Defenders of Israel seem to be limited to Bearded Bruce, Robomatic, the aptly named Peace, C. Ham, and John on the Sunset Coast, most of whom seem to think that it is acceptable to kill the hostage in order to save him.
Enough said.
I'm not sure what 'was said'. Interestingly enough you characterized us as 'defenders' indicating Israel is under attack in this forum just as it was placed under attack by the now understood to be quite considerable forces of Hezbollah and the negligence or quiescent complicity of Lenanon's government and armed forces. Please explain how this translates to your doing our talking for us that we 'seem to think that it is acceptable to kill the hostage in order to save him.'
If you have paid attention to numerous hostage situations around the world and their resolution, it should be obvious to any reasonable being that a hostage is frequently killed during attempts to save them, and frequently killed even if there is no attempt to save them. Circumstances with Palestinian hostage takers bear this out rather brutally when elderly men in wheelchairs are cast into the sea or elderly women killed in hospital.
You then go on to say that you prefer some news sources to other news sources because you prefer some news sources to other news sources. You seem to use self justification as a technique as well as an excuse (you are not alone in this thread in doing that).
As for your statement:
Pro or anti Hezbollah writings are not relevant to the primary issue I raised here, of Israel killing non-Hezbollah Lebanese and destroying the Lebanese infrastructure.
Your premise is the entire reason for the propaganda campaign being waged against Israel, of which you are willing to be a part. Hezbollah has been establishing itself amongst the Lebanese for many years now and has embedded itself among the very civilian population and infrastructure that has become collateral damage. Think metastatic cancer.