The attacks won't stop because of military force...as Iraq has proven you cannot get rid of insurgents with force.
How is it a pipe dream? The Lebanese government is not anti-Israel, and would appreciate any aid from Israel towards the benefit of their country. It would be more difficult to earn the friendship/trust of the common Lebanese citizen, but not impossible. Build a couple free hospitals, maybe even a mosque or two, donate to Lebanese charities etc...
You haven't been listening to Israeli officals obviously. They have been saying the same thing. Israel feels they are removing Hezbollah for the Lebanoese as well as for themselves.
The Lebanese Prime Minister has been calling for a ceasefire for days, yet the Israelis keep bombing and Hezbollah keep firing their missiles. The question is who is going to do the right thing first? If Israel called a temporary halt to their air strikes for a day perhaps, and said that if Hezbollah ceased firing their missiles the air strikes would not restart, then the average Lebanese and Israeli citizens might stop getting killed. Of course this isn't going to happen because the Israeli government has US backing which means it is beyond criticism.
I would say getting rid of Hezbollah is the right thing. Hezbollah feels getting rid of Israel is the right thing. Either way getting rid of one side will end the conflict.
Getting rid of Hezbollah would be a superb thing for Lebanon and the entire region, but you do not destroy this kind of militia by bombing the civilian population, that will just swell their numbers. Israel is a democratically elected government, it should know better, Hezbollah are a militia, they are there to fight and they are fighting. It should be on Israel to take a step towards peace.
They are taking a step towards peace by destroying Hezbollah.
To stop the Nazi Germany, UK and the US did not take into account innocent civilians in their bombings of Germany. Nor did Stalin and the Russians in their taking of the Eastern front. Don't tell me you sympathize with Nazi Germany. Of course Germany, the US, the UK & France are friends today with exception of the World Cup that is.
I dont sympathise with the Nazis, but I do sympathise with the innocent victims of Hamburg and Dresden. I am ashamed of the strategic bombing campaign in WWII, but to compare the two is wrong, whereever possible targets were selected that would minimise civilian casualties, I see very little evidence of this in Israels tactics today.
It appears Israel is primed for a ground invasion, and Lebanon has stated they will defend their country.
It appears this will be a conflict between two governments, one which is defending itself and the other which is invading a country that is asking for peace.
Big difference - the Nazis were the legitimate government of the country and had a huge following. The country knowingly went to war with popular support.
In this case, Hezbollah are not the government of Lebanon and are a terrorist organization. They do not represent Lebanon. Hezbollah is not Lebanon is not Hezbollah.
Disagreeing with Israel today is not the same thing as sympathizing with Nazi Germany, as well you know it. In fact, if you look at Israel's policy of apartheid and blatent disregard of innocent life, you have to wonder if Israel has forgotten itself!
I found this one much more enlightening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AiYIhdZcOg&NR
As for the opinion of Noam Chomsky, I'm not really inclined to put much stock in a man who tried to white-wash the actions of the Khmer Rouge saying,
"the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors" (After the Cataclysm) Anyone that can be an apologist for Pol Pot with a straight face doesn't merit serious consideration beyond simply turning him off.
Exactly. You'd think they'd both want to eliminate Hezbollah. But instead of moving in on Hezbollah and squashing them between the two armies, Lebanon wants to help Hezbollah fight Israel. This means one of two things:
1. Lebanon is afraid Hezbollah can beat it's army and fears the humilation, or
2. Support for Hezbollah is so great among the people, Lebanon fears going against them will instigate a revolt.
I'm guessing it's probably a little bit of both actually, in which case I would argue that many of the 'civilian' casualities are people who cannot seriously be considered 'innocent'.
To do what? Again, you were the one jumping up and down to point out that Lebanon had no control over Hezbollah. What does 'working with them' mean, if no one is going to shoot Hezbollah fighters in the face? If one gov't is impotent and the other has their hands tied, who exactly is going to remove Hezbollah and how?