I hear you Mitch. Chicken Hawks are a dime a dozen. The reality is that Olmert had a wide range of choices on how he might respond to the kidnapping for ransom of two soldiers. Other Prime Ministers have exchanged prisoners. Others might have gone to war. The most precise action he could have taken was direct attacks against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon with the intent of punishing them. Perhaps more effective would have been a major ground operation designed to destroy the Hizbollah infrastructure within range of Israel. Instead he chose to wage all out air war against all of Lebanon and a feeble and ill supported ground action in the south. Later he seems to have realize that due to heavy rocket assaults on Israel brought on by his war, that a significant push into southern Lebanon was necessary. But even then it was hesitant, and ill supported. Was this a war of choice? Yes. Olmert had many choices and he chose the worst possible one.
Clinton congratulates Sanders, acknowledges she has to win over younger voters (Reuters)
from the article: Was it a war of choice?
In the two days I spent in the northeastern state, I found intelligent, dedicated and ideology-driven voters who are also concerned about Israel.23:50 09.02.16 | 0 comments