Okay Amos, here is the point I was alluding to with the good v. evil reference: the government - and, to a large extent, the media - "sold" the war to the public as a war for Israel's existence. Hezbollah is a fascist, theocratic movement that might dream about destroying Israel, but the fact is that it does not have the power to do so. However, they do have the power to make the lives of people living in the north very difficult. As you probably know, Hezbollah attacked Israel several times between the 2000 withdrawal and last summer's war. Three soldiers were kidnapped and killed in 2000; Al Ghajar was attacked in November 2005; and Kiryat Shmona was bombarded by Katyushas on several occasions. The media reported on those events but did not focus on them. Meanwhile, the IAF regularly flew over Lebanese territory and broke the sound barrier, and Raviv Druker told Miki Haimovitz during a wartime broadcast that Hezbollah militants were snatched by Israeli elite commando units on more than one occasion; the prisoners were held in Israeli jails as "Prisoners X." But besides that one mention, I never saw those incidents reported in the Israeli media. So in other words, there was a kind of under-reported cat-and-mouse game being played on both sides of the northern border for several years. The 12 July raid was not the first Hezbollah incursion, so why didn't Israel go to war before that? They certainly had a cassus belli on many occasions. I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that it had something to do with tactical, political and geopolitical considerations. The 12 July incident was certainly a cassus belli, but the question I'm interested in is why it was the catalyst for a war that time, when all the previous incidents were not. Again, I don't know the answer. But the fact is that Israel did go to war, and the war had to be sold to the people - who responded with great courage, in my opinion - and it was sold in very simplistic, emotional terms that were based on partial truths: we are the victims of an act of unprovoked aggression - true; we are battling for our existence - false; they want to push us into the sea - sure, but they can't; there's no way to negotiate with those people - maybe, but did you try? Israel's army is still the strongest in the Middle East and I suppose there will be wars in the future, although I hope I am wrong. I hate war but I know it is sometimes unavoidable. I just think it was not smart to go to war with Hezbollah last summer, for lots of different political and tactical reasons that would take too much time and space to outline here. As for the German and French press - well, if they want to delude themselves then let them. I've heard plenty of foreign reporters based in Israel talk utterly uninformed, agenda-driven nonsense after a couple of drinks and I just can't work myself into a lather about them anymore. They're not going to change. Israel is under a microscope, but the microscope is out of focus. That's partly Israel's fault, but I'm the last one to dismiss the influence of flawed reporting. I just don't know what to do about it. I certainly won't censor myself in order to be some sort of unofficial ministry of information for the European press. Sure, it'd be great if 200,000 people massed on Rabin Square to proclaim that war is evil. It'd be great if people would demonstrate in Beirut, Damascus, Amman and Cairo with the same message. But the point of my post is not to express some kind of anodyne, sloppy sentiment. I'm not saying that war is never the way (although I wish it were not); I'm saying that it wasn't smart this time. And that is one of the lessons Israel should draw, I think. I hope you didn't suggest the "war is evil" demonstration in Kikar Rabin as some kind rhetorical, sardonic debating tactic. Given your really intelligent posts at Kishkushim, that would be pretty disappointing.