Netanyuhu has postponed departure

[Noobtastic]

Rather, Arafat is the sole example you hinged your premise of disputing the authenticity of Palestinians as people in general. While Arafat many have been born in Egypt and was educated there, his father was born and raised in Gaza and his mother was from a Jerusalem family, Palestinian citizens during the British mandate period, making him Palestinian too.

Arafat was the sole example. I merely stated he was born in Egypt, not Palestine.

You used that *debatable* issue (and it is heavily debated) to shut down a dispute you know you would never win.

Whether his father was born and raised in Gaza or Jerusalem is irrelevant. He was born in Egypt, had Egyptian citizenship, and was groomed for terror by Nasser, an ardent pan-arab nationalist who had no feelings for any so-called independent Palestine.

And thus, neither did Arafat. He even flirted with the Muslim brotherhood, like his uncle, before establishing Fatah - 3 years before Israel's occupation of the WB and Gaza began.

But but IHV, I thought Palestinians were resisting Israeli occupation?!1111!!!

Also - there was no "Palestinian" citizenship during the British occupation of the mandate. Everyone was Palestinian - Jews, Arabs, etc.

It was never an identity or national aspiration. Jews considered themselves Zionists, and Arabs considered themselves Syrian.

Makes sense, considering Syria claims Israel is part of historical Syria and no Palestine ever existed in history. Funny, Jordan and Egypt felt the same way up until 1967.

What changed?

If you read books on "Palestinian nationalism" even pro PLO-trolls like Rashid Khalidi (Obama's mentor) can't find any evidence to support any calls for a Palestinian state until the 1930s-1940s, and even then it was more consistent with pan-arab views and not indistinguishably from the Hashemites rule in Eastern Palestine (Jordan).

Ask yourself this. If the Palestinians wanted a state, why didn't they make one during 1948-1967, when Israel had no control over any inch of the "territories?"

If the Arabs wanted a Palestinian state, why didn't they agree to a negotiated peace after 1967 - when Israel was prepared to give back all land captured, with the exception of Jerusalem, in exchange for a settlement? Why did the Arab's enter a full-state of belligerence after Israel's olive branch?

Israel offered the Golan heights back to Syria in the 1980s, and as a good-faith gesture asked Assad's government to return the remains of an Israeli POW who was executed by Syrian forces. Why did Syria tell Israel to go fuck itself?

The left goes on and on about peace, but as far as I can tell Israel is the only country that has truly committed itself to peace, and is the only country to agree to a Palestinian state (1948, 2000, 2008, etc..)

If the Arabs wanted a 24th state they could have had it a long time ago.

anyways.

 

[Lemon law]

Get a clue IHV, Israel may pay occasional lip service to a Palestinian State while doing everything to prevent the possibility of a VIABLE Palestinian State from ever happening.

And the subject of this thread, namely continued Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, is just one proof positive that Israel is doing everything to prevent that Palestinian State.

We must remember that East Jerusalem was not part of the original borders of the Israeli State, its therefore part of land acquired by illegitimate conquest post 1967, and therefore must be part of land given back to form a viable Palestinian State.

So why is Israel and Netanyuhu making every effort to promote Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem now????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because if Israel was committed to a viable Palestinian State, Israel would be moving existing Israeli settlement OUT of East Jerusalem at this point in time. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ozoned]

.

We must remember that East Jerusalem was not part of the original borders of the Israeli State, its therefore part of land acquired by illegitimate conquest post 1967, and therefore must be part of land given back to form a viable Palestinian State.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[THE FACTS ARE EASILY OBTAINED ON-LINE AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE]

When the United Nations took up the Palestine question in 1947, it recommended that all of Jerusalem be internationalized. The Vatican and many predominantly Catholic delegations pushed for this status, but a key reason for the UN decision was the Soviet Bloc's desire to embarrass Transjordan's King Abdullah and his British patrons by denying Abdullah control of the city.

The Jewish Agency, after much soul-searching, agreed to accept internationalization in the hope that in the short-run it would protect the city from bloodshed and the new state from conflict. Since the partition resolution called for a referendum on the city's status after 10 years, and Jews comprised a substantial majority, the expectation was that the city would later be incorporated into Israel. The Arab states were as bitterly opposed to the internationalization of Jerusalem as they were to the rest of the partition plan.

In May 1948, Jordan invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, dividing the city for the first time in its history, and driving thousands of Jews — whose families had lived in the city for centuries — into exile. The UN partition plan, including its proposal that Jerusalem be internationalized, had been overtaken by events.

After the Arab states' rejection of UN Resolution 181 and, on December 11, 1948, UN Resolution 194, establishing the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared that Israel would no longer accept the internationalization of Jerusalem.

From 1948-67, the city was divided between Israel and Jordan. Israel made western Jerusalem its capital; Jordan occupied the eastern section. Because Jordan — like all the Arab states at the time — maintained a state of war with Israel, the city became, in essence, two armed camps, replete with concrete walls and bunkers, barbed-wire fences, minefields and other military fortifications.




In 1967, Jordan ignored Israeli pleas to stay out of the Six-Day War and attacked the western part of the city. The Jordanians were routed by Israeli forces and driven out of East Jerusalem, allowing the city's unity to be restored. Teddy Kollek, Jerusalem’s mayor for 28 years, called the reunification of the city "the practical realization of the Zionist movement's goals."

 

[kylebisme]

I merely stated he was born in Egypt, not Palestine.

You used that *debatable* issue (and it is heavily debated) to shut down a dispute you know you would never win.

Whether or not Arafat was born in Egypt is debated, but you branded him as an Egyptian which is outright absurd, as are the rest of your arguments.

[THE FACTS ARE EASILY OBTAINED ON-LINE AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE]

Your example is about as Israeli biased by omission account of the history as one could find, the bit about Jordan ignoring Israeli pleas to stay out of the '67 isn't even true. In fact, Israel drew Jordan into the '67 war by bombing their airforce while it was on the ground.

 

[Ozoned]

Whether or not Arafat was born in Egypt is debated, but you branded him as an Egyptian which is outright absurd, as are the rest of your arguments.


Your example is about as Israeli biased by omission account of the history as one could find, the bit about Jordan ignoring Israeli pleas to stay out of the '67 isn't even true. In fact, Israel drew Jordan into the '67 war by bombing their airforce while it was on the ground.

Whatever. The logistics of Who did what to who 1st is not relevant. The rest of it can't be disputed.

 

[Noobtastic]

Whether or not Arafat was born in Egypt is debated, but you branded him as an Egyptian which is outright absurd, as are the rest of your arguments.

No it isn't absurd. Palestinian wasn't an ethnicity or identity in the 1960s or 1970s.

Arafat was more of an Israeli than a Palestinian when he was born.

Your example is about as Israeli biased by omission account of the history as one could find, the bit about Jordan ignoring Israeli pleas to stay out of the '67 isn't even true. In fact, Israel drew Jordan into the '67 war by bombing their airforce while it was on the ground.

Bullshit. There is documentation proving Israel warned Jordan well before the conflict began to stay out of it.

Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein on June 5 saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out that the planes were Israel’s and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground.
It took only three days for Israeli forces to defeat the Jordanian legion. On the morning of June 7, the order was given to recapture the Old City. Israeli paratroopers stormed the city and secured it. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived with Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin to formally mark the Jews’ return to their historic capital and their holiest site. At the Western Wall, the IDF’s chaplain, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, blew a shofar to celebrate the event.

Israel warned Lebanon also, and guess what?

Lebanon listened, and thus was not attacked by Israel.

The big Chomsky-myth that the Arab states were victim to Israel's "aggression" has been debunked time and time again. Selecting bits and pieces of information to rewrite history is propaganda.

The Arab states have yet to open up their history or military records, so the world is only dependent on de-classified Israeli documents and testimony gathered from notable figures.

I'm sure if the Arab tribes were to release their internal policies for the world to see Israel would be largely vindicated.

I've read the Fateful triangle many times. My favorite part is when Chomsky spends 40% of the book talking about Deir Yassin, then skipping the Suez Crisis, not even discussing the Arab's occupation of the WB, and Gaza, and spending the rest of the book jumping between Six Day and Lebanon 1.

Chomsky did a pretty decent job spinning Six Day, but he literally jumped over Yom Kippur War because he know he wouldn't rationalize that as "Israel aggression."

Read the book. He doesn't even mention it. HE goes from Six Days to Lebanon invasion. HILARIOUS!

When you can't twist the facts, you simply ignore them - as you have been doing in this thread for awhile.

Just give up.

 

[Noobtastic]

double post

 

[kylebisme]

No it isn't absurd. Palestinian wasn't an ethnicity or identity in the 1960s or 1970s.

Sure there was, as is evident by their flag which you falsely claimed they didn't have before you edited your post. The dishonesty of your arguments is staggering.

 

[Noobtastic]

No it isn't absurd. Palestinian wasn't an ethnicity or identity in the 1960s or 1970s.

Arafat was more of an Israeli than a Palestinian when he was born.

Bullshit. There is documentation proving Israel warned Jordan well before the conflict began to stay out of it.




Israel warned Lebanon also, and guess what?

Lebanon listened, and thus was not attacked by Israel.

The big Chomsky-myth that the Arab states were victim to Israel's "aggression" has been debunked time and time again. Selecting bits and pieces of information to rewrite history is propaganda.

The Arab states have yet to open up their history or military records, so the world is only dependent on de-classified Israeli documents and testimony gathered from notable figures.

I'm sure if the Arab tribes were to release their internal policies for the world to see Israel would be largely vindicated.

I've read the Fateful triangle many times. My favorite part is when Chomsky spends 40% of the book talking about Deir Yassin, then skipping the Suez Crisis, not even discussing the Arab's occupation of the WB, and Gaza, and spending the rest of the book jumping between Six Day and Lebanon 1.

Chomsky did a pretty decent job spinning Six Day, but he literally jumped over Yom Kippur War because he know he wouldn't rationalize that as "Israel aggression."

Read the book. He doesn't even mention it. HE goes from Six Days to Lebanon invasion. HILARIOUS!

When you can't twist the facts, you simply ignore them - as you have been doing in this thread for awhile.

Just give up.

Sure there was, as is evident by their flag which you falsely claimed they didn't have before you edited your post. The dishonesty of your arguments is staggering.

So what? Can you not respond to my post or must you always rely on deflections?

The fact that you straight up stated Israel "drew Jordan" into the conflict makes it hard to take your opinion seriously. No one intelligently disputes Israel's correspondence prior to the conflict.

In fact, Israel was daring the Arab states to enter to peace talks for more than a decade prior to the 67 war. I guess only when they realized conventional conflict with Israel is futile did they "agree" to a negotiated peace, and even then merely as a guise to continue their war through non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah.

 

[mrCide]

I have to wonder who IHV used to be. Every couple years comes another one of these posters who have the same argument, same argument style, same strawmen, same deflections. I have to wonder why people continue to waste their time arguing with posters like that.

 

[SandEagle]

I have to wonder who IHV used to be. Every couple years comes another one of these posters who have the same argument, same argument style, same strawmen, same deflections. I have to wonder why people continue to waste their time arguing with posters like that.

i'm willing to bet that IHV is netanyahu

 

[kylebisme]

So what?

So, your compulsion towards making not just flagrantly dillsional but outright dishonest arguments makes any attempt at rational discorce with you useless.

That said, for those who might be falsely swayed by your poining out of the fact that Israel warned Jordan stay out of the conflict; that does nothing to change the fact that Israel drew Jordan into the war by bombing Jordan's airforce while it was on the ground, as noted here:

Timeline: The Six Day War

A war in 1967 between Israel and its Arab neighbors reshaped the modern Middle East. Here's a look at key events during the six days of fighting.

June 5

Israeli air attacks against Egypt begin in the morning.

Israel later begins air strikes in Jordan and targets Syria air force bases.

Syria, Jordan and Iraq begin air strikes on Haifa.

...

That's like waring a guy to stay out of a fight before kicking him in the nuts, and then blaming him for fighting back.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So what?

So, your compulsion towards making not just flagrantly delusional but outright dishonest arguments makes any attempt at rational discourse with you useless.

That said, for those who might be falsely swayed by your pointing out of the fact that Israel warned Jordan stay out of the conflict; that does nothing to change the fact that Israel drew Jordan into the war by bombing Jordan's airforce while it was on the ground, as noted here:

Timeline: The Six Day War

A war in 1967 between Israel and its Arab neighbors reshaped the modern Middle East. Here's a look at key events during the six days of fighting.

June 5

Israeli air attacks against Egypt begin in the morning.

Israel later begins air strikes in Jordan and targets Syria air force bases.

Syria, Jordan and Iraq begin air strikes on Haifa.

...

That's like waring a guy to stay out of a fight before kicking him in the nuts, and then blaming him for fighting back.

Your NPR link has what it calls significant events. It is not all inclusive of what happened

The UN documented that Jordan shelled West Jerusalem - Report of the Secretary General

On 5 June 1967, the Jordanian forces launched a destructive and unprovoked armed assault on the part of Jerusalem outside the walls. This attack was made despite Israel's appeals to Jordan to abstain from hostilities. Dozens of Jerusalem citizens were killed and hundreds wounded.
Artillery bombardment was directed against synagogues, the Church of Dormition, hospitals, centres of secular and religious learning, the Hebrew University and the Israel Museum. Intensive fire was directed against institutions and residential centres from positions in and near the Holy Places themselves, which were thus converted into military positions for shelling Jerusalem.

By your analogy, the bully was warned, the bully swung the first punch and then the little guy kicked him in the nuts.

And you claim the little guy was wrong because he attacked the bully

But again; you conveniently ignore that bully's actions to trigger and/or prolong the issue.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, even if we buy the dubious Common Courtesy argument that Jordan was or ever was a big Country bully, we must all be also skeptical about who threw the first punch. According to some it was Jordan, according to others, it was Israel, but a better explanation is that both have been provoking each other for so long, that when it started is now lost in some ancient past.

But the one thing we can say, is that Israel can now longer portray itself as the little guy, not when it has, post 1967, the biggest baddest military in mid-east, and by a large margin. And sadly, there is much to be said for the contention that Israel now acts the part of a vicious bully, lording it over its weaker neighbors.

 

[kylebisme]

Your NPR link has what it calls significant events.

Sure, and what attacks brought each country into the war are particularly significant events, at least to those of us who aren't biased against reality. On the other hand, what you quoted was not the words of any UN official, but rather are out of a letter from Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, and I've yet to anyone but the most ardent Zionists cling to his version of the events. Heck, even mainstream Israeli media gets the timeline right:

On June 4, Israel decided to launch a preemptive strike against neighboring Arab air-force bases in order to assume airspace control on the region.

On the morning of June 5, 1967, the Israeli Air Force pummeled Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian airfields, destroying over 350 planes within a few hours. Only 20 Israeli jets were shot down during the fighting, mostly by anti-aircraft missiles. IAF fighter jets also made sure any existing runways were demolished, so as to paralyze the remaining enemy warplanes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. In 1967, Israelis asked the Jordanians to not attack.... It seems unlikely htat the Jordanians had any reason to believe that the Israelis were sincere, given that other neighboring arab states had just been sucker-punched... events between then and now clearly show that Israel had coveted the west bank all along, as does their continuing intransigence wrt US efforts to make a lasting peace...

Words are one thing, deeds are entirely another, particularly when it comes to the State of Israel...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Heh. In 1967, Israelis asked the Jordanians to not attack.... It seems unlikely htat the Jordanians had any reason to believe that the Israelis were sincere, given that other neighboring arab states had just been sucker-punched... events between then and now clearly show that Israel had coveted the west bank all along, as does their continuing intransigence wrt US efforts to make a lasting peace...

Words are one thing, deeds are entirely another, particularly when it comes to the State of Israel...

Israel may have been coveting the West Bank - but they did nothing about it until attacked by Jordan.

And Jordan really took care of the West Bank from '48 until they ceded it to Israel after '67

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sure, and what attacks brought each country into the war are particularly significant events, at least to those of us who aren't biased against reality. On the other hand, what you quoted was not the words of any UN official, but rather are out of a letter from Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, and I've yet to anyone but the most ardent Zionists cling to his version of the events. Heck, even mainstream Israeli media gets the timeline right:

The letter was from an UN official - they decided what words they wanted to use to put in the report. It is not an Israel statement to the UN.

All those timelines indicate that things happened on the day. The sequences by hour are not identified.

That is what your sources are clearly lacking to determine response/counter response.

Jordan aligns itself with Syria and Egypt along with others and places its troops under Egypt's command
Countries place active units on the border
They call up the reserves
They brag on how they are going to wipe out Israel.

Sure looks like an Israel provocation against self defense.

 

[kylebisme]

Israel may have been coveting the West Bank - but they did nothing about it until attacked by Jordan.

Sure, as long as you don't count Israel bombing Jordan's airforce bases.

And Jordan really took care of the West Bank from '48 until they ceded it to Israel after '67

Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was just as illegal as Israel's still is, but at least Jordan wasn't nearly as brutal.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well, even if we buy the dubious Common Courtesy argument that Jordan was or ever was a big Country bully, we must all be also skeptical about who threw the first punch. According to some it was Jordan, according to others, it was Israel, but a better explanation is that both have been provoking each other for so long, that when it started is now lost in some ancient past.

But the one thing we can say, is that Israel can now longer portray itself as the little guy, not when it has, post 1967, the biggest baddest military in mid-east, and by a large margin. And sadly, there is much to be said for the contention that Israel now acts the part of a vicious bully, lording it over its weaker neighbors.

Israel lording over it's weaker neighbors!:\

Egypt has a larger standing military force than Israel.
Israel does not threaten Egypt in anyway since Egypt signed a peace treaty.
Land conquered from Egypt has been returned to Egypt .

Syria has the backing of Iran and refuses to have a peace treaty with Israel.

Israel does not threaten Jordan in anyway since Jordan signed a peace treaty.

Israel goes after the Hezbollah and PLO in Lebanon who delight in attack Israel.
Lebanon is wise enough to keep out of the actual fray but they refused earlier to stop the problems.

That seems to cover the neighboring states of Israel.
Who is bullying whom?

Then you have the Palestinians that do not have a state.
Israel has accepted responsibility for those geographical areas that the Palestinians live in instead of the Arabs which had the responsibility.
Israel has been continually attacked from those areas for the past 35 years, well after the Arab nations stopped trying to attack/wipe out Israel and ended up with egg on their face every time.

Israel punishes the militant organizations and those that they hide behind when those organizations choose to attack Israel.

Yet people feel that Israel should expose herself to those that want to destroy her over the past 60 years and currently are at an equivalent state of war.
Terminate the state of war and start working for a state of peace. Is that concept so hard to grasp?

 

[kylebisme]

The letter was from an UN official...

You are utterly absurd, Again, the letter was from Israel's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban. His name is right there on it for everyone to see what a shameless liar you are, which will hopefully keep them all from being swayed by the rest of your bullshit arguments.

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy, in somewhat of an attempt to portray the Israeli bully tactics as a just response states that, "Israel punishes the militant organizations and those that they hide behind when those organizations choose to attack Israel."

Which does not exactly square with the Israel response regarding Lebanon in 2005. Granted, Hezbollah, had stockpiled short range missiles in Southern Lebanon that were being used against Israel. While at the same time the semi stable civilian Government of Lebanon was weak.

A just and measured Israel response would have been limited to the extreme current range of the stockpiled missiles, namely 60 miles. Yet Israeli aircraft strafed and bombed
all of Lebanon up to the Syrian border, as all sorts of civilian and not military infrastructure was needlessly destroyed. Far Far beyond the 60 miles range of these missiles. And even the Lebanese Christian faction, nominally pro-Israeli, received far more than its share of needless Israeli retaliation.

In short, Common Courtesy, the Israeli rape of Lebanon should be regarded as a illegal collective punishment and as such, be defined as the war crime that its was.

But oh no, what Hezbollah did to provoke Israel is also a war crime also, just one more example of tit for tat violence legacy in the mid-east that has no beginning and will have no end, at least until some just peace can be achieved.

The Israeli myth is that Israeli can use military might to persuade the world that only their version of justice is correct, but the larger lesson to learn is that the problem has never gone away in the entire 62 years existence of the Israeli State, and now yet another Israeli neighbor has all the more reason to hate Israel even more than they did before.

 

[Noobtastic]

Sure, as long as you don't count Israel bombing Jordan's airforce bases.

What is Israel supposed to do? Allow itself to be invaded? The arab states were calling for war over over a decade, Israel offered a negotiated peace between 1948-1967 even as Jordan and Egypt were sponsoring PLO attacks - 5,000+ attacks that killed 1,500+ israelis.

And of course, only Israel was condemned for retaliation, never the Arabs.

Ultimately Israel again offered a negotiated peace after the 67 war and totally owning the Arab tribes, and once again the Arabs said no and called for a further state of belligerency.

The Arab states will have no credibility, especially because they are avid consumers of antisemitism and also because they sabotaged and tanked their economy - not to mention wasted 35,000+ soldiers - by fighting a country that SUED for peace.

as long as israel is loaded with jews, the muslims will never surrender.

this is what they've been saying since day 1, and yet many progressives refuse to accept the bigotry of israel's enemies.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The letter was from an UN official...

You are utterly absurd, Again, the letter was from Israel's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban. His name is right there on it for everyone to see what a shameless liar you are, which will hopefully keep them all from being swayed by the rest of your bullshit arguments.

Is the overall document a UN document? Yes/No.

What the document contains is then approved by the UN official.

1) UN site
2) UN logo
3) Addressed to the UN General Assembly Security Council
4) From the Secretary General

Measures taken by Israel to change the status of
the City of Jerusalem

Report of the Secretary-General

1. The General Assembly, in operative paragraph 3 of its resolution 2253 (ES-V) adopted on 4 July 1967, requested the Secretary-General "to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption".

2. In a letter dated 5 July addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, the Secretary-General requested the Minister to draw the above-mentioned resolution to the attention of his Government as a matter of urgency.

3. On 10 July the Secretary-General received the following reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, transmitted by the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations:

<contents>
Letter from an Israel offical
</contents>

You are opposing the content of the document stating that it is Israeli.

The UN offical accepted the letter and included in as part of content of the document.

With the UN wrapper around the document; the information within the document becomes part of the UN accepted record

 

[EagleKeeper]

Common Courtesy, in somewhat of an attempt to portray the Israeli bully tactics as a just response states that, "Israel punishes the militant organizations and those that they hide behind when those organizations choose to attack Israel."

Which does not exactly square with the Israel response regarding Lebanon in 2005. Granted, Hezbollah, had stockpiled short range missiles in Southern Lebanon that were being used against Israel. While at the same time the semi stable civilian Government of Lebanon was weak.

A just and measured Israel response would have been limited to the extreme current range of the stockpiled missiles, namely 60 miles. Yet Israeli aircraft strafed and bombed
all of Lebanon up to the Syrian border, as all sorts of civilian and not military infrastructure was needlessly destroyed. Far Far beyond the 60 miles range of these missiles. And even the Lebanese Christian faction, nominally pro-Israeli, received far more than its share of needless Israeli retaliation.

In short, Common Courtesy, the Israeli rape of Lebanon should be regarded as a illegal collective punishment and as such, be defined as the war crime that its was.

But oh no, what Hezbollah did to provoke Israel is also a war crime also, just one more example of tit for tat violence legacy in the mid-east that has no beginning and will have no end, at least until some just peace can be achieved.

The Israeli myth is that Israeli can use military might to persuade the world that only their version of justice is correct, but the larger lesson to learn is that the problem has never gone away in the entire 62 years existence of the Israeli State, and now yet another Israeli neighbor has all the more reason to hate Israel even more than they did before.

Why did they attacked outside of the missle range.

To remove Hezbollah from being a threat.
Israel did not want to conquer Lebanon - they wanted to remove the thorn. Same as they did with the PLO.
Had they wanted to conquer; they would not have pulled back and allowed the UN to take over with their blind eyes.
Now that thorn made the choice to utilize the population and infrastructure of Lebanon as a launching pad for attacks and to hide for Israel retaliation.

But that must be acceptable. Apperently from your perspective, it is OK for Israel to accept punishment from the opponent, but not to deliver it. WHY?