Great analogy - did it take all morning to come up with that? Because our way of dealing with terrorists is to bomb the shit out of High Wycombe, isn't it.

It is a staggeringly feeble equivalence. The UK grounds some flights; Israel bombs the airport. The UK arrests 21 people; Israel kills around 1000. Britain has thousands of passengers queueing for customs; Lebanon has hundreds of thousands of refugees without homes. We're supposed to see some similarity between these?

Aside from this, the obvious point is that Israeli military actions and occupations have repeatedly failed to defeat Hezbollah in the past. Why would a re-run of previous violence create a "lasting" ceasefire this time? Meanwhile, bombing Lebanon is increasing support for Hezbollah, as you could have read in yesterday's Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2304923,00.html), and further inflaming worldwide Muslim opinion, thus increasing the threat of Islamic terrorism everywhere.

Therefore Israel is not eliminating the threat posed by Hezbollah, or by radical Islam generally, but inflating both. Why should its actions be supported on the grounds of fighting terror?

how come the two commenter above forget to mention the rocket barrages with shiny ball bearings the number of attempted suicide attacks the number of people displaced in Israel? Maybe they didn't get the difference between potential and actual?

Ah, so there is a difference in what is happening. Well then perhaps different standards apply to the responses? In fact -- hang about -- one is a criminal investigation, and the other a large scale military strike. Perhaps it is utterly nonsensical to suggest the same standard should be applied to the two? But then you'd have to explain why Pollard has the heading "double standards".

Incidentally, I do like this emphasis on ball bearings. I expect they are far deadlier than the cluster munitions used by Israel.

Context is everything here folks. Israel faces an enemy on its northern border who is committed to its anihilation. It is funded, armed, and organised by Iran, which is committed to the same end. When Israel kills civilians it is a mistake. When Hezbollah kills civilians it is a success. Wouldn't it be interesting, if, during WW2, the BBC had focussed ONLY on German civilian casualties, and put no emphasis on the strategic destruction of the Nazi's infrastructure ? I trust some of my fellow "bloggees" would be then be wearing the white feather

Therefore Israel is not eliminating the threat posed by Hezbollah, or by radical Islam generally, but inflating both.

They needed an excuse?
Where are all those extremist Jews running around Europe rioting over cartoons with the Star of David as knuckle-dusters? Where are all the militant Zionists blowing up people, places and things because of Europe's flaming anti-Israel stance and the UN's flagrant bias against Israel?
Muslim extremists will use current events to rationalize their insanity (or more accurately, they'll enjoy the fact that people like you rationalize it), but they've never needed provokation to incite more extremism. Fortunately for them, apologists conclude that because these fiends keep blowing things up and cutting peoples' heads off that something we did must have stirred them up.

People who suddenly support Hezbollah or militant Islam because they believe Hezbollah are 'protecting them' from Israel, or because Israel dared respond to an act of war, likely didn't need much pushing.

Jeez, Israel posts do bring the nutcases out, don't they. Still, at least we all agree that, as regards the point in hand, there *is absolutely no equivalence* between the situations in Israel and London. So, Pollard was babbling, as usual.

(Actually, I should qualify this. I'm not entirely sure *what* "canadianna" is trying to say, so whether she agrees or not must remain a mystery.)

No, I am not rationalising their "insanity", Canadianna. I am pointing out the empirical fact (which you have not disputed) that the Israeli action is increasing support for Hezbollah and Islamist terrorism.

Given this, they obviously do benefit from "provokation" in their bid to "incite more extremism". To say this does not make one an "apologist", whatever you might like to believe. It is simply engaging with reality.

Jeez, Israel posts do bring the nutcases out, don't they.

True enough. Good of you to trouble yourself as to whether I agree with the original post. Fact is I never said, but I do agree. The world sees arrests and suspension of air travel to thwart potential threats as prudent (and rightly so), but the same world reacts to Israel's retaliation for acts of war as 'excessive'.
There is a genuine comparison between the two situations, you did it yourself. Don't find it odd that action is demanded for one and criticized for the other? Or are you going to talk about proportionality. I guess that's the point. Britain wasn't attacked by a foreign militia, so bombing the airport would have been stupid.

I am pointing out the empirical fact (which you have not disputed)
Anger, prompted by the current crisis doesn't translate into 'inciting more extremism'. The majority of Lebanese who say they support Hezbollah are not going to start fighting along side. They're angry, frustrated, bitter, grieving etc. but their support doesn't imply future extremist action. Give the Lebanese people more credit.

And yes, when you suggest that it's the actions of Israel or the actions of the US that cause Muslim extremism, you are acting as an apologist. When do the Muslim extremists become responsible for their own actions? Perhaps when the West starts treating these radicals as adults, responsible for their own actions (despite any grievances they might harbour) they won't be able to manipulate the world into believing anyone is responsible for their violence but them.

Stuart posits:

"Aside from this, the obvious point is that Israeli military actions and occupations have repeatedly failed to defeat Hezbollah in the past. Why would a re-run of previous violence create a "lasting" ceasefire this time?"

In this he's right but where we differ is that Israel needed to either put up or else go in the whole hog. John Arbuthnot Fisher said, around 1902:

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.

By holding back and relying on air strikes, this is how the colateral damage came about. I post on this later.

I'll read your post on this subject. But in the interim, I think it's worth pointing out that an eighteen year occupation, accompanied by periodic operations similar to the current one, failed to achieve the destruction of Hezbollah. I can only assume, then, that going the "whole hog " would entail, at the least, re-occupying Lebanon and a widespread ground war.