I read it but I'm not sure I bought it - certainly not wholesale.

Perry: Haaretz isn't your first choice Israeli paper. How many Israeli papers do you routinely read? I don't know whether to be impressed or not.

I actually don't think this war is particularly complex or deserving of (over) intellectualising. The continuing rocket attacks and the kidnapping of soldiers was just the straw that broke the Israeli camel's back. They have had enough and now it's payback time. I personally hope it's payback time in spades.

This is a somewhat more picturesque take.

“The Forward”, a leading Yiddish-language US newspaper has an interesting article in its latest issue praising “Saudi Arabia’s strong support in the war against Lebanese terrorism” [sic].

After having washed their hands of the daily carnage taking place in Palestine and Iraq, Saudi Arabia’s Pontius Pilates chose to offer a bleeding Lebanon as sacrificial lamb to the people of Israel.

This “new friendship” bringing together bloodthirsty Bin-Ladenites and other Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalist thugs and rightwing Israeli fascists should come as no surprise to those who know the history of the Middle-East, and the profound influence ancient Jewish Sicarism always had on Saudi Arabian culture and civilization.

But I’m sure the Saudi government will eventually meet the retribution it deserves, for, as Winston Churchill famously said:

"They've been given a choice between dishonor and war. They've chosen dishonor and they shall have war."

I'm sure it doesn't help Lebanon against Israel in the slightest, and actually provides the pretext for intensification of the action, but what else does Haaretz expect him to do?

A PM who welcomes the wide-spread strafing and imminent invasion of his country by a neighbouring power is not going to remain PM (and probably not alive) for long - even leaving aside the particular importance of bravado in Middle Eastern politics.

The Falklands War might easily have been a debacle, but what would have been the effect in the 1983 general election, had the Thatcher government decided it was too risky and a few subsidised shepherds weren't worth the struggle? No political choice, therefore.

@Guy

I struggle to find sympathy with your equivalence between the situations of the Prime Ministers of Lebanon now, and the UK at the time of the Falklands War.

There was perhaps some (I think modest) negligence prior to the Falklands War, concerning intelligence on the build-up of Argentinian forces, and the seriousness of their political intent. Lord Carrington took the view that this was his department's problem, and resigned (off his own bat, so I recollect). Has there ever been any suggestion that this particular matter of intelligence gathering and prediction of the policy of a foreign country should rest elsewhere (ie with the Prime Minsiter)?

Lebanon, currently, is surely a different matter. It now seems very clear that the whole of the Lebanese Government have known for ages that there was a serious problem; not only did they do nothing adequate, they did somewhere between nothing and not much at all. Israel (unlike Argentina on a whinging issue spread over centuries) is known to have limited tolerance. Thus, the Lebanese top guy should have no realistic expectation of avoiding the main part of the blame.

What should he have done? Expect to be where he is now, if he could think of nothing better.

Best regards

I don't know how much the government of Lebanon could do. Rafik Hariri tried to steer an independant line and he paid for it with his life. Lebanon has been actively subverted by Iran and their stooges in Syria for over 20 years. When Syria pulled their troops out a few years ago, they left their goons and agents behind who with their Hizbullah allies have surely been poisoning the Lebanese political scene. I suspect that more than a few Lebanese leaders are hoping for Isreal's success, but to state so openly would be to invite certain death.

I don't know how much the government of Lebanon could do.

That is rather the point of my latest article. They have to either declare war on Hezbollah or accept that Hezbollah can declare war on Israel on their behalf and the accept the consequences of that.

He didn't make a mistake, that stand was necessary for him to get a buying from Lebanese public. If he was saying all alone that he can hurt Israel, yet cannot stop their retaliation, Lebanon was less inclined to tolerate their presence.

However, the most interesting question is where will Hez go. Israel made heroes of them, they can retreat to Syria now and take it from optometrist Assad without much fighting. Iran woudn't mind that, it would be disgrateful to Assad, but hey, "resisting Zionist enemy" justifies even much worse things in this part of the world

"They either have to decalare war on Hezbollah or accept that Hezbollah can declare war on Isreal on their behalf.."

Or they can mouth the expected outrage dictated by their Hezbollah masters and pray that Isreal degrades Hez to such an extent that they can try to get their country back, assuming that the West will actually help them this time. Assuming that is at best a 50-50 chance, they are at least buying protection for the time being. Did you notice last week the desperate fear in Siniaora when he came out to denounce the Italian news report that had him, denouncing Hezbollah?

Some jewish guy (might have been Isaac Bashevis Singer) said a while ago "it doesn't matter how many battles Isreal wins, the Arabs will win the last one.

Before taking sides in a conflict we in the west are not equipped to understand we should all bear that in mind. The state of Israel might be powerful militarily, materially wealthy and have some big, hard buddies, but ultimately there is no logical justification for is being.

OK, so then what is the justification for the existence of Hezbollah?