Moreover, Hizbullah shelled Israeli civilian towns during the invasion (which, one should be reminded, was a completely unprovoked action by Hizbullah). Also, the six years between the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the 2006 war were not peaceful. Israel had been attacked several times with lethal results, including lethal attacks on civilians, during that period. These events were terribly underreported during those years as the mainstream media only makes a fuss when Israel dares to defend itself.
No. There is no sane country anywhere in the world that would not have responded the way Israel has, to the way Israel had been attacked from Lebanon. Mainstream media is extremely biased against Israel, so during the six years since Israel unilaterally withdrew from all of Lebanon, the various incidents in which Hizbullah attacked were almost universally ignored or underreported. But during those six years, there were numerous attacks, even upon civilians. When Hizbullah escalated even further, invaded Israel, kidnapped two soldiers and killed six others, while shelling civilian populations (which had begun before the Israeli retaliation), Israel had no choice but to enter the war, especially considering the intelligence reports of Hizbullah's constantly increasing (in terms of both quantity and quality) armament and preparations for an all-out future conflict. By the way, look at how even the news article of the post is biased by claiming most of the Lebanese casaulties were civilians, which is almost surely a lie - Hizbullah reported all its casaulties as civilians, made all the more egregioius by the fact that Hizbullah intentionally targeted Israeli civilians (fortunately, it didn't have sophisticated enough weapons, though enough to severely disrupt life in a third of the country), whereas every Lebanese civilian casaulty is the result of Israeli mistake, not intention.
As for the Suez Crisis, that's a complicated story.
It takes two to tango, but only one to wage war. If one side of the conflict simply refuses to recognize the other's right to exist, then war is forced upon the other side, regardless of how much creativity and intelligence it might have. If you think I'm exaggerating or caricaturizing the Palestinian position, just google for information about their elected government, its current openly declared position (no recognition, even symbolically, of Israel) and similarly openly declared plans for the future (destruction of Israel). Israel has no choice.
The Merkava Mk. 4 is often cited as the best armored tank in the world, though I'm not sure that is accurate. It is the tank offering best survival for the crew within, however. This has been achieved by various intentional design decisions, such as placing the engine in the front of the crew compartment as extra armor, and having rear exits for evacuating soldiers, as well as some tanks serving as heavily armored ambulances, with special space reserved for emergency medical treatment.
Anyhow, as for the discussion about the future utility of tanks in the face of modern anti-tank weaponry, which has proliferated to the point of being available to any determined interested buyer, see the Trophy system and Iron Fist, two Israeli anti-anti-tank systems (the first of which is operational, but wasn't installed in tanks prior to the Lebanon conflict out of budgetry considerations, which in retrospect was a poor choice, not sure about the second).
Sheer mendacity. With the possible exception of the first (1982) Lebanon War, Israel has never initiated any armed conflict with its neighbours. All those wars have been fought in self-defense, starting right at the day Israel had been created. I do not know whether you truly believe yourself the lies you've told, but if so, and for the sake of others, here is an (extremely simplified) presentation of the facts of the matter:
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, Hizbullah shelled Israeli civilian towns during the invasion (which, one should be reminded, was a completely unprovoked action by Hizbullah). Also, the six years between the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the 2006 war were not peaceful. Israel had been attacked several times with lethal results, including lethal attacks on civilians, during that period. These events were terribly underreported during those years as the mainstream media only makes a fuss when Israel dares to defend itself.
No. There is no sane country anywhere in the world that would not have responded the way Israel has, to the way Israel had been attacked from Lebanon. Mainstream media is extremely biased against Israel, so during the six years since Israel unilaterally withdrew from all of Lebanon, the various incidents in which Hizbullah attacked were almost universally ignored or underreported. But during those six years, there were numerous attacks, even upon civilians. When Hizbullah escalated even further, invaded Israel, kidnapped two soldiers and killed six others, while shelling civilian populations (which had begun before the Israeli retaliation), Israel had no choice but to enter the war, especially considering the intelligence reports of Hizbullah's constantly increasing (in terms of both quantity and quality) armament and preparations for an all-out future conflict.
By the way, look at how even the news article of the post is biased by claiming most of the Lebanese casaulties were civilians, which is almost surely a lie - Hizbullah reported all its casaulties as civilians, made all the more egregioius by the fact that Hizbullah intentionally targeted Israeli civilians (fortunately, it didn't have sophisticated enough weapons, though enough to severely disrupt life in a third of the country), whereas every Lebanese civilian casaulty is the result of Israeli mistake, not intention.
As for the Suez Crisis, that's a complicated story.
It takes two to tango, but only one to wage war. If one side of the conflict simply refuses to recognize the other's right to exist, then war is forced upon the other side, regardless of how much creativity and intelligence it might have. If you think I'm exaggerating or caricaturizing the Palestinian position, just google for information about their elected government, its current openly declared position (no recognition, even symbolically, of Israel) and similarly openly declared plans for the future (destruction of Israel). Israel has no choice.
The Merkava Mk. 4 is often cited as the best armored tank in the world, though I'm not sure that is accurate. It is the tank offering best survival for the crew within, however. This has been achieved by various intentional design decisions, such as placing the engine in the front of the crew compartment as extra armor, and having rear exits for evacuating soldiers, as well as some tanks serving as heavily armored ambulances, with special space reserved for emergency medical treatment. Anyhow, as for the discussion about the future utility of tanks in the face of modern anti-tank weaponry, which has proliferated to the point of being available to any determined interested buyer, see the Trophy system and Iron Fist, two Israeli anti-anti-tank systems (the first of which is operational, but wasn't installed in tanks prior to the Lebanon conflict out of budgetry considerations, which in retrospect was a poor choice, not sure about the second).
http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html
In related news today, Germany invades Poland, mumbling something about Intellectual Property Lebensraum.