The most frustrating arguments (and trust me, that's saying alot) I often have with people in Pakistan invariably involve Israel. The hatred that it invokes is truly astonishing, even for a state with many failings. For example, during this summer's war between Hezbollah and Israel, I almost cried myself hoarse trying to explain why I supported neither side. Should Israel have killed more than 1000 people, a majority of which were civilians? No, of course not. But just because Israel is more successful at killing than Hezbollah does not make it more evil. Run this thought experiment: Hezbollah suddenly acquires Israel's ability to wage war. Now ask yourself: how many Israelis would die? An easier question to answer might be, how many Israelis would be left living? Not very many I would imagine, given the whole we-call-for-the-destruction-of-Israel-and-all-Jews thing. So it was nice to see someone saying pretty much exactly the same thing today, albeit with a slightly wider forum. This, from the Washington Post today:
"An accurate reading of what happened and what south Beirut means might produce a different picture. Israel had the means to impart greater destruction, but that does not mean intrinsically that it is more brutal. If Hezbollah had bigger rockets or more accurate ones, it would have done not only the same, but undoubtedly more."