"is the israeli offensive justified?"

in early july, hezbollah guerrillas killed 8 israeli soldiers and captured 2 soldiers patrolling the northern border of israel. hezbollah is a militant shiite group based in southern lebanon and largely supported by syria and iran. israel called the soldiers' capture an "act of war" and planned a targeted operation to retrieve the 2 soldiers. however, hezbollah soon began shelling northern israeli towns with rockets and advanced missles, and hezbaollah chief hassan nasrallah and declared an "open war" against israel.

israel quickly reorganized a strong, sustained offensive in southern lebanon and against strategic sites in central and northern lebanon. cnn recently asked, "is the israeli offensive is justified?" in short, i maintain that "an" intervention is clearly justified, but i do not believe "the" current offensive is justified. israel must punish hezbollah. it is outrageous that hezbollah indiscriminately bombs israeli towns and cities. a consensus statement from the g8 summit and an arab league announcement both condemn the hezbollah incursion. however, i also agree with subsequent european and united nations statements that the israeli air offensive is disproportionate and should be restrained. it is unfair and immoral to wildly attack civilian towns and large scale government infrastructure.

syria controlled a shadow government in lebanon for more than 20 years. the february 2005 assassination of former prime minister rafik hariri inspired a groundswell of popular support for independent democracy. reports further suggest that international support swelled reconstruction efforts in central beirut and helped to stabilize the government. however, sectarian groups still fracture major government policies. we must ask, in turn, if lebanon is complicit in the rocket attacks against israeli towns and cities? it is certainly hard to reconcile prime minister siniora's emotional pleas for help with his tacit support for hezbollah. in fact, there are two hezbollah ministers in the current government portfolio. recent statements also indicate the lebanese army will mobilize against israeli defense forces.

i understand the military objectives for israeli strikes against lebanon's airports and highways. hezbollah receives funding and resources from iran and syria. the lebanese government does not have strong control over hezbollah, and hezbollah might use the airport or the damascus highway to transport military reinforcement towards southern lebanon or the 2 israeli soldiers away to syria. at face, major infrastructure seems legitimate targets of state war. yet, i have always maintained the the civilian deaths and collateral damage from high-powered airstrikes are untenable. in fact, recent reports highlight a growing humanitarian crisis. more than 500,000 refugees from southern lebanon have fled into beirut and western syria.

it is clearly not acceptable that a militant terrorist group controls a largely autonomous region in southern beirut. in 2004, the united nations approved resolution 1559 to dismantle the hezbollah militia and encourage the lebanese army to wrest independent control of the region. yet, the central democratic government may not have the effective stability or strength to control hezbollah. an offensive ground force to push back hezbollah installations in southern lebanon may be intractable. however, it may be the only just response. a ground attack may then clear a buffer zone to allow an international peacekeeping force.