On July 12, I listened to the CBC show, As It Happens. The spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Mark Regev, was interviewed about Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border.

Regev began by asserting that "there is no doubt that this [the kidnappings] was an example of unprovoked state aggression," forcing the serious listener to ask: Is it true that there's no doubt about this? Is it true that the aggression was unprovoked? Is it true that the aggression was state aggression?

Let's begin with the last question first. Regev wanted it both ways. On the one hand, he insisted on the responsibility of the Lebanese government: "Lebanon is responsible for what happened in its territories." "Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government." "The Lebanese government is responsible for their [Hezbollah's] actions." On the other hand, Regev simultaneously insisted that Hezbollah is both autonomous and the agent of foreign powers. "That's the danger here," he warned. "You have an armed militia in Lebanon responsible to no one but itself, part of the Lebanese government, funded by Syria and Iran, with an extremely radical jihadist agenda." He continued: "Lebanon is not allowed, unfortunately, by Hezbollah to exercise its sovereignty in the south. You have a situation where an armed proxy of Iran is there on the border. ... That's not good for stability. It's not good for peace. It's not good for Israel." Gallingly, he concluded, "And most of all ... it's not good for Lebanon."

The Israeli incursion into Lebanon, justified by Lebanon's "state aggression," is also justified for the good of Lebanon, releasing that country from beneath the heel of Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. So, Mark, shall I ascribe the deliberate damage to civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and, far worse, the deaths of dozens of Lebanese civilians, to Israeli retaliation or Israeli benevolence?

Let's ask the next question: Was this aggression unprovoked? According to Regev, "Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000. ... We've been on our side of the international frontier." Yet, if one reads the July 13 article by Yaakov Katz in the Jerusalem Post, one discovers that just a month and a half ago, the Israeli "army destroyed all of Hezbollah's outposts along the northern border." This wasn't provocative? Moreover, if the government of Lebanon is responsible for the actions of Hezbollah, wouldn't Israeli destruction of Hezbollah's outposts in southern Lebanon be an act of state aggression by Israel? Or is Israel, like Hezbollah, interfering with the exercise of Lebanese sovereignty in the south?

Could the kidnappings be connected to the events of the last three weeks in Gaza? "In both cases [Gaza, Lebanon] Israel had redeployed to ... uh ... the ... uh uh ... internationally ... uh ... consensus positions," Regev stumbled (uh, what international consensus positions would those, uh, be, Mark?) before picking up speed: "If you think about it from a logical point of view, there's no reason whatsoever for violence. In both places, the Israeli forces--the Israeli presence--is on our side of the frontier. For these extremists to continue their terrorism and violence and murder against Israel when there's not a single inch of Israeli control over Lebanese territory or over Gaza territory--this just shows the extremists for what they are..."

Not one inch of Israeli control, Mark? What about five months of economic strangulation of Gaza, punishment of Palestinians for democratically electing a government Israel and the United States don't like? What is that, Mark, half an inch, three-quarters of an inch, of control?

On June 23, before the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Prime Minister Olmert expressed "deep regret" that the Israeli military had killed 14 Palestinian civilians in Gaza over nine days, though he considered it justified because the lives of Israeli citizens were "even more important." On June 24, two Palestinian civilians in Gaza were kidnapped by Israeli forces and transported across the border, their fate unknown. Is there anything provocative about this, or is it simply an Israeli right to act this way? On June 25, two Israeli soldiers were killed and Cpl. Shalit was kidnapped. His captors demanded an exchange, Cpl. Shalit for some of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, most of whom have either not been tried or have been tried in Israeli military courts. Instead, Israel opted to take yet more hostages, including over two dozen Hamas government officials. Then, in the June 29 issue of Ha'aretz, Prime Minister Olmert justified the Israeli military incursion into Gaza by saying, "We want to create a new equation--freeing the abducted soldier in return for lessening [lessening! not ending!] the pressure on the Palestinians." What is this if not collective punishment? Less than two weeks later, with no "lessening" of pressure on the people of Gaza in sight, Hezbollah kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers.

I unequivocally and emphatically abhor these actions--all of them, whether by Palestinians, Israelis, or Hezbollah. But to take a line from Mark Regev's interview: "They crossed the international frontier, they killed our people, they bombarded our cities and towns. What did they expect us to do?"

The Israeli government is determined to paint this crisis in terms of an "extremely radical jihadist agenda" and an "axis of terror" spanning Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, as stated by Regev and, virtually in the same words, Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to the UN. This crisis does reflect a radical, even suicidal, agenda: but who can say it is the agenda of Hamas or Hezbollah, and not of the Israeli government?