Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Qana - I'm riled up again

Believe it or not, I really want to stop posting about Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah for a while. However, I keep reading things that get me riled up and I can't help myself.

Today, it's Qana. This is the town in southern Lebanon which was hit by the IAF over the weekend, resulting in near-destruction of the town and the deaths of 57 civilians, most of them women and children.

On the surface, it sounds like an out-and-out atrocity and war crime committed by the Israelis. And that's the tenor of the vast majority of the coverage of the story: Those dirty Israelis, murdering innocent civilians again.

Before you jump on the "Israeli murderers" bandwagon, stop and look a little deeper, would you?

This is not the first time the IDF has hit Qana. A decade ago, IDF shelling of the town killed approx 100 people, many women and children, and ended an Israeli military offensive against Hezbollah on the same ground.

What precipitated both of these strikes?

How about the fact that Hezbollah routinely uses the town to launch missiles at Israeli civilians in northern Israel? Prior to this last strike, Hezbollah was launching 10 or more missiles a day from Qana.

I like simple explanations of things. It might be naive or even stupid on my part, but I like to uncomplicate things as much as I can.

So, here's my effort to uncomplicate the debate (or dogpile) on Qana:

1. Israel does everything it can to get it's civilians out of harm's way and to protect them from the enemy.

2. Hezbollah puts civilians in harms way, and does so purely to play to the Western TV cameras. They keep firing missiles from the center of a town until the IAF comes and bombs the place into the Stone Age. Get 57 women and children killed? Call CNN, fast!

Help me understand this: Who's committing the atrocities?

The most frustrating part of this campaign: Israel appears to be making the right moves militarily, but is getting clobbered in the court of public opinion. Israel does, in fact, have the moral high ground in this fight. Why can't Olmert and the rest make the case convincingly?

No comments: