should israel invade lebanon, it looks like they might?

Answer 1

See the images :

http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Answer 2

I am told by some sources that Israel is, in fact, also trying to occupy Lebanon! I do not know what else to say about the Israelis, except that I strongly believe they are no longer - as of latter part of Old Testament and New Testament - the "chosen", and are a very confused bunch.

They are currently attempting to accomplish what their fathers, according to the Bible, should have but did not; and mixing God's laws with man's. It's too late, Israel! I still say that the Israelis should be seeking out Ur, the land of their father Abraham.

Answer 3

Yes, they might be justified in doing this because Hizbollah are threatening the security of Israel and probably need to be eliminated. Think what the reaction of the British Government would be if say a faction of the Irish government sent missiles into Manchester repeatedly. Manchester is the direct equivalent of Haifa in Israel - the country's third largest city. Hizbollah is part of the Lebanese govt. The UK would fight back if appeals to Ireland bore no effect. I see no difference in what Israel is doing.

Answer 4

I think it is a good thing Israel has invaded Lebanon. It is about time that a government had the backbone to stand up to these terrorists and wipe them off the face of this earth. Britain should sit up and pay attention on how to deal with terrorists instead of allowing them to stay in the uk illegally.

Answer 5

I see that some answerers here do not know enough about lebanon, thinks about it like persons of superpower from their own centered view.
I paste an explanation, I think was not bad from another blog:

"Lebanon is a small country. They have no army worth the name, just a small border patrol armed with light weapons capable of taking on drug smugglers and not much else. They have no air force, just a few lightly-armed choppers for taking on said drug smugglers. They have no navy, just a few coast guard cutters (again for dealing with said smugglers). The Lebanese government hasn't fired a shot in anger against anybody since the end of their civil war in, what was it, 1991? Which is when their "armed forces" were basically re-formed as a small lightly armed police force with very little ability to take on anything larger than a few smugglers. This was done on purpose, BTW -- in the civil war, the military was used against fellow Lebanese until it disintegrated, so having a large military, as far as the Lebanese are concerned, is just asking for renewed oppression of the Lebanese people by whoever happens to currently hold the reins of the military.

Now, a small gang of armed criminals in the south of Lebanon kidnaps a couple of Israeli soldiers who were either inside Lebanon or damned close to the border. The Lebanese government doesn't have sufficient military power to take on this small gang (maybe 500 full-time fighters, but well armed by Syria and Iran). Let's see what the correct response is for the nation that has the second most-powerful military on the planet (behind the United States -- China and Russia may have more soldiers, but they don't have Israel's military technology):

a) Send in some Special Forces troops with air support, find the bastards who kidnapped your troops, and kill them.

OR:

b) Bomb civilian towns and neighborhoods into rubble, kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, destroy the commercial center of the Jordan-Syria-Lebanon triad (the port and airport of Beirut), and announce that this is all self defense because the government of Lebanon lacked the ability to take on large gangs of armed criminals due to lack of a military.

I'm sorry, but when does lack of a military justify bombing civilian hospitals (yes, at least one hospital has been bombed, I saw the pictures), civilian apartment buildings, airports, and sea ports?

Sure, sending in your troops to clean out the criminals is plenty justified, and I don't think anybody here would have a problem with that. If they'd just bombed the south of Lebanon in order to get the civilian population to flee so they could move in and finish off Hezbollah, I doubt anybody here would have a problem with that either, except for the most rabid Jew-haters for whom Israel can never do anything that isn't evil. But bombing the most peaceful city in the Middle East (Beirut) because they are TOO PEACEFUL, that is just sick, sick, sick. I'm sorry, it just can't be justified, period.

But hey, [sarcasm on] I suppose believing in peace is a crime in today's world, so it's perfectly justifiable to kill anybody who believes in peace. [/sarcasm off]"

Answer 6

Lebanon won't get rid of Hezbollah, indeed, Hezbollah has two seats in the Lebanese government. So Israel has no choice.

Answer 7

I can't see why Lebanon's army is just watching while the Lebanese are slaugtered at the hands of the Jews

Answer 8

It looks wrong, but if someone is shooting at you, you would fight back and Israel is getting it from all 4 corners. but who is going to stop them with american support. Their not really invading, but are going to root out the trouble. I don't think they will be able to eliminate terrorism and things willl get from bad to worst.

Answer 9

i'm with abrakadabra. The Lebanese are being punished terribly for someone else's actions. Israel's actions against them are ghastly. They did not have to do this.

Answer 10

They have done it & there a disgrace has for Blair & Bush they make me sick they should have stopped it by condeming Israel