If Israel wants many years of stability and peace then its forces must leave Lebanon. The deaths toll caused by the Israeli campaign will sit deep among the Lebanese. For the families that have lost their loved ones, Israel is to blame. Should Israeli occupy southern Lebanon, these families will constantly be confronted by those they believed killed their family and friends. Make no doubt about it. Even if the Hezbollah are completely destroyed (which is doubt full) another form of  resistance will emerge. Israel will find itself in a similar position to the U.S. forces in Iraq.

An effort by Israel to help the Lebanese suffering from the war with financial and other aid may weaken this resistance. The Israeli are known to come down hard on resistance, though, killing more Lebanese and alienating themselves further.

No. The only way for peace and stability to come to the region is through a truly non-partisan peace-keeping force that is able or able to help the Lebanese Army to keep the Hezbollah from returning and attacking Israel. Israel must leave Lebanon

Popularity: 11% [?]

The loss of civilian life continues. The number of displaced persons increases. The destruction of Lebanon continues.

Israel is displaying an amazing disrespect for human life. Their bomb raids in Lebanon continue to hit more civilians than militants. The destruction of Lebanon’s Infrastructure, of Lebanon’s cities and of Lebanese homes has condemned the Lebanese to horrific hardships. Hospitals cannot care for sick and wounded. More and more Lebanese Families have no shelter, no food, no medical treatment. Famine and disease threaten the population.

Assuming these actions will provide Israel security, is the destruction of Lebanon a legitimate price to pay?

This military offensive by Israel will not give Israelis more security. Leaving a country in ruins across its borders will just make Israel’s situation more precarious. Israel should know this. Removing the Hisbollah from southern Lebanon, or even the destruction of the Hisbollah militia may have helped Israel’s security, but only if Israel could have done this without the immense loss of civilians in Lebanon and the degree of destruction done to Lebanon.

Israeli leadership may really have failed in the way they have conducted this war. The Israeli leadership may also have been mislead by the United States. Charles Krauthammer’s claim in his Op-Ed the Washington Post may be on to something. The U.S. may not have just tolerated the Israeli military action against the Hisbollah but rather actively encouraged it.

To go even further. The Bush administration may have encouraged Israel to conduction the war similar to the way the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. That is relying on massive air strikes.

Israel may be able to destroy the Hisbollah, but they will certainly face more terror from Islamic groups, which will feed on the hate Israel has cultivated amidst the Lebanese people. Just as the U.S. won the initial struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has failed to bring security to those countries, Israel will not be able to bring security to their country. The destruction of Lebanon will have been in vain.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Here are some excerpts from an excellent oped by Jimmy Carter:

Prisoner exchanges are common to all conflicts. As Jimmy Carter states below, this has been common praxis over the past years. He also hints that the current Israeli backlash due the the latest Palestinian and Hezbollah attempts at prisoner exchange will not change this.

One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.

This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel’s withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Here is the crux of his article:

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

…

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international “road map” for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel’s official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

The end of Israeli occupation in the West Banks and Gaza is essential to ending the conflict. Israel must pull out of all territories not belonging to Israel. As an occupational power you will never have peace.

Popularity: 10% [?]

It came as it had to come. Israel’s bombs hit a building causing about 50 civilian casualties. Finally the outcry was big enough to compel Israel to stop the bombing for 48 hours. This deadline will run out at 1:00 am and there is no sign that Israel will extend the cease fire.

On the contrary, it is clear that Israel is willing to continue fighting. There are also no signs that Israel will now make a greater effort to prevent further damage to the Lebanese citizens. Israel has locked itself into this conflict and is willing to expand it. Rice’s assurances that a lasting cease-fire will be possible this week have faded.

Syria is obviously preparing for an Israeli attack. Iran has lashed out at the U.S. and Britain. Hopes that the tragedy in Qana could bring Israel back to reason have diminished. An end to the conflict , and the suffering, seems as far away as ever. Even worse the situation seems to be escalating.

With the U.S. reluctant to exercise pressure on Israel to halt their offensive. The EU must act alone to bring an end to the conflict in Lebanon.

Popularity: 11% [?]