jayeff

That only works if you start the clock in 2006. Hezbollah was a response to the invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982: blame the Israelis. The Israelis invaded southern Lebanon in 1982 to get rid of the PLO: blame the PLO. Stop whenever you find who you want to blame.

I used to visit Kiryat Shemona (an Israeli town near the border with Lebanon) regularly. Many nights I stayed there I was woken up by the sound of machinegun fire and I once spent an afternoon with my head between my knees listening to Katyusha missiles landing nearby and hoping for the best (the shelter was full with children). My (Israeli) brother-in-law lost a leg during the last campaign in Lebanon. So I'm far from unsympathetic.

Still I'm disgusted with this action because it seems to have little military purpose. The Israelis are capable of very precise attacks, which makes it very difficult to escape the conclusion that they aren't just not attempting to spare civilian lives, but targetting civilians deliberately: a particularly brutal version of the collective punishments meted out in the West Bank.

I can even understand why. It is because this is different from 1982 when the PLO were guests in Lebanon, and not especially welcome guests. Hesbollah on the other hand are (mainly) Lebanese people and the political wing enjoys popular support throughout the country. But understanding is not condoning.

I suspect that in another 2 weeks, towards the end of which the US and UK will finally spout the balls to be critical, Israel will cease fire: apparently in deference to their allies' requests. Although I imagine the date, give or take a day or two, is already planned. At the end of it, hundreds of Lebanese will be dead, but apart from weakening Hesbollah, probably not even very severely, Israel will not have achieved anything at all except to appease the militant part of its own population.