News-Record.com

I have been a harsh critic of Israeli military policy since their attack on the USS liberty nearly thiry years ago, an event I was personally involved in researching. To this date I am still highly cynical of many of their policies and tactics.

Yet I find myself with no choice but to defend them in this instance, not with anything resembling a "blanket approval" of their actions but with a serious disagreement on the recurring charge that they have not acted with "restraint" in the current conflict.

Israel has on occasion been guilty of poor targeting decisions, "tactical dead ending" - a situation that forces situational escalation without worthwhile military purpose - and contributing to many of the factors that started the war to begin with.

But to accuse them of not showing restraint exhibits either an anti-Israeli bias or complete ignorance of their military capabilities on the part of the lte writer.

Even with the list of dead and injured growing every day, there has yet to be even the accusation of their having used saturation bombing techniques, time delayed submunitions, air fuel explosives or any of a number of other tactics and weapons systems that would yield much higher death tolls in a massively destructive and non selective manner.

I have no problem with anyone who honestly disagrees with either the level of Israel's response or it's tactical implementation, but let's keep the facts straight in the process.

They are killing many civilians, and that itself is a horrible thing. But they are not targeting them, and Hezbollah is.

Blame belongs on the activites of both sides, and not just the Israeli.

Sir:

You obviously don't understand the nature or war. Do you think dropping atomic bombs on two Jaoanese cities, or fire bombing Dresden were actions that "outweighed" our losses! Back in the days when we knew how to fight and win a war forour survival we did what was necessary. If not for those actions you might be speaking German or Japanese. It was also estimated that a land invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied casualties.

The state objective of Hezbollah, who targets, and rejoices at the killing of civilians, is to destroy Israel. What should they do? Perhaps have the UN (useless nitwits) send Hezbollah a letter of condemnation and tell them not to do it anymore! Hezbollah apparently thought that they were kidnapping and killing Americans, and that our reaction would be to cut our aid to them by 25 percent!

Uh, just reread my earlier post, "1967" only qualifies as being "nearly thirty years ago if an individual was too blasted to notice the 1970's.

In my defense I can only respond - "no comment".

As a side issue I am continually amazed by the though processes of those who somehow feel that the fact Israel is more militarily capable than Hezbollah automatically makes them the agressor by default.

I have to wonder if these same people, if taken hostage by a armed individual, would insist on the police only sending one officer in response so as to make it a fair fight?

It's just a thought.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287774,00.html

All I can say is that if someone fired 1000 missiles at my house and my family, I'd fire back with everything I had.

Now, put little quotes around that first sentence and rip away. :)

Ashish should apply for a fellowship at the Mel Gibson Center for Israeli Studies.