August 04
2006
A moral inversion
» Posted on August 4, 2006 09:00 AM » Category: Terror

The Washington Post has an excellent piece by Moshe Yaalon, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2002 to 2005, on how Israel is - quite properly - shackling its response to Hezbollah's terror in order to observe the rules of war, and getting pilloried, whilst Hezbollah is ignoring all such rules and being treated as the victim.

I've copied almost all of the article because it demands to be read:

The rules of war boil down to one central principle: the need to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. Those who condemned Israel for what happened at Qana, rather than placing the blame for this unfortunate tragedy squarely on Hezbollah and its state sponsors, have rewarded those for whom this moral principle is meaningless and have condemned a state in which this principle has always guided military and political decision making.

Faced with enemies who openly call for its destruction and victimized by unremitting wars and terrorism since well before it was born, Israel has risked the lives of its citizens and its soldiers to abide by this principle in a way that is unprecedented in the history of nations.

Here is but one of countless examples: In 2003, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, our intelligence services discovered the location of a meeting of the senior leadership of Hamas, an organization pledged to the annihilation of the Jewish state and responsible for some of the deadliest terrorist attacks ever carried out against Israel.

We knew that a one-ton bomb would destroy the three-story building and kill the Hamas leadership. But we also knew that such a bomb would endanger about 40 families who lived in the vicinity. We decided to use a smaller bomb that would destroy only the top floor of the building. As it turned out, the Hamas leaders were meeting on the ground floor. They lived to terrorize another day.

Imagine for a moment that the United States had advance knowledge of the meeting place of al-Qaeda's senior leadership. Does anyone believe that there would be a debate about what size bomb to use, much less that any leader would authorize insufficient force to do the job?

So while it is legitimate to question whether Israel should go to such extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, it is preposterous to argue that Israel uses excessive force. Even more absurd was the shameful statement last week that Israel appeared to have deliberately targeted U.N. officials -- a statement fit for a knave or a fool, not for the secretary general of the United Nations. Rather than lead the fight against those who target civilians and use them as human shields, Secretary General Kofi Annan has strengthened them.

It is clear to any objective observer that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as human shields. It builds its headquarters in densely populated areas, embeds its fighters in towns and villages, and deliberately places missiles in private homes, even constructing additions to existing structures specifically to house missile launchers.

The reason terrorist groups such as Hezbollah use human shields is elementary. They try to exploit the respect for innocent human life that is the hallmark of any civilized society to place that society in a no-win situation. If it fails to respond to terror attacks, it endangers its own citizens. If it responds, it runs the risk of killing innocents, earning world opprobrium and inviting diplomatic pressure to stand down.

Hoping to retain its high moral standards in the face of such a cynical enemy, Israel has made every effort to avoid harming civilians. We have dropped fliers, sent telephone messages and broadcast radio announcements so that innocents can get out of harm's way. In doing so, we imperil our own citizens since, by losing the element of surprise, we invariably allow some of the enemy to escape with their missiles.

But at Qana, Hezbollah responded to Israel's compassion with more cynical brutality. After launching missiles at Israel, the terrorists rushed inside a building. When Israel fired a precision-guided missile to strike at the terrorists, scores of civilians, including children, were killed.

The difference between us and the terrorists is clear: We endanger ourselves to protect their civilians. They endanger their own civilians to protect themselves.


MessageSpace
Comments

Yaalon writes:

If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.

Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.

Melanie Phillips, that brilliant writer and easily the most courageous Jew in Britain, hits the nail on the head once again:

If, heaven forbid, this does turn into a second Holocaust, we can now discern the key difference from the first one. This time the Jews will be blamed for their own destruction. And this time, the political left and the media will have blood on their hands. Indeed, they already do. The lies, libels and distortions, the selective reporting and omissions, the egregious double standards, the moral inversion which turns jihadi murderers into resistance fighters and their victims into war criminals, the willingess to report Hezbollah propaganda as the truth while disparaging Israeli statements as lies (when they are even reported at all), not to mention the ancient canards against the Jews now being blurted out everywhere from California to Canary Wharf – all are not only creating a lethal climate of increasingly hysterical hatred against Israel and the Jews, but are also egging on the terror-puppeteers of the jihad and recruiting yet more to the cause of murdering Jews and waging holy war against the west.

........................

The old chestnut that to be anti-Israel is not necessarily to be anti-Jew won’t wash. Antisemitism is protean. It changes shape from generation to generation. First, Jews were hated on account of their religion. Then they were hated on account of their (supposed) race. And now they are hated on account of their nation state. Just as the individual Jew was once made the universal scapegoat for the crimes of others, now the collective Jew in the Jewish state is being forced to play the same role.

Israel is the defining moral issue of our time. Appallingly, Britain has put itself on the wrong side. The prejudice that now consumes what passes for public debate simply puts it beyond the moral pale. What is happening now in Britain is shocking beyond words.

It is far more than simple appeasement here. For the most part, as in the 1930s and 1940s, these critics of Israel actually relish the thought of Jews being eaten by that famous crocodile. Sixty years after the Kielce pogrom when Poles murdered 39 Jewish Holocaust survivors, that terrible cry has once again gone up amongst the gentiles of Europe: "Kill the Jews! Kill the Jews!"

Stated by: Joshua on August 4, 2006 9:39 AM

An important note regarding my post directly above. The following paragraph is also a direct quotation from Melanie Phillips' piece:

"Israel is the defining moral issue of our time. Appallingly, Britain has put itself on the wrong side. The prejudice that now consumes what passes for public debate simply puts it beyond the moral pale. What is happening now in Britain is shocking beyond words."

Stated by: Joshua on August 4, 2006 9:43 AM

Another note. The following paragraph belongs to Yaalon and not me:

"Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere."

Between previewing and posting, the formatting of my post has for some reason broken down. Possible reasons?

Stated by: Joshua on August 4, 2006 9:46 AM

The Canadian PM Stephen Harper is taking heat for taking sides in this, but for the first time in at least a generation, I think Canada is on the right side. That said, we've a minority government and he might take a hit in the polls. Good thing is, he doesn't seem to care.

Stated by: canadianna on August 5, 2006 5:51 AM
Post a comment

    


    •