FreeDuck wrote:I'm a little perplexed that you both seem to be saying that the rocket attacks were actually a response to Israel's crossing into Lebanon, but then want to know what Israel should have done to stop the rocket attacks. The fact remains, no matter how many times you ask the question, that the attack wasn't launched to stop rocket attacks. And the one thing that DID stop the rocket attacks was a negotiated cease fire. Continued violence did not stop the attacks, neither did it get the soldiers back.
And ican, criticism does not require a positive alternative suggestion unless you're dealing with children. I'm not in the business of advising Israel or anyone else.
Yes, the attacks that are coming under criticism in this thread were in direct response to rocket attacks. There would have been no attacks on Lebanon's residential neighborhoods or infrastructure if Hizbollah had not been launching rockets targeting Israeli citizens. If Israel had not been going after the rocket launchers, what cease fire would there have been to negotiate?
So the question is a legitimate one. If Israel was committing war crimes in its effort to stop the rocket attacks, as has been suggested by several on this thread, what else could it have done to stop the rocket attacks other than what it did?
There really are only three choices here if Israel was not able to do what it did do legally:
1) Capitulate to the terrorist demands in the first place and not attempt to rescue its soldiers
2) Endure the rocket attacks and do nothing, or
3) Do something else.
Assuming that reasonable people reject options 1 and 2, that something else is what nobody seems to be able to come up with while they are condemning Israel for the actions it took. And if there is nothing else Israel could have done short of capitulating to the terrorist's demands or doing nothing other than what it did, how is what it did so terrible?
