The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

I am sympathetic to the spirit that created Israel (although not the spirit of a certain segment of Zionism that considered what was then called Palestine an empty territory: "A land without a people for a people without a land"). I understand the thinking that went into the creation of Israel in the wake of the Holocaust. And I realize that for the first half of its existence, Israel fought several wars against multiple Arab states that refused to recognize the nation. Israel still faces threats to its peace and people, if not any realistic threats to its very existence.

However, I'm not sympathetic to the occupation of the West Bank and until recently the Gaza Strip, nor am I very understanding of the incredible destruction that's being rained down on Lebanon at this moment. I also don't approve of bombing UN observation posts.

None of this should lead anyone to believe that I therefore approve of kidnapping, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, etc., -- most of which is targeted against a civilian Israeli population. I do not approve of such tactics.

Parallels or analogies are not precise, but the Financial Times makes a comparison between the Israeli approach to Gaza -- the editorial predates the Lebanon situation -- and the troubles in the north of Ireland (the editorial is available via subscription only, so I don't have a direct link here):

No two conflicts are alike, in cause or in contour, but it is legitimate to compare standards of behaviour. Consider, for a moment, what would have happened if, in reaction to the IRA seizing a soldier, the British government had: invaded Northern Ireland; punished its people by destroying its electricity supply, transport links and government offices; shelled Belfast and Derry from land, sea and air; cratered the Falls Road; used the Royal Air Force to buzz the offices of the Taoiseach in Dublin; and arrested every Republican it could lay its hands on. There would rightly have been an international outcry - and so there should be in this case.

You can guarantee that in that situation, the US government would not be making vague mystical statements about the end of hostilities being linked to the immediate pacification of the IRA.

In Israel, Ha'aretz editorials go all over the place, but one editorial makes a very clear point that the scope of the Israeli war effort in Lebanon raised the bar to a near impossible mark:

And in fact, considering the means that the IDF is employing and the ratio of forces in the field, any outcome less than the elimination of Hezbollah as a fighting force will be considered an Israeli failure and a great achievement for the enemy. But since it is impossible to uproot Hezbollah from among the Shiites without destroying the population itself, wisdom requires us to refrain from positing goals that are unachievable.

Wisdom, of course, generally seems lacking in any war. We rarely seem to learn anything from war, and occupiers rarely seem to learn anything at all. The Ha'aretz editorial continues by pointing out the futility of expecting to diminish resistance by attacking the civilian infrastructure:

When there is fighting, guerrilla organizations want the entire population to be harmed. When everyone is a victim, the hatred will be directed at the enemy more forcefully. That is why bombing residential neighborhoods, power plants, bridges and highways is an act of folly, which plays into Hezbollah's hands and serves its strategic goals: An attack on the overall fabric of life creates a common fate for the fighters and those standing on the sidelines.

This strategy failed in the Battle of Britain, it failed in Vietnam, it failed in Iraq, and it is failing in Lebanon. When you direct acts of war against an entire population, you will not get that population to trust you or to side with you very easily, and you will in fact create generations of animosity toward yourself.

Wisdom is indeed lacking.