Two ways of looking at Israel's war

The thinking-person's way: Appearances are deceiving. Israel has a right to defend itself from attackers, and Hezbollah has certainly attacked their military force. It may seem as though Israel is overstepping its boundaries by invading another country's space, but the situation is complex. A rush to judgment is the last thing that political pundits need to do. It would only further exacerbate an already complicated situation. Hezbollah exists inside Lebanon - a group without a true country. This war is a new brand of war, one without borders, without official declarations. It is unfortunate that Lebanon has been caught in the middle of violent action, but it cannot be avoided if Israel is to accurately defend itself. Naysayers of this situation are only oversimplifying it. Israel is not at war with Lebanon, and the Lebanese would do well for themselves to sit back and allow the war to take place within their border. Not to do so would mean harboring a known and unflinchingly deadly terrorist organization.

The idiotic way: Israel has crossed over the Lebanese border without permission, launching a minor-scale military attack which has ripped apart the landscape and taken the lives of Lebanese citizens.

As stated by the authors of "Age of Propoganda", a textbook on persuasion, man is a rationalizing animal. Out of the two ways of seeing Israel's latest rationalized war, I'm starting to wonder which one is the dumb one.