Quote from cognitis:
Lebanon is a sovereign state with elected president and parliament. Lebanon didn't commit and didn't threaten to commit any act of war. As a peaceful soveriegn state, international law demands all other states to honor Lebanon's peaceful existence.
Israel is a soveriegn state with elected parliament. Israel allows only Jews citizenship, thus establishing "Jew" as a preferred person. Israel has invaded Lebanon, shelled residential areas, blockaded ports: all clear acts of war.
Israel claims that Lebanon harbors "terrorists"; this claim is not a fact and is Israel's only justification for committing acts of war. To illustrate the difference between a claim and a fact: if Mexico were to declare war against US and then send soldiers to invade, that the invasion would be an act of war is a fact; on the other hand, should Mexican smuggling-ring members cross the border without Mexico's knowledge or sanction, some right-wing neocon nut job's calling "cross border" an "invasion" or calling "smugglers being Mexican" "tacit sanction by Mexican government" would not by any sane human's reasoning be a fact.
Why then do Jews attack Lebanon?
Israel claims that kidnapping IDF soldiers--regardless of rank--is an act of war. Setting aside the fact that no state sanctioned the recent kidnapping and, also, setting aside the fact that international law nowhere defines soldeir kidnapping as an act of war; Israel doesn't make war on every group that kidnaps soldiers. To illustrate: when an IDF soldier go AWOL in US, does Israel claim kidnap and declare war on US? When a soldier goes AWOL in Israel, does ISR attack the soldier's kibbutz? Israel clearly makes policy dependent not just on an act's nature.
To those of you who still don't get it: in the 70's Italian Red Brigade members kidnapped Getty's son and demanded ransom. Unlike in recent events, there is no doubt at all that Getty's son had been kidnapped, a fact made even more clear when the members mailed Getty his son's severed ear. Using Israel's reasoning, the US had both a right and an obligation in defending a US citizen to invade, occupy, shell, Italy, and kill Italians; no sane human would agree with this conclusion.
Given the above facts, definitions, and proofs, why then does Israel attack Lebanon?
The only significant difference between Lebanon and US or Italy or Israel itself is this: majority population of Lebanon is Muslim. Israel only grants citizenship to Jews which fact makes Israel a racist country like South Africa where Boers granted fewer rights to blacks. Israel's Lebanon invasion, thus, has nothing to with a kidnapped soldier but everything to do with racist killing and racist hate--in other words, genocide.
