Quote:
|
It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.
|
What makes the author believe that trading hostages for prisoners would reduce the liklihood of future kidnappings? Hezbollah admitted a week into the current violence that they thought they could get a prisoner exchange for the hostages like they did in 2001 with germans as the brokers. They expected it to happen because it happened in the past. So now, the author thinks if the israelis would have just given in to the demands of hezbollah there would be less kidnappings in the future. And this reasoning makes sense to who?
I would also like to point out the "almost 1,000" lebanese civillian deaths quoted in this guardian article. Just this morning I read a report of less than 700 deaths in lebanon among civillians, lebanese army, and hezbollah fighters total. the guardian is rubbish and you know it.