If a country, like Israel, is attacked, as they were by Hezbollah, they have the right to retaliate. There has been wide condemnation, mostly by Moslem countries, of Israel’s method of retaliation. One of the main criticisms has been that Israel “escalated” the conflict by using tanks, aircraft and artillery that Hezbollah does not have.
My question is:
Would the people, that complained that Israel “escalated” the conflict, have had any complaints about Israel’s retaliation if Israel’s retaliation had consisted of fired barrages of katousha rockets back at Hezbollah? (Bear in mind that katousha rockets are unguided and are designed to kill civilians.)
If Israel used the same weapons, they couldn’t justifiably be accused of “escalating” the conflict, but you can be assured that there would have been a dramatic increase in Lebonese civilian casualties. Would this have been more acceptable to the Moslem countries?
2006-08-06
03:04:30
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Somewhere in Iraq
2
in
Politics