It's the perfect solution for Dubya! He can't start another war without getting major grief from the American public, but if Israel starts up a skirmish, well then we have to help out our friends, don't we? How convenient! And it's nearly election time, too.

War! What is it good for? Distracting the American public, apparently.

Mr. Plumer, why is a "disproportionate response" unjust? You assert that it is so, almost as an aside, but it is a central point, and is not so simple an issue as you treat it.

Make only "proportionate response", and you simply enter into a contract with your attackers - "you can choose to hurt me whenever and however you want, and I promise to only hurt you back to the same degree and extent."

Why is this "just"? It seems dangerous, and naive, and calling it "just" must be preceded by the belief that the response is as morally corrupt as was the initial attack (an idea which many cannot accept.)

Is it my understanding that it was Israel who flew into Lebanon and buzz the Prime minester home, why is it alright for them to do that with out any retaliation. When it comes to Israel they cane do no wrong, course an Arab life is not wort as much as a Israel's life.

War in the Middle East just brings us closer to the rapture. All the ruling class is getting ready to ascend into heaven.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - retaliation and punishment should be proportionate - that is the instruction of the Biblical scriptures. Not Twenty eyes for an eye. Not fifty civilian lives extinguished for three soldiers taken captive.

Soldiers may be captured in war and held as POWs. If Israel is at war, are not the three therefore legitimately taken as POWs? But if Israel is not at war, have not Hizbollah and Hamas merely done what the US did when it took scores of Afghans and Pakistanis and others and transported them far away to incarceration on a Caribbean island for years without trial. The three unfortunate Israeli soldiers are suffering thre same unjust treatment that the prisoners of Guantanamo are suffering.

The one shinning thing that President Bush has done as the leader of this country it to have come down on Israel's side, although not whole heartedly.

I don't understand what the rest of you anti-Israeli red-neck think; You claim to be a christian nation, but I have a really bad feeling that it is in name only and as such is a total lie!

You folks obviously don't know the history of the Arab refusal to recognize and live in peace with Israel for most of the last century. I find most current left-wing analysis of the situation to be ahistorical and profoundly biased (against Israel).

After 60 years (and for 20 years before the occupation), Israel's Arab neighbours have been hell-bent on its destruction and on turning back the clock.

You'd think that the brutality of Muslim extremism against the West would have been a wake up call to the Left. If you think it's so easy to live with fanatical muslims (not moderate muslims), take a look at 9/11, the London bombings, the Canadian terrorist plot, etc. This form of extremism is to the 21st century what fascism was to the 20th century.

And by the way, Israel has become the superior military force out of necessity, not choice. With hundreds of millions of hostile neighbours, what would anyone in their right mind do in the exact same situation?

After 2000 years of enduring anti-semitism in the most brutal forms by living in Christian or Muslim dominated lands, the UN finally declares Israel to be a state in 1948. And everyday since then the Jews, who have not even recovered from losing 1/3 of its global population in WWII, have been forced to defend themselves and Israel.

Wake up, folks! Maybe the underdog in this case is the one with the superior army because its populace is under constant siege.

I think everyone who is complaining that Israel's operations in south Lebanon, and south Beirut are disproportionate in the wake of Hizballah 'merely' kidnapping 2 soldiers, seem to have overlooked a few details.

1) This is not the first time that Hizballah has tried this. The most recent attempts to abduct Israeli soldiers resulted in firefights that left dead and wounded on both sides. There was no 'strong' Israeli response to this, and the world was content to stay silent, with the exception of street parties in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

2) When Hizballah took those 2 soldiers, they also killed another 4 soldiers during the same (unprovoked) attack, whom everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about.

3) Missile attacks on Israels northern boarder, by Hizballah, have been going on constantly in many forms ever since Israel widthdrew from Lebanon. They also preceeded Israels initial invasion to lebanon in the early 80's as I can bare witness to, since I was personally pinned down in a bomb shelter while visiting the North of Israel as a child in 1981.
All this was BEFORE Israel launched the 'peace for Gallilee' operation, and this is what inspired it.

Hizballah has made their own bed, and now they must lay in it. Everything that happens from now on, is a direct result of their own actions, choices, and extremism.

How many abducted soldiers constitute a motive for such an attack, according to the equasions of war? Where do you draw the line?

At least now, they will hopefully think twice before using their 'hosts' country to launch another attack on Israel, and this may save many lives on both sides ultimately, and perhaps wake up the Lebanese to the fact that any independance they currently enjoy is an illusion created by Hizballah, and that they have no say in the actions taken in the name of their country, and this is a very dire situation for them to be in.

I am truly sorry to hear how many Lebanese have been killed and injured in this operation, however many of them allow Hizballah to use their homes as launch pads for surface to surface missiles, and this cannot be allowed.

I hope that one day, all this bad blood can be put behind us, and that Israel and Lebanon can live as 'normal' neighbours, but this seems a long way off, especially as long as they carry the yoke of Hizballah on their shoulders.

We have weakened Hizballah now, and scattered them. Now is the time for Lebanese to turn defeat into victory, and seize the oppertunity to turn the illusion of their independance into reality, if only someone with enough courage can stand up and sieze the opportunity.

Israel's 'Disproportionate Response' to Acts of War
Written by Rachel Neuwirth
Thursday, July 20, 2006

Buzzwords plague discussion of the Middle East conflict. For too long the buzzword phrase was the so-called “occupied territories.” But today the new buzzword is “disproportionate response,” meaning that Israel is being admonished not to overreact to an act of war by her enemies.

How bitterly ironic considering that Israel’s critics choose to forget how America fought WWII with its own “disproportionate response.” The Allies that fought Hitler had no fear that Hitler’s Jewish victims would overreact with a “disproportionate response.” The only thing that was truly “disproportionate” at that time was the allies’ disproportionate failure to respond in opposing ongoing genocide against helpless civilians.

Today the buzzword crowd seems more concerned about restraining Israel than in defeating the Islamic terrorists that want to complete Hitler’s goal of exterminating all Jews. How times have changed. Then, the survival of millions of Jews was of little concern to the nations. Today the same powers fear that the Jews are defending themselves too vigorously.

During WWII the two principal allied governments seemed more concerned that Jews might survive than that they would perish. The Roosevelt Administration played down news of the Holocaust lest the American people learn the magnitude of the ongoing genocide and demand U.S. intervention to save Jews from extermination. This is documented in the book The Abandonment of the Jews – America and the Holocaust 1941-1945, by historian David S. Wyman. The British blocked escape routes from Europe so that Jewish refugees could not reach the land of Israel in Jewish Palestine. Their concern was to appease the Arabs, prevent the establishment of a democratic Jewish state in the ancient Jewish homeland and assure their access to Arab oil. We now hear much about Israel acting with “disproportionate” force. Among Israel’s critics are administration officials such as Secretary of State Rice who makes the perfunctory verbal nod that Israel has a right to self-defense. How generous! But her statement is immediately coupled with the admonition to refrain from using “disproportionate” force, to “exercise restraint” and not to destabilize the Lebanese government.

One would think that that people who live in glass houses would not be so cavalier in ‘casting stones’ with such warnings. One could make a powerful case against American conduct in WWII regarding the use of “disproportionate force.”

It could be argued theoretically that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not really rise to the level requiring all-out war as an immediate response. The Japanese had their own complaints against American actions to deprive them of vital oil sources. Their attack was against American military forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, located far from the U.S. mainland. No Japanese bombed the American continent or targeted American civilians. They were not preparing to invade nor did they ever threaten to exterminate the U.S. populace.

There was a U.S. option to first try diplomacy before immediately rushing into war. Things moved slowly enough in those days to allow some time to first try for a peaceful resolution before taking precipitous and unilateral action. There were no U.S. diplomatic consultations to first gain international support before going to war. It was only after President Roosevelt declared war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor that Germany, Japan’s ally, declared war on the U.S. America then fought against Germany even though Germany had not invaded America nor bombed our cities and was far from ever doing so.

Both Germany and Japan were attacked on their home territories, killing millions, while America lost thousands. America lost combatants. They lost combatants plus millions of civilians; men, women and children. America deliberately attacked cities having little military value to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. The rationale was to ‘demoralize’ (terrorize?) the enemy populations into submission. That tactic may have just increased enemy resolve to fight on, or so some claim.

America did not consult the international community but instead acted unilaterally. Offers by both the Japanese and German governments to end the war via negotiations were rejected. Instead unconditional surrender was demanded. In early 1945 Japan was clearly on the road to defeat but America still insisted on unconditional surrender and used the atomic bomb twice to bring this about.

Japan and the Allied zones of Germany were occupied for years to impose our form of government on the conquered peoples. WW II cost an estimated fifty million lives. Was it really worth it? Shouldn’t diplomacy have been tried first? If that failed, a policy of containment then could have then applied over the long haul. That was American policy for the Soviet Union over many decades, and it worked.

By now readers should realize that this writer is obviously playing the ‘devil’s advocate’ to show how easily American actions in WWII could be cast in a highly unfavorable light. The above argument was deliberately skewed to be unfair to America to demonstrate a point. By telling the truth in a selective manner one can put a very different spin on the morality of American and Israeli actions.

There were very compelling reasons for supporting what America did in WWII. In early 1941 America was in grave danger. The Axis powers included Germany, Japan, Russia (before Hitler’s attack), Italy and Spain. Much of western Europe was already occupied. Germany and Japan were expanding rapidly in Europe, Asia and North Africa with Nazi sympathizers operating in South America and even inside the U.S.

America had not yet recovered from the Great Depression, was highly isolationist, poorly armed and unprepared for war both politically and militarily. England was being battered by the German air force and was hanging on by a thread. The balance of power heavily favored the Axis powers with a bleak outlook for America and the west.

An all-out response to Pearl Harbor was therefore essential, and it came not a moment too soon, because in 1942 victory in the war was far from certain. Losing that war would have plunged the world into a new dark age of brutality. We had to win at all costs.

The real lesson of WWII was not failing to try diplomacy and negotiations. The lesson was that America and the West should have moved militarily against Hitler in the mid 1930’s. It was already clear that Hitler was rapidly re-arming Germany for a coming war of aggression, but was not yet ready to attack. A pre-emptive attack by the West against Hitler at that time could have destroyed Hitler and his Nazi war machine while still confined to German soil. There would have been casualties on both sides but far, far, fewer than the millions killed later while much of Europe was destroyed.

The world seems inclined to forget the lessons of history rather than learn from them. The West should be supporting Israel’s attempt to demolish the Islamic terror threat surrounding them rather than lecturing Israel about its “disproportionate response.” Iran and Syria are clearly backers of Islamic terror, not only against Israel but also against America. The longer it takes to deal with them the greater the risk of a wider and more lethal war with an enemy possessing nuclear weapons and the means to reach America.

About the Writer: Rachel Neuwirth is a freelance writer who resides in the Los Angeles area. Please, visit Rachel's web-site http://www.MiddleEastSolutions.com . Rachel receives e-mail at rachterry@sbcglobal.net

Rachel Neuwirth's comments actually disgusted me.. she stated that either Lebanon, Syria or Iran (she may have meant an arab nation) have nuclear weapons. This is an incorrect statement, Iran are developing the technology to create a weapon, but they do not have any. It is only the US, Israel, N Korea, Pakistan, India, China, France, The UK and Russia who are known to have Nukes. So many of you talk of anti-semitism, Jews struggling for 2000 odd years etc. yet you are putting the arabs and muslims in the same boat. If I would put my money on anything it would be that Muslims are going to be to WW3 what the jews were to WW2... People seem to be so proud of the knowledge they have yet their comments are full of the media's propoganda to make you believe Isralites (in bombshelters) are suffering more then the Lebanese civilians. Please stop being so ignorant. My support is whole heartedly with the people of Lebanon and yes Hozballah, they are a political movement and are being labelled a terrorist cell simply by fighting for what their country, in my opinion deserves. Invading a country in order to attack a political movement should be called an act of terrorism (US to IRAQ, ISREAL to Lebanon).. these actions in the middle east are disgusting!! I know over 30 jews who are ashamed of hat is going on.. open your eyes!!

Then get disgusted Mr. Smith until the Islamists behead you! Then you will not be able to even learn your lesson nor that would you be able to discern between evil and good, truth and lies which you obviously lack now.

You should heed those who warn you and set the record straight! Rachel Neuwirth is in fact excellent in analyzing the situation, but you choose to be blind. Is it because you hate Israel/Jews? I wonder.

Israel is in the front line not only defending her own survival but also in the front line fighting against those jihadists who want to rule the world, thus Israel defends democracy and freedom to all.

Wake up from your delusion!