Gokul43201 said:
Curious6, it is good practice to support an assertion like that with an argument. What you've just done is a hit and run.
Well, I'll provide an argument for him. Hezbollah's initial purpose was to end the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Similarly, the IRA wanted the UK to cede Northern Ireland back to the rest of Ireland. Their methods were similar in that both used guerilla/terrorist tactics. The UK did not bomb Ireland and Israel did not bomb Lebanon during either of these periods of resistance.
The analogy breaks, however, when we consider what happened post resolution. Although Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, it is so by its own choice and hostilities seem to have ceased. Israel actually one-upped the UK and withdrew from southern Lebanon. However, at this point, there was no peace. Hezbollah continued on despite the fact that its intended aim had been accomplished, and has moved beyond the guerilla tactics to a flat-out assault with surface-to-surface missiles aimed at Israeli targets. As Yonoz pointed out about a hundred times, if, at this point, instead of easing off, the IRA had acquired surface-to-surface missiles and was aiming and firing these at cities within the British mainland, would the UK government continue its cease-fire? Or would it seek to destroy those outposts armed with surface-to-surface missiles by any means necessary before they could destroy all of the major industrial cities along the northwestern coast of Britain?
I'm not necessarily taking a side here, trying to say that the initial Israeli response to the kidnapping was justifiable, as I honestly have not been following this conflict and have no idea what the full reasons are behind each action taken by both parties. I'm only pointing out the flaw in the analogy, since there seem to be so many people vociferously defending the position. It's not as if this analogy needs to hold in order for there to be creedence lent to the claim that what Israel is doing is inappropriate, anyway.
It's worth noting that Gokul is right in his last post as well. It's a lot easier to negotiate with interests that only want you to give over the northern tip of an island. It's a lot harder when they want the complete destruction of your entire nation and the giving up of all of its land. These organizations do not seem to be the least bit interested in peaceful cohabitation.
Edit: Then again, I don't want to make a conflation error and equate the most extreme elements of radical Islamic terrorist groups with the consensus wishes of most regional Arabs. Assuming they are reasonable human beings like any ordinary person tends to be, I'm sure the average Palestinian or Lebanese would be more than happy with peaceful cohabitation. Still, they keep electing extremists that make it clear Israel has no right to exist at all.