Originally Posted by derrida
Does it bother everyone who was basically in favor of this that the bombing really didn't do much of anything? All the hand-wringing and all we get is an international peacekeeping force comprised of arab muslims whose home nations probably don't recognize the state of Israel.
1. Israel is objecting to the latter problem.
2. What exactly do you think was Israel's goal? To be attacked? To have two of their soldiers kidnapped?
From the very beginning, Israel asked that Lebanon control their own borders, and disarm Hezbollah. It won't happen, but it's what the UN asked Lebanon to do two years ago, and they're asking them again. Maybe they could, I dunno, do it? It would've spared over 1,000 lives.
Israel's goal is to be secure. If this resolution fails, as it undoubtedly will once Hezbollah rests up and rearms, Israel will continue to defende herself.
Your tone gives the implication that Israel had bigger plans. Would they feel more secure with a more democratic, Hezbollah free Lebanon? Sure, but they were attacked and they defended their country.
"Mossad and Shin Bet weren't even able to penetrate the lower levels of a nationwde popular organization, let alone get an idea of what they were gonna be up against when they came over the border. (hint: tunnels and RPG 29s)"
Um, and? Israel has never argued that Hezbollah is some underdog insurgency. That's a myth promoted by the Arab world, but the Israelis have always known better.
Is it a surprise that a well funded, well trained, and well armed paramilitary unit managed to stay alive and put up a fight?
I'm not exactly sure what your point is with your score card. Israel could've carpet bombed all of Lebanon, rather than using targeted bombings and infrastructure targets. That probably would've done away with Hezbollah, but it also would've killed a lot more people. Maybe Israel didn't "score" so high in your book, but that's what happens when one side plays by the rules and the other does not.