Explode if you wish, it's a free world - well in parts.
Are you talking about the moslem way of exploding...with dynamite strapped to your chest...or simply getting upset?
Any honest view of history and search of for examples Ben Gurion's and other founders of Israel makes it very clear that the Arabs were the rightful inhabitants, the settlers interlopers and their objective was to rid then Palestine of that population. Methods used including driving out whole villages and erasing their names from the map.
An objective look at history makes it very clear that the Arabs have no more right to the Area than the Israelis. If you recall your history properly, these lands were taken from the Empire by military force, the arabs are invaders and any converts to islam are traitors and collaborators. So I see no reason to shed a tear when the invaders and their collaborators fail to hold onto their prize. In terms of modern history, Palestine was part of the British Empire, is it not within the Rights of the Crown to do as they please with their lands? (that's how monarchy works, if such a clarification is needed)
Lebanon has long been a proxy battle ground for Israel, Syria and Iran, all acting out their bloody war. Any honest count of casualties on both sides too will show the disproportion between one side and the other.
Some make great play of external arms and training being a feature of Hisbollah and others' activities. And, of course, Israel produces and funds all its' own arms.
You're now objecting to a disproportionate number of casualities? It's not Israel's fault that her enemies are inept soldiers and generals. Would you be happy if Israel were to bomb her own cities so that the casualities are 'proportionate;' I have to say that this is amongst the most absurd criticisms I've ever heard. To quote General George S. Patton on this matter, 'No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.'
Collective punishment, all day curfews, and murder by IDF personnel are are too frequent experience. One British coroner's court has already reached a verdict on the murder of an innocent British observer by an IDF soldier.
The firing of air to ground missiles into a car on a crowded highway in a busy residential area is not a surgical intervention but either 'recklessness' or indifferent murder, to be followed by the usual and meaningless expression of regret.
If the Palestianians want to fight using irregular methods (e.g. terrorism, suicide bombings, etc.) then it is reasonable for Israel to treat all 'civilians' as hostile military personnel. That is one of the dangers of guerilla warfare, it undermines the traditional distinction between military and civilian; furthermore, the fact that the Palestinians more often than not target civilian rather than military targets also undermines any protections Palestinian civilians may otherwise have. Basically, if the Palestinians want to improve conditions they need to either stop attacking israel, or only attack Israeli military targets with uniformed military personnel.
Yes, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizen (Jew and non-Jew), but not to use disproportionate force. When the Brits were fighting the PIRA how often we heard thunderous noises from American senators and the administration if any 'supposed' heavy handedness was shown. But nothing used by the British security forces even began to approach the IDF methods which draw little if any adverse comment from that same nation.
What is this 'disproportionate force' BS? The most fundamental of all principles of war is the Economy of Force or, in the words of Clausewitz, that 'no part of the whole [military] force is idle.' A General can Never be blamed for using too much force, only for using inadequate force. To use less force than one has at their disposal is, to quote Clausewitz again, 'abhorrent to strategic thought.'
As far as the American response to the actions of the Crown's forces, I fear I disagree with our Government of the time, mind you the government of the time was overrun by communists. Frankly, we would all be better off today if Britain had maintained these territories by whatever means necessary.
So, explode all you like. I will hold on to the memories of my children coming home from Orthodox camp with tales told them by their fellow Orthodox children of coming home to find relatives dead from Israeli 'police' actions.
Explode with what? Laughter? Your biggest objection to Israel seems to be that Israel consistantly makes use of the Fundamental Principles of War (Personally, I think they could do better, but you seem to think that they're doing too good)...I do hope that you're joking here, but I have an unfortunate feeling that you're not.
And as for terrorists of any pursuasion or nationality, I disagree with their methods and their reationale. Basque, Irish nationalist, Ulster loyalist, Palestinian, Zionist, Iraqui insurgents, Al Queda, the PPK or state sanctioned ones anywhere.
Well, I disagree with most their causes but I can't object too loudly to their methods, all is fair in love and war
. However, it should be made clear that if you choose to conduct an unconventional war, civilian protections of the Geneva convention go out the window. If you use suicide bombers on crowded buses or kidnap journalists, you have no right complain when your civilian targets are hit or your civilians are taken and 'interrogated.' The rules of war were written to make an inherently violent and barbaric human activity more bearable and palatable to our post-enlightenment sensibilities; but these rules only work if they are followed by both sides, otherwise they provide the side that chooses not to follow them an unfair and undeserved advantage, so if one side chooses to abandon these rules the other side can not be expected to abide by the same.