Summer War in 2006). By ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party often holding cabinet seats and certainly seats in the parliament and amplifying on it's paramilitary contingent - functionally an adjunct to the Lebanese Army - they were partially able to convince the world press and therefore world opinion that this is a terrorist organization when in fact it is a legitimate political party with a paramilitary contingent that primarily focuses on military or geopolitically strategic targets,although collatoral casualities have occured. The policy is obviously to dodge international law by two expedients: non-recognition of governments toward whom they are legally belligerent and public-relations campaigns characterizing military or paramilitary responses to their aggression as terroristic. This act or gimmick finally disingrated earlier this month with their "incursions" into the Gaza,by now accepted as a de facto sovereign state to all but those of the most limited understanding. From the propaganda-war point of view they are rapidly losing their war against the resistance. The court of public opinion increasingly rejects the idea that the government of Gaza is a terrorist militia. The only reason other states have not formally recognized it's sovereignty is because 1) it isn't necessary,it's de facto status as such being clear to all; and 2) the government of the Gaza will not formally declare a de jure government on it's own; i.e. by formal abandonment of the West Bank.

They consider themselves above all international law; I think that has long since become apparent,and that is particularly so with international law on warfare.

Are you kidding? What rules?!

The rules of fair war that Hezbollah and Hamas practice by targeting civilians (preferably children)?

To which rules are you referring?

Nowadays the rules of war are no more...

No more are armies fighting other armies in uniforms and in battlefields.

Nowadays it is all about suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. It is about using civilians and hiding behind children. It is about kidnappings. It is about aiming rockets at civilian targets.

All the rules have been broken.