Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

Kayak,

Things like that don't bother some Israelis.

When was Lebanon part of Israel?

I think you are playing irrelevant game. The world is for everyone.
Europe moved towards removing borders. We should do the same for other countries includng Israel and lebenan. There will not be any war or conflict of interest in occupying lands anymore.

That is a utopian view ahoj a world without national borders wont help as faith will still exist. We are humans, we are tribal, we are animals (some more so than others.) Survival of the fittest and all that. Sssshhh! Don't mention evolution.

That's right rawdm999.

But being human in one form or another can be used to encourage respect to human values, helping each other etc which can end up having a world without borders.

What Goldman Sach did to the community was the worst representation of what a human can do. But what they did was lawful and defendable. They worked for the company to gain the most. We should be happy that they are grilled not upset. I am sure even GS can act like a real human if and only if humanity is encouraged.

Israel has no claims on Lebanon, but you can't blame them from responding when the sovereign state of Lebanon allows constant attacks on Israel from its territory.
Of course I understand the internal problems of Lebanon's government in trying to exert control over its own territory, they have an almost impossible task, but that is why Israel has to defend itself by trying to eliminate the source of the attacks.

Great idea! The UK should invade Pas de Calais to stop illegal immigrants from getting in to the UK.

The UK has no claims on France, but you can't blame them from responding when the sovereign state of France allows constant illegal immigration attempts into the UK from its territory.
Of course I understand the internal problems of France's government in trying to exert control over its own territory, they have an almost impossible task, but that is why the UK has to defend itself by trying to eliminate the source of the illegal immigration.

Um, Kayak, the British have Border Control and police stationed in Calais at France's invitation ....

If your suggestion is that Hamas should follow the Anglo French model and invite israeli troops in to police the rocket attacks then either your idea has merits, or you may want to try a different analogy.

G

we also invade France whenever their workers go on strike and stop the ferries. I am sure we could think of many reasons. Aslo didn't Calais belong to us previously for a couple of hundred years?

As I understand it, Gausie, the UK has border guards stationed in France to check passports. UK police would have no jurisdiction to detain or arrest on French soil as a matter of law. Nor are the UK responsible for the security of the French end of the tunnel, or the land around it. Hence my suggestion that the UK should invade. The UK could call it Pas de Dover, or perhaps the Day Trip Strip?

If you are happy with the compromise that Israel should be allowed to station border guards in the Lebanon to check passports, then I think that that is fair enough.

Oh for goodness' sake ! This just shows the level of thinking here !
DOES FRANCE ALLOW ITS TERRITORY TO BE USED TO LAUNCH ROCKET ATTACKS, SHELLING OR SEND SUICIDE BOMBERS TO THE UK ?
Know the difference between that and strikes and illegal immigrants just wanting a better life?

Kayak

It's a little bigger that you realise. There's over 100 (rising to between 200 and 300 for operations) members of the Kent police force who spend their on-duty time in France. Travel time to and from Kent are counted as part of their hours - I know a few of them.

You are partly right Gausie, but it is a very small area. More in the nature of buildings and an apron straddling a border. What is needed is a whole province.

Of course I am being facetious, ITLB, and I do know the difference between rocket attacks and someone walking down a tunnel. The point I am really making is that what in normal circumstances would be an act of war and of disdain for the local people is described by many using words such as "you can't blame them". Well, you can, actually. It is by no means obvious that Israel should be entitled to act extraterritorially. Maybe it is the only answer, but it isn't beyond questioning on moral and legal grounds and it certainly isn't a situation in which anyone querying it should be accused of anti-Semitism.

It's interesting to continue a comparison with the Franco/UK co-operation.

Kent police are present in France to help manage the problem of difficult Brits abroad rather than French nationals wishing to do Britain harm. They are there because both the French and British governments recognise there is a problem, want to solve it, and are happy to cooperate in finding a solution.

The joint political will to solve the problem is what leads to the spirit of cooperation that may make this work. As long as there is no joint political will to stop rocket attacks and suicide bombers there is no hope of any similar arrangement falling into place in the middle east.

Posters who sympathise with rocket attacks and suicide bombers with platitudes such as 'what else can they do?' reflect the issues that really need to be solved. They are reinforcing political support of these attacks.

Yes, Israelis continue to build in 'settlements' that are outside Israel, but Israel has also demonstrated its willingness to stop doing so, to evict and to bulldoze settlements in return for the promise of peace. And demonstrated this willingness with actions as well as with words. What a shame it is that every time Israel has evicted settlements and withdrawn they are rewarded with more rockets and bombs.

I can't offer a solution - but I sympathise with the Israeli dilemma, and see continued development of settlements as the Israelis building a bargaining position for eventual lasting peace similar to the peace with Egypt after surrendering that huge portion of desert south of Eilat that was seized from the retreating Egyptians during the 6 day war.

Are you suggesting you would like Israel to simply have their towns and villages rocketed constantly and not take action to try and end that?
If so, what other sovereign state would accept that do you think?

I would, however agree totally with:
"Maybe it is the only answer, but it isn't beyond questioning on moral and legal grounds and it certainly isn't a situation in which anyone querying it should be accused of anti-Semitism. "

In any dispute, too much one-sidedness or arrogance with the correctness of one's position is guaranteed to lose the goodwill of anyone judging the dispute. That perhaps is just public relations. Much of Israel's problem is not what they do, but that they seem to have no interest in coming out on top morally. Perhaps it is the American influence. Apart from the cultural influence of the strong guy wins, shoot first, work out why later, etc., it is difficult to see that Israel would have been able to behave like they have without American support.

The land-grab and the jets may well be required, but if I were running Israel I would spend much more time and money on looking super-clean than occupying land and in sending the jets. Every child killed, or Palestinian who thinks rightly or wrongly that he's not allowed to change a lightbulb, reflects badly, again purely in terms of public relations. To casual observers it looks as though Israel don't care about the suffering of other peoples, because 'they' did it.

I should say that a parallel is how much more one is able to engage with you, ITLB, now that you appear to have paused the anti-Semitic bigot line of argument. Arrogant one-sidedness does not win arguments.

I'm happy to engage with you and most people.
However, the likes of fred are different. I have no polite words for him and his mentality.
Haystacker, frankly, I'm not sure about, but am suspicious as he spouts some of the things anti-semites do under the cloak of "reason".
fahel might be the sort of person who if he was the leader of a state like Syria, the Israelis could engage with. After all, peace is only achieved between enemies, not friends.
Neither, as I've said repeatedly, do I think everyone who is against the policies of the Israeli government is anti-semitic. Personally I do not like some of their policies either.

It is very obvious why Israel should be "entitled to act extraterritorially"

and Israeli restraint is very commendable

"restraint"

LOL